Culturism 101: Academic Treason

8 Flares 8 Flares ×

Culturist Academic Treason

 by Dr John Press

Academic, fellow westerners, please forgive me for the level of anger and harsh statements in the following article.  I am angry and will wish to take back and qualify half of the statements written here at a later date.  But, academics are daily poisoning our civilization and it makes me sick with rage.

These people apparently do not know as much about history as average 12-year-olds.  And, they are completely ignorant of the impact of their words.  That is the generous account!  Because if they understand history and the political nature of their academic arguments, they are treasonous propagandists.

Let me first give this crowd some credit.  The majority of people who study nationalism have made a useful distinction in separating the study of the State from that of the Nation.  In their world State means government; and the Nation is the cultural group under that government.  This is useful when studying nations that do not have States, such as the Catalonians.

But the entire modernist theory of states are that they are “imagined communities,” (ala Benedict “not Arnold” Anderson), that go back no further in history than the late 18 th  century.  Elites used the “invented tradition” (Eric Hobsbawm’s term) to work up the masses and thereby forge nations and gain power.  Therefore, nations and states are illegitimate tricks played on all of us.

Enter into the field a hero – the divine Anthony D. Smith of the London School of Economics. Originally one of the “modernists,” as the traitors are called, he converted when noting that Greeks, Armenians, Jews, Persians, Chinese, and Japanese had long standing nations prior to the modern era.  The English have existed as a people, and called English, since at very least the 5 th  century.

In arguing that the nation is not just a modern playing built by cynical elites, Smith has built on the work of Liah Greenfeld, John Armstrong, and Hugh Seton-Watson.  But school children know of the Greeks battling the Persians!  Why this rush, by the admitted Marxists (hint, hint), such as Anderson and Hobsbawm to undermine the nation’s legitimacy?  Have they not heard of ancient nations?

OK.  I am overstating.  These fine traitorous scholars do make a point that the modern nation and its historical predecessors differed in important respects.  Particularly, the State was not as advanced and organized as it is now.  And, yes, it is interesting to note that some nations are more imagined than others; for example, the post colonial States that emerged in the 1960s have less well documented historical / cultural precedents.

And, to his credit, Hobsbawm provides interesting portraits of how traditions are reinforced and deployed by the state.  But, States do not deploy them on a populous that has no past or consciousness.  When the government says let’s have a Christmas party, it is not telling them of something of which they’ve never heard – it is reinforcing pre-existing bonds.   And the culturist tools wherein identity is reinforced should be praised and imitated!  Documenting the reinforcing of culture should not be done to denigrate the very validity of western nations.

Our western universities are filled with Marxists.  And, I am not for reinstating America’s long history of requiring teachers to take loyalty oaths that disavow communism.  But, when historians push Atlantic History, (that weaves continents together), micro history (that looks at small regions), and multiculturalism, it is interesting how consistently Western they overlook and slight the nation.  And, academics set the terms of public discourse.

The West matters and is a force for good.  If we fall, these Marxist professors will not end up in paradise.  China and Iran will not promulgate the western concept of rights.  So academics’ work to delegitimize our nations is dangerous.  Furthermore, I love my nation.  It has given me my heroes, culture, and identity.  So, please forgive me if this article has had less scholarly objectivity and more insults than academic should employ.   But, I hate seeing my loved ones called “invented,” “imagined,” tricks.

  • marion dsd

    Dr. Press has no need to apologize in advance or retrospect for his cogent and entirely appropriate ichor against those who, in maximal naivete and foolish puerility, insist on denigrating the only home they know, in a nether world of teen anguish at too-powerful parents these squabbling midterm youths seek to both rile and spurn at their own childish inability to strike out in adult independence. Given a term in some of the countries they mentally model for the likes of those who still love this country, such academics would curl into fetal discs of surprise and disbelief–their childish belief in the specialness of the Other would be dashed by a personal conflict with nondemocratic, rude, unPC reality elsewhere. Absurdly, of course, they have often manifested their inanities without in-depth experience of nations or states not demonstrating the superior graces of the United States. Would they pick up and live in some of their bushier precincts, they would swiftly beat a hasty retreat back to the fortuitous climes of their native American, blessed Republic.

  • David hamilton

    It is true that England is an ancient and organic nation. The Venerable Bede wrote of the English people and Alfred the Great founded the nation.

    http://www.wearetheenglish.com/venerablebebe.html

    http://www.royal.gov.uk/HistoryoftheMonarchy/KingsandQueensofEngland/TheAnglo-Saxonkings/AlfredtheGreat.aspx

  • http://alexwraggemorley.wordpress.com awraggemorley

    Ummm…there are several things I could say in response to this. The first problem with this account is that it creates a false impression of the influence of Marxists in the academy. Why not mention that Hobsbawm is dead and that he has very few followers? Why not mention that Benedict Anderson is an emeritus at Cornell? Also, I have never heard these historians referred to as ‘modernists’. Last time I checked, Hobsbawm was well-known for being a Marxist historian. The fact that he referred to himself as such, and that other historians knew him as one, gives you a clue about how people understand his work.

    It’s also not exactly clear from this how historical analysis of the origins of the nation state comprises any kind of threat to ‘the West’. No-one is denying that ethnic groups etc. etc. have shared identities that long pre-exist the nation state. But the types of national identities described by Hobsbawm and others tend to be broader than these, i.e. ‘British’, ‘American’ and so-on. Now (to pursue your tone), even a child could tell you that ‘Britishness’ is distinct from ‘Englishness’ or ‘Scottishness’. Moreover, it is by no means incorrect to argue that the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries witnessed processes by which local identities were subsumed under broader national categories.

    It is really hard to work out what your problem is.

    • http://nationalculturists.wordpress.com nationalculturists

      We will alert Dr Press that you have questions. He’ll no doubt be pleased to clear them up for you.

    • http://nationalculturists.wordpress.com nationalculturists

      From Dr Press:

      From Dr Press:

      Awraggmorely, Thank you for the questions. Here are my “reply column sized” answers.

      I must disagree with your supposition that Hobsbawm and Anderson are forgotten. They are frequently taught at my alma mater New York University. And, Marxism is not considered a qualifier, but an endorsement of an author’s work.

      Up front, I hope we agree that ideas have consequences. And the problem with Marxist analysis is that it removes culture from discussions. With no cultural culpability all differences in attainment become injustice. The root of the injustice gets explained as western racism. So the whole university gets dedicated to social justice. That is to undermining our society (the target is not China) and calling it unfair.

      This hurts American minorities. We actually have public schools dedicated to social justice. This philosophy has made it cool to be anti-social. And, the defiant stance imbibed undermines empowerment in minority communities. It also teaches mainstream westerners that their culture is fundamentally unfair.

      By way of analogy, what if there were two basketball teams (forgive my Americanism). One was told that their side is glorius and demands vengance and should be fought for. The other is told that their side is unfair and is, on the whole, really just a imagined fiction. When they play, who will win?

      Well, that is the case with Islam and the West. No history has not ended. They still have a side and root for it.
      One last comment, there are a lot of “modernists” denying that the nation has any pre-19th centurty roots. Check Anderson, Hobsbawm, Gellner, and entire history departments. As a reference read Anthony Smith’s work on nationalism and modernity (I got the category name from him).

      Thank you again,

      John Press

  • http://nationalculturists.wordpress.com nationalculturists

    From Dr Press:

    Awraggmorely, Thank you for the questions. Here are my “reply column sized” answers.

    I must disagree with your supposition that Hobsbawm and Anderson are forgotten. They are frequently taught at my alma mater New York University. And, Marxism is not considered a qualifier, but an endorsement of an author’s work.

    Up front, I hope we agree that ideas have consequences. And the problem with Marxist analysis is that it removes culture from discussions. With no cultural culpability all differences in attainment become injustice. The root of the injustice gets explained as western racism. So the whole university gets dedicated to social justice. That is to undermining our society (the target is not China) and calling it unfair.

    This hurts American minorities. We actually have public schools dedicated to social justice. This philosophy has made it cool to be anti-social. And, the defiant stance imbibed undermines empowerment in minority communities. It also teaches mainstream westerners that their culture is fundamentally unfair.

    By way of analogy, what if there were two basketball teams (forgive my Americanism). One was told that their side is glorius and demands vengance and should be fought for. The other is told that their side is unfair and is, on the whole, really just a imagined fiction. When they play, who will win?

    Well, that is the case with Islam and the West. No history has not ended. They still have a side and root for it.
    One last comment, there are a lot of “modernists” denying that the nation has any pre-19th centurty roots. Check Anderson, Hobsbawm, Gellner, and entire history departments. As a reference read Anthony Smith’s work on nationalism and modernity (I got the category name from him).

    Thank you again,

    John Press

8 Flares Twitter 2 Facebook 6 Google+ 0 Pin It Share 0 8 Flares ×