Saturday, September 17, 2016
Friday, September 9, 2016
Friday, April 15, 2016
If you want to read comments, click here!
Culturism (cǔl-chər-ǐz-əm) n. 1. The philosophy, art, and science that values, promotes and protects majority cultures. 2. The opposite of multiculturalism.
Culturist (cǔl-chər-ǐst) n. 1. An advocate of culturism. 2. One who engages in the arts or sciences of managing and protecting majority cultures. 3. One who judges cultures. 4. Adj. Of or pertaining to culturism, culturists or culturist policy.
In introducing the philosophy of ‘culturism’ to the Alt-Right community, I need to make a confession: the section on race, in the first chapter of the book, ‘Culturism: A Word, A Value, Our Future,’ is disingenuous. I knew it was at the time. In the introduction, I briefly argue that race is not a biological category. In denouncing the book, ‘The Bell-Curve,’ I wrote, “there is no reliable evidence that there are any mental differences between groups of humans.” I was trying to distance ‘culturism’ from ‘racism’ as much as possible, (fearing that any association with racism could blunt the spread of the memes ‘culturist’ and ‘culturism’).
In fairness to myself, I gave the savvy reader two clues that I was being disingenuous. One is that my very dismissal of ‘The Bell-Curve” meant that I had read, “The Bell-Curve.” Anyone familiar with this book knows there are mounds of reliable evidence showing different mental differences between races. Moreover, I purposely backed up the statement saying there is no reliable evidence with an insubstantial footnote. While the cited authors (Boyd and Richerson) are giants in their field, the actual reference is to a throw away line. At the time I thought, discerning readers would pick up on such clues.
But, more importantly, I still stand by my larger point: whereas racism gives you no useful policies, culturism provides a multitude of practical policies. As I wrote in the book’s introduction, people cannot change their race. And, if you think my nation, the United States of America, is going to become white again, you’re dreaming. That can only happen through the horror of a race war. It’s a bad idea. On the other hand, culturism gives you ample workable policies, such as stopping Muslim immigration and promoting a positive view of American history inside and outside of schools. We can identify and protect our culture.
One further salvo from the book’s introduction on this front: a problem with racism (as well as nativism) is that can easily lead to the simplistic fallacy: black is bad, white is good. First of all, white culture is in big trouble (check our divorce rate). White race pride demands no refinement. In this vein, white racial pride actually retards needed cultural self-scrutiny. Secondly, the racist point of view ignores the fact that there are many great non-white American patriots and western citizens. Any movement that fails to acknowledge them can only lead to a partial reclamation of America.
While I invite you to peruse the many policy implications of culturism available at www.culturism.us and in the final chapter of the book, herein, I will highlight just a few policy categories and concepts:
First, we must spread the words ‘culturist’ and ‘culturism.’ Culturism is easily understood as the opposite of multiculturalism: it values unity not diversity. And culturists believe in culturism and judge cultures. Due to its simplicity, use by a single media figure, could spread these memes and undermine PC clamps on Western political discourse. Rhetorically, saying, “I’m not racist,” and groveling is not a winning strategy. Saying, “No, I am culturist. I believe in culturism, not multiculturalism. Isn’t cultural diversity real? Can we talk about cultural diversity?” allows us to go on the offensive. We need to be able to honestly discuss both the West having a culture and the negative aspects of cultures and cultural diversity; As a rhetorical strategy, being a ‘culturist’ for ‘culturism’ can help.
In countering multiculturalism, culturism implicitly acknowledges that the Western nations have traditional majority cultures. Germany has a culture. England has a culture. And, yes, the United States has a culture. Moreover, the wider west shares a culture. We are not Asia. We are not Islamic. Our culture, as the seminal culturist Matthew Arnold phrased it, has its roots in Athens and Jerusalem. This does not mean that there can be no Hindu temples in the West. But, our school curriculum, holidays and laws should acknowledge and promote our traditional majority cultures. Plato is a Western hero; Vishnu is not. In this manner, culturism also rebukes globalism.
