Add to Technorati Favorites

Tuesday, April 15, 2014

“The Guardian” Spews Multicultural Slander Internationally

The Guardian’s April 14th, 2014 article, “NarendraModi: Britain can't simply shrug off this Hindu extremist: The UK will alsosuffer if India elects this far-right activist. We must sever our links withhim,” is a hit piece.  Narenda Modi is a Hindu Nationalist.  But that does not make him evil.  We who defend the West should pray for his victory in India’s upcoming Prime Minister election.

Narendra Modi is pro-Hindu and he understands the dangers of Islam.  Does that make him a racist?  Hitler?  No.  It makes him a rational culturist.   If elected he will not put Muslims in gas chambers.  He will, however, guard India’s borders against relentless Islamic immigration designed to re-subjugate India to Islam.  He will enact policies that affirm India’s Hindu identity.

India is run by the multicultural party “Congress.” As part of their multiculturalism, they create special electoral and employment set-asides for minorities (mostly Muslims).  They fund mosques, but not Hindu temples.  And, whenever you mention that Islam is dangerous, they call you “racist” and “communal,” (note that Muslims are not racist or communal if they promote their culture - sound familiar?).  Congress’ relentless multiculturalist policies created the need for Mod’s culturist BJP party.

The Guardian’s hit piece blames Modi for the 2002 Gujarat “pogroms” (actually riots).  Gujarat is a state in India.  These riots started when Muslims chased Hindu Nationalists onto a train and set it on fire killing 58 people.  In the ensuing riots, 790 Muslims and 254 Hindus were killed (wikipedia).   Modi was the Chief Minister of Gujarat at the time and set a curfew the day after the train conflagration.  An official inquest cleared Modi of charges that he aided in the violence.

Here is the deal – Muslims are supposed to be able to set fire to a train full of Hindu Nationalists and nothing is supposed to happen.  Congress blames Modi and the Hindu Nationalists for responding.  No blame goes to the Muslim arsonists who started it. Disgusting.  But, to read the Guardian hit piece, you’d think Modi led the attack; that he set fire to Hindu Nationalists in the train! This sort of evil, pandering “journalism” is just as common in India as it is in Britain – and just as dangerous.

In fact, Modi is Gujarat’s longest serving Chief Minister ever.  He won three elections after the 2002 riots.  He won because he created great economic growth within the state.  Modi is running on the promise of clearing out corruption and bring growth to India’s economy writ large.  He has done vast outreach to Muslims.  They have voted for him in large numbers in all his elections.   I am not saying his outreach to Muslims is good.  But, the Guardian’s multicultural hit piece is hysterical, dishonest, and intolerant. 

Modi came up through the ranks of the world’s largest culturist organization, the RSS.  This is a Hindu Nationalist educational group, with millions of disciplined members dedicated to the culturist proposition that India is a Hindu nation.  The multiculturalists will not forgive him for that.  Predictably, the Guardian, using a line in a 1938 book, uses his membership in the pro-Hindu group to tie him to Hitler! But, his BJP party is one of the top two parties in India.  He needs Muslim votