PART 3:

- CULTURIST REPATRIATION POLICY -

 

Absolute Culturist, Pragmatic Culturist, & Racist Repatriation

 

There are three approaches to repatriation: 'racist,' 'absolute culturist,' and 'pragmatic culturist.' Both absolute and pragmatic culturists would immediately stop all Islamic immigration to the West, but differ on repatriation policy.

Racist Repatriation Policy

 

'Racist repatriation' policy gets mentioned only to highlight its vast difference from both forms of culturist repatriation.

 

Racist repatriation would remove all non-white people from Western nations. Such a policy would never be approved via election. And, in a multi-ethnic nation like the United States, especially given the fact that much of our military and police force are not white, attempts to implement this policy could lead to society violently collapsing.

 

Absolute Culturist Repatriation Policy

 

'Absolute culturists' want the immediate repatriation of all Muslims back to their countries of origin.

 

Note how much subtler absolute culturist repatriation is than racist repatriation. It does not cast Hindus, Asians, Mexican and all Africans into the same net. It makes subtle distinctions based on history and belief systems: it is culturist, not racist.

 

However, absolute culturist repatriation suffers from the same potential for civil unrest as the racist repatriation position.

 

Furthermore, and importantly, the rule of law is central to western identity. If we violate the rights of citizens, we undermine order in society.

 

However, absolute culturist repatriation policy would have the benefit of quickly ending the threat of Jihad in the West.

 

Pragmatic Culturist Repatriation Policy

 

Instead of the 'absolute culturist' repatriation policy of deporting all Muslims, 'pragmatic repatriation policy' would review Muslims' naturalization.

In the U.S. naturalization proceedings, the potential new citizen swears, "that I will support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic." Furthermore, they "absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty."

 

Naturalized citizens who have supported ISIS or Al Qaeda have committed fraud, rendering their naturalization null and void, justifying their repatriation. 

 

Furthermore, any naturalized citizens who donated to or actively participated in a mosque that promotes Sharia or any other anti-Western values, (FGM or hijabs or polygamy, for example) may merit repatriation.

 

Such a policy targets hostile Muslims while protecting the rights of those willing to assimilate.

 

Such pragmatic repatriation programs, (in conjunction with ending the foreign funding of mosques and culturist school curriculum – discussed elsewhere), can minimize the risk of Jihad without absolute culturist repatriationÕs rights violations or potential violence.

 

Conclusion

 

Stopping Islamic immigration does not violate anyone's constitutional rights. Our Constitution applies to US citizens, not foreigners.

 

Domestically, repatriation laws can pass Constitutional scrutiny in two ways: (1) by remembering it is the separation of Church and State, not Mosque and State, (2) by classifying Islam as a political ideology.

 

Ultimately, culturism means officially recognizing our traditional majority culture, its legal standing and the State's interest in protecting it.  Leaving multiculturalism for culturism will rationally justify culturist immigration and repatriation laws.

 

Circumstances seem to be swaying culturists from being 'pragmatic' to being 'absolute.'  But, those moving in this direction must consider the violence this could entail, and so should not do so lightly.