In this vein, culturism recommends an ‘America First’ style foreign policy. The idea that we can turn Iraq, Afghanistan and other Islamic nations into progressive, freedom-loving, rights-based democracies comes from total ignorance of cultural diversity. With its ‘Clash of Civilizations’ model, culturism denounces the concept of ‘human rights.’ If the West falls, neither China nor the Middle East will promote the concept. Human rights are, in fact, western rights. So, to protect ‘human rights,’ we need to start labeling them properly as ‘Western rights,’ and protect the West. Thus saving ‘human rights’ means rejecting ‘humanitarian’ asylum laws. We’re not the world. Our laws and funds should help us, not prop up our enemies’ regimes.
Thus culturism suggests we focus our energies domestically. And, domestically, culturism differs from libertarian individualism. Western culture needs to get out of the gutter. Culturists can argue this point based on biohistory and r/K theory, but common sense also bolsters the directive: stoned children from single-mother families do not often have the job skills that first – world economies require. And, yes, stripping down the welfare state will help enormously in this regard. But, in other realms laws can help bolster morality. For example, zoning strip clubs out of city centers and censoring lewdness on public airwaves conveys morality. Keeping drugs illegal does the same. Our welfare laws are disastrous because they ignore morals. Our government policies should not be either culturally or morally neutral.
This gets us back to the first point in this section: using the words ‘culturism’ and ‘culturist’ can help clean up and direct our culture. For example, we must say ‘culturist profiling, not ‘racial profiling.’ Far from arbitrary racism, statistics back up the need for culturist profiling of Muslims in airport security screening. Using the term ‘culturist profiling’ clarifies the cultural rationality. ‘Culturist profiling’ also explains blacks in jail as it acknowledges black cultural dysfunction. Rather than fuel Black Lives Matter resentment, culturist profiling can lead black communities to self-scrutiny. In general, culturists judge cultures based on Western values. This reflexive cultural scrutiny, asking ‘What would Jesus, George Washington or Winston Churchill do?”, can help guide western culture. As this applies to all of us, it is culturist, not racist.
Finally, as it is a primary concern of the Alt-Right generally, I wish to discuss the Islamic threat to the West. There is a range of culturists: ‘Absolute Culturists,’ believe we need to repatriate all Muslims now. ‘Pragmatic Culturists,’ only want to deport those affiliated with radical mosques. Both sides wish to halt all Islamic immigration immediately. Both sides, recognize the necessity of culturist school curricula that says, ‘the West is the best and Islam is retarded.’ Both wish to prosecute Sharia courts. Similar culturist policy debates and agreements are had concerning the Latino threat to the United States. While not lock step on all methods, saving the West from Islam is a main priority of all culturists.
While reasonable culturists will disagree about specific policies aimed at saving the West, none advocates the insane racist policy of removing all non-white people from the West. Any such attempt, would not work in the United States. And, so we come full circle to my opening paragraph. We culturists can acknowledge race as a potential cause of national division. We can note races’ propensities. But, the solutions to our ailments do not lie there. Multiculturalists and globalists deny that the West has a core culture. We must not only acknowledge and celebrate our Western culture, but use it as a basis to protect and judge our specific nations and cultures. We must have culturist immigration laws that question compatibility with western values. Herein lays a path to safeguarding and guiding our (like it or not) multi-racial nations.
Using culturist rhetoric, (rather than just sadly denying we’re racist), can once again make it safe for the West to have the rational discussions about culture that it so desperately needs. Take action! Spread the words ‘culturist’ and ‘culturism’ today! It costs us nothing. And, the words could quickly go viral and, thereby, aid us in saving the West.
Friday, April 1, 2016
Let’s take a journey together, towards my explosion, shall we? I recently spoke at the annual English Language Literature Association of Korea (ELLAK) conference in Busan, Korea. On my panel, a young Chinese woman explained a book under the title ‘race, modernism, and modernity.’ The book’s 1930s protagonist, she told us, was racist because she believed that London was more modern than her Caribbean Island home. The young Chinese woman argued that book’s presumption that London was modern and that the Caribbean was not justified imperialism.
Not wanting to embarrass her in front of the thirty or so audience members, after our talk, I asked her, “Don’t you believe in progress?” If she said ‘No’ I would ask her if our replacing fire with light bulbs or if the West’s doubling our life span was a good thing. To my surprise, she said she believed in progress. She confessed that she was actually very right-wing! “But, your speech said the Caribbean was just as modern as London! Do you admit that it isn’t just racism, the West is more advanced?” “Yeah,” she blushed, “I’ve been struggling with that.”
This was the most hopeful confession I heard all day. Because almost every other panel I went to focused on the West being racist. “Why don’t black people write and Korean’s enjoy Science Fiction?” the keynote speaker, Shelley Streeby (UCSD), asked. Because Sci-Fi is written from the perspective male western racists conquering other planets and seeing their inhabitants as aliens. “I’m sorry,” I muttered to myself, barely able to keep from screaming in the back of the room, “I don’t know much about Sci-Fi, but the Matrix was about fighting the imperial powers and so was Star Wars. Star Trek’s main directive was to not interfere with other civilizations.”
I am in exile in Korea. Conservatives do not get hired in western academia. In my last Korean conference, I spoke for culturism and against multiculturalism. I was allowed to speak. In this conference I claimed that we need to use literary Darwinism to argue for conservative policies, just like Matthew Arnold did. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GkP_0ZP0wXI) In Korea, dissent is allowed. But, still, the conferences featured many visiting American Marxists. And, having been so brow beaten in American academia, I reflexively bite my tongue as they spewed their Marxist bile. At the last session of the three-day conference, I finally exploded.
In a large crowded hall, Curtis Marez (UCSD) spoke of ‘Agribusiness and Farm Workers Futurisms.’ He argued that ‘White male heteronormative patriarchy’ was kept in place by agribusinesses fantasies of replacing Mexicans with robots. A handrail rope around a robot at a1950s agricultural conference showed Whites’ desire to control Mexican sexuality. A film from the same 1950s conference depicted white males as scientists and Mexicans as mere implementers. Racist! This, Marez said, with no sense of irony, even thought Mexicans had been ‘early adapters’ of video cameras in an attempt to ‘return the gaze.’
In the same closing panel Miseong Woo (Yonsei University) wondered about what a new big futuristic building in Seoul, Korea (the Dongdaemun Design Plaza) said about Korea’s please in modernity. She noted that it replaced a historic Korean baseball stadium. And, that it featured western fashion shows and Andy Warhol exhibits. She used this to wonder about Korea’s capitulation to the dominant Western vision of modernism. Though subtle, she still portrayed the West as the oppressor, via standards of modernity, progress and development.
I could no longer bite my lip. When they called for question my hand went up first. Seeing my jut up, the moderator called on me. “I am a culturist and so opposed to multiculturalism in that I take culture seriously. This whole conference has been premised on the idea that if the West is ahead, it is due to our racism and oppression. But, perhaps the film shows more white male scientists because our Protestant culture’s love of education has led to more inventions!” Then in a statement that brought audible gasps, I challenged the panelists, “Can you name one thing that a Mexican has invented?” There was a gasp and a silence.
Seizing the void I continued my exasperated rant, “As to modernism. It isn’t western any more! You started your speech saying this was the decade of migration. It is the decade of migration to the West! Korea has only three percent foreigners and half of them are of Korean descent. Modernity belongs to culturist countries that keep their culture in tact and united. The Western cities, like LA and New York are museums of demise. And why? Because they are third world. You should take pride in your modern buildings.”
“Is there a question?” a butch-dyke ‘woman’ on the panel, who had spoken on Karaoke being a place of queer resistance to patriarchy, butted in to stop me. And, she was right. I was spewing frustration from days of biting my tongue. “Well,” I scrambled, “could you comment on the possibility that the West was modern because its culture made it an inventor, not racism or oppression?” I asked with a veneer of being collected.
“Well,” she said, “First of all, I have no idea what your talking about, LA is building a new building (I didn’t catch the building’s name) that is costing millions of dollars. It is very modern. And, migration is everywhere. Pilipino are going all over Asia. So, you’re just wrong. And, it’s like you’re trying to rewrite history into some sort of Reagan-esque vision.” And then, completely unable to believe that anyone would say this, she gave me the ultimate sneer putdown. “It’s like your trying to say that we should be proud of America or something, that America is good.”
“Yes! Yes! Yes! That is exactly it!” I said with wild jabbing gestures. At that the moderator stopped the horror, “We have no more time for questions. Let’s thank the panelists.” At the end, I tried to approach and speak with the panelists, but they refused to acknowledge my greetings! And, I skipped the conference banquet as I sadly concluded that I had now also ruined my reputation in Korea and would be barred from speaking to this literature conference again. Better to slink away and be anonymous.
And, now for my take home lessons about modernity:
Yes. The Sci-Fi looking modernist buildings the panelist discussed, pretend to be from outer space and look like they don’t come from any particular culture. But, Sci-Fi buildings are not global. As my co-presenter would only secretly admit, the Caribbean does not have their own modernism and neither does Africa. They only have dreams of developing. Mexican modernism is an oxymoron. Poor countries are poor. Now here is the real shocker: modernism is no longer western, it is Asian.
Professor Woo was wrong. I don’t care if LA is building a new building – it likely has a grand total of 10 sky scrapers and most of those are old. Busan, the Korean city where the conference was held, has dozens of amazing skyscrapers. And don’t even get me started on New York. It houses the most famous modernist building ever: Le Corbusier’s United Nation’s headquarters in New York City. And, I note this because it is when the US became the UN it lost the first world character. But New York is largely just a museum of just such old modernist buildings.
Woo’s was partially wrong. The modernist building was Korean. Having a futuristic first-world economy depends on an educated population. Asia has a long history of revering education and remembers it. The US had the Protestant work ethic: the Puritans created Harvard 16 years after arriving on American shores. But, having forgotten our cultural roots, we have fallen into multiculturalism, hedonism and relativism and so can no longer sustain modernist pretentions. Korea is now modern in a way that the US is not. It should take pride in its many amazing modern buildings.
Multiculturalism has caused our decline by undermining striving for progress. It teaches us that all cultures are already equal. It denies our Protestant cultural history - the roots of our greatness. Worse yet - as this conference and my fight epitomized – multiculturalism says we should feel guilty for having taken pride in our culture. As culture means nothing to western academics, they say our modernism only reflected western racism and imperialism. And, this guilt, I would hazard, feeds the nihilistic hedonism in our culture.
For us to be modern again, the West must once again become culturist! It must acknowledge its traditional majority culture rooted in Protestantism and the Enlightenment. Both parts gave us respect for education and a sense of having a calling concerning the future and the individual. We must remember why we were called ‘the New World.’ We must reclaim the noble experiment that asks if individual men can rationally guide their individual and collective lives towards a brighter future. Pride and a basis for being moral will follow.
OK. Before ending my rant on modernism, I want to point out what isn’t modern: academics repeating 1960s clichés about western dominance and racism. Memo to Asia: please note how old western cities look; to stay modern, Asian conferences must not invite these sad western Marxist 1960s relics. Be Asian, be culturist, be futurist, be modern, mock the West’s Marxist ‘academics.’ If you continue to invite and revere them, their PC, cultural marxists BS will cause you to go into exile and at that time, there may be no other modern nation into which to flee.
And so this academic journey to Asia comes to an end. But, if you ever wish to see modernism, come to Seoul; go to Shanghai. Along with ruminating about what could have been in the West, it will give you some optimism about mankind’s continuing journey towards the future.
Islam is retarded! Retard means, ‘to slow down the development or progress of (something); to hinder advance or accomplishment.’[i] It also indicates subnormal mental abilities. Islam is retarded in several ways. It seeks to bring us back to the 7th century. In the 21st century, if that isn’t retarded, I don’t know what is.
We need to be able to say such things – to judge cultures! It is not racist; it is culturist. I don’t oppose mosques in the West because dark skinned people meet there. I oppose mosques because they are temples to retardation! What self-respecting progressive nation would encourage building temples to retardation?
Multiculturalism promotes retardation by asserting that old world cultures such as African tribes and Hinduism are equal to western culture. Voodoo dolls and the caste system? No thanks. The same goes for Black ghetto culture. It’s retarded. I am western. I am into the first world. I am a progressive, I believe in the future. I am not a multiculturalist. I am a culturist. I judge cultures.
Christianity is not retarded. Protestantism’s emphasis individual conscience paved the way for scientific inquiry. A glance at history shows that the West’s combination of Jerusalem and Athens created modernity. Social studies conclusively link Protestant culture and good government.[ii] Churches support the culture that made democracy and science possible. Churches are temples to man’s individual and collective improvement.
As one cannot separate culture and biology, I will go one step further in establishing that Islam is retarded. Both Athens and Jerusalem emphasize conscious frontal lobe activity; It is because our frontal lobes are so big that we have human abilities. Islam’s ritual and appeal to anger trigger activity in the cerebellum and amygdala (centers of movement and fear). As such, Islam seeks to focus on parts of the brain we share with reptiles. That is beyond mongoloid Down Syndrome retarded!
On the theme of biology, having pride increases serotonin levels and posture. [iii] Western culturism - by taking pride in our futurist western culture and denigrating backwards cultures - physically increases western fitness. Multiculturalism and Islam work to lower our standing; to make us equal to and lower than other cultures. We will never progress as long as we think we’re equal to or below retarded cultures. When we stand tall we give a sense of direction to ourselves and to the world.
So spread these culturist thoughts: I judge cultures. The West is the best. Our culture increases life spans. Our culture invented the internet and water heaters. Islam has invented nothing of any use. Islamic culture is not equal to ours. Stoning women is retarded. Islam is retarded!
[ii] Putnam, Robert, D., “E Pluribus Unum: Diversity and Community in the Twenty-first Century; The 2006 Johan Skytte Prize Lecture;” Scandinavian Political Studies, Vol. 30, Issue 2, pages 137–174, June 2007.
[iii] David M. Buss, “Evolutionary Psychology: The New Science of Mind,” (Boston: Pearson Education Inc., 2012) p. 387.
Thursday, December 10, 2015
The San Bernardino jihadi’s neighbors were very suspicious of them. The Muslims received an unusual number of packages and worked late into the night. But, their neighbors did not report their suspicions, because people might accuse them of being ‘racist’ or of ‘racial profiling.’[i]
The Left uses the label ‘racist’ to terrorize people into silence. This works because they conflate race and culture. These fascist multiculturalists tell you to ‘celebrate cultural diversity.’ But, as soon as you mention that cultural diversity includes any negative traits, they call you ‘racist.’
The term ‘culturist’ exposes their nasty tactics. The overt reference to ‘culture’ in the word ‘culturist’ makes it clear that we are not discussing race. Since, ‘multiculturalist’ and their ‘cultural diversity’ slogan acknowledge culture, they cannot refuse to discuss it. We must force them to stay on the topic of cultural diversity, and its reality, by using the term ‘culturist.’
Remember the slogan, ‘If cultural diversity is real, being culturist makes sense.’
As a culturist, I believe that there is a silent majority who are sick of being told all discussions of culture are racist. They are sick of being told that criticizing ‘thug life’ is racist. They are tired of being told that all differences in economic and educational achievement are evidence of the West’s racism, rather than evidence of cultural diversity’s impact. Cultural diversity greatly impacts our world. And, people want to discuss it.
Memes go viral; Terms spread quickly. If one politician or popular pundit used the term ‘culturist’ it could become a common word. As such it could free westerners to discuss cultural diversity without being called ‘racist.’ Then, rather than begging minority groups to believe we’re not racist, we could attack: “I am discussing culture! Cultural diversity real isn’t it? So, can I discuss it?” Denying Islam’s violent misogynist homophobia will be harder when the multicultural left admit cultural diversity is real and can no longer just call us ‘racist.’
Now, I can hear defeatists saying, this won’t stop the Left. But, using the term ‘culturist’ costs us absolutely nothing. And, it could greatly help us challenge the multicultural establishment and their use of the term ‘racist’ to intimidate critics. And, as the West is criminalizing criticism of Islam, this is a front line issue.[ii] Trump’s rise shows that there is a silent majority that wishes to speak. We must defend them against the charges of ‘racism.’ We have nothing to lose and everything to gain. Please use the word ‘culturist’ today.
Spread the word ‘culturist’ as if our lives are on the line! Indeed they are. If the San Bernadino jihadi’s neighbors had alerted authorities, lives might have been saved. If we spread the term ‘culturist profiling’ more lives will be saved. But, our civilization is also on the line.
Culturism also challenges multiculturalism by asserting that the West has a traditional majority culture to protect. In light of politicians’ promoting mass Islamic immigration, being able say we have a culture and it is at odds with Islamic culture is more important than ever. To survive, we must embrace culturism; we must tell multiculturalists that acknowledging cultural diversity is not racist; we must be culturist.
[i] De Graff, Mia and Farberov, Snejana, “Neighbors of husband and wife San Bernardino shooters 'noticed them acting suspiciously but did NOT report them for fear of racial profiling,” Mail Online, December 3rd, 2015,
[ii] “AG Loretta Lynch under fire for vow to prosecute anti-Islamic speech,” Examiner.com, December 5th, 2015,
Saturday, November 28, 2015
“Diversity is our strength” is an Orwellian slogan. Just one week after the recent Paris terror attacks, Obama declared, “We can all do our part by upholding the values of tolerance and diversity and equality that help keep America strong.”[i] This slogan is frequently used to argue for accepting refugees. There are several ways in which culturists can counter this dangerous assertion.
One way to respond to the diversity slogan is sheer outrage! Are the victims of the Paris attack stronger because of diversity?! Do you really think Paris is stronger because of diversity!? Terror attacks and the subsequent subway / infrastructure lockdowns make the complete idiocy of the idea that diversity brings strength. And this justifies our screaming, “By saying diversity is our strength, you’re spitting in the face of terror’s victims!!”
Screaming! Why? Because the shock of being yelled at will create a Pavlovian effect. If leftists know it might evoke an adrenaline-backed rebuke, they’ll hesitate. And we need to do this as it is disgusting to say ‘diversity is our strength’ right after a terrorist attack. And, while they might go all ‘Boy George’ on you and start to cry, such disgusting remarks merit yelling.
And, we must yell because saying, “Diversity is our strength,” fundamentally undermines the West. Unlike multiculturalists, culturists say we have a traditional majority culture and a right to protect and promote it. The ‘diversity’ slogan says Muslims are just as western as Christians. It says Arabic speaking Syrians are western too. Our demographics, history and history of culturist immigration policy counter this multicultural lie.[ii] This slogan endangers us by justifying opening our borders to everyone, including our historic enemies.
We can calmly refute the diversity lie by attacking logically. “Diversity in what measure? Is diversity in educational achievement good? Are we stronger if some people are literate and some are illiterate? Is diversity in levels of violence good? Do you want some girls to get pregnant as teens and others not? Wouldn’t be better off if we were united against crime and terror? What measures do you want us to be diverse in?”
While multiculturalists may see these as facetious questions, they are not. Multiculturalists think diversity only impacts happy things like food, fashion, and festivals. But Black culture celebrates thug-life. Mexicans do not mind teen pregnancy or dropping out of school as much as other groups. Islam supports violence aimed at imposing theocracy. With statistics and examples, because we assert cultural diversity is real, culturist can always win arguments concerning diversity and strength.
We can also ask, “Why don’t other nations think diversity is strength?” China is stronger because it is united; China fears division. Saudi Arabia doesn’t let Christians become citizens, because it prizes unity. Are these nations stupid? Might it not be true that unity is our strength? Why is the US called the ‘United States of America,’ and not the ‘Diverse States of America’? And, why, multiculturalists, do you only condemn the Western culturists as racist and not those in China or Saudi Arabia? If it is alright for them to be culturist, why not us?”
Culturists need to start directly confronting this perverse slogan. Why? Diversity kills! It leads to civil unrest and decline. This undermines rights. In fact, unity is our strength. Assimilation and national pride lead to unity. Defining ourselves as antagonistic to Islamic values unifies us. We need to stand for something or we’ll fall for anything. Diversity brings terrorism and fragmentation. Celebrating it is dangerous. Please attack all globalist / multiculturalists who solemnly repeat ‘diversity is our strength.’
Tuesday, November 24, 2015
Islam is behind the Paris bombings, the Mali hostage situation, 7/7 in London, and all the other more than 20,000 terrorist attacks since 9/11. Media must stop saying “ISIS has claimed responsibility,” “The Taliban did it,” or “We’re looking for the ringleader.” When they ask such questions, they back up the multicultural idea that the religion is okay, it’s only a few bad apples that are giving Islam a bad name. To win this battle, we must identify the enemy properly. It is Islam!
“But, Culturist John,” you might ask, “You’re not saying all Muslims are terrorists, are you?” “No. But, I am a culturist, I believe cultural diversity is real. And, Muhammed was a warrior. He fought in over 20 battles, established a theocracy and beheaded dissenters. If you follow Muhammed, you’re glorifying an expansionist theocratic killer. You’re part of a religion dedicated to violently taking over the world.”
Multiculturalists deny that Islam is behind all these attacks. Ironically, multiculturalists tell you that all religions are the same. They say, “Islam is a religion of peace. We’re only hunting a few groups: ISIS, the Taliban, Al-Quaeda, Lone Wolves. Then all will be peaceful again.” BS. If you follow Muhammed, you glorify a theocratic warrior killer! As a culturist I am dedicated to convincing the multicultural West that cultural diversity is real. Islam as a whole is behind all of these attacks.
Then the Left claims, “Muslim’s attack because of what the West did in Iraq. It’s because of Israel.” This also pushes the idea that deep down, Islam only wants peace. So I answer, “Did Mali participate in the Iraq war? Why are Muslims attacking in Thailand? How about India? Why are Muslims attacking Muslims? Why did Islam take Spain in 711? Was that because of Iraq? Israel?” I’ll answer my own rhetorical questions: Islam’s attacks are not a response to a specific policy. Starting with Muhammed in 622 A.D., Islam has always sought to impose global theocracy via violence.
“But not all Muslims are terrorists,” they cry. Culturists reply, “Many ‘Christians’ never go to church, (which doesn’t take much commitment). And, not all Muslims are brave enough to go on suicide missions. But to support Jesus is to support a pacifist, who valued individuals. To support Muhammed is to support a killer dedicated to theocracy. All mosques promote the values of this expansionist theocratic warrior. They are guilty! Individual Muslims may not be violent. But, Islam is!”
As a culturist, my focus is cultural diversity being real. Islam is a violent theocratic religion bent on world domination. And, to highlight cultural differences, we culturists must denounce the media when they ask, “Who was the ringleader?” or “Was ISIS responsible?” or they say, “We are searching for the suspect in Belgium.” We culturists must shout, “The problem is not Al-Quaeda in Mali or ‘the suspect’ or ‘ISIS’; the problem is Islam!”
Thursday, November 19, 2015
Tuesday, October 20, 2015
My uncle, Lawrence Levine, was the professor who was killed in the Umpqua Community College shooting. His death hurt my family and me immensely. Resulting questions, relevant to political activists, continue to haunt me.
Normally, I am very politically active here and elsewhere promoting culturism. But, this tragedy hit me so hard that I could not watch the news: seeing the killer’s face threw me into a despair-filled rage. I still have trouble watching the news.
Herein, lays a question for us activists: At what level are we appropriate to the political issues we cover? When I write about the Islamification of the West, I treat it as a theoretical issue. To the women raped in Sweden, this is inappropriately sedate. And, if I boldly announce that we should sink refugees’ ships, this is also too casual.
How do I find the appropriate level of emotional sensitivity in my writing and policies? This emotional question still makes it hard for me to blithely peruse political sites.
President Obama visited our grieving families. Knowing me, my family begged me to be polite. And, I thought this would be hard as I detest Obama’s multicultural - globalist policies as much as anyone. But, he was personable, comparing his daughters to my nieces, and telling us that Michelle and the American people send their sympathies and care – no politics were mentioned.
This nice gesture humanized Obama for me. Now I find it hard to conjure as much vitriol for him as I previously did. And, I say this knowing he is giving Iran nukes, caused continuing death in Libya, and demolished our borders: all things I hate.
Is there ever a moment wherein tragedy – as in 9/11 – makes us all just Americans, or westerners or – dare I, as a culturist, say it – humans? When, as with grieving families, should we adopt this frame? And, when should we just be adversaries?
My uncle Larry loved the river and, as a youth, moved to Oregon to escape civilization’s noise. His home overlooked the Umpqua river, wherein, via fishing, he became one with nature. This is not hyperbole. His writings express just this transcendence. And, on his rare visits to LA, he longed to return to nature. But, civilization chased my uncle to the banks of the river; he did not escape.
Was my uncle’s retreat from civilization spiritual or illusory? How much of our lives should be spent in political trenches and how much outside? Where is the balance? If retreating to nature is an escape from politics, might not politics also become an escape from life on its own terms?
Lastly, the existential questions: Why try? As I worked my way through my uncle’s many unpublished manuscripts, I found myself repeating, ‘Words cannot save you. We will all die. Why continue writing?’ These questions still haunt me. Perhaps the answer lays in the answers to my earlier questions. For now, just writing again is healing.
RIP Uncle Larry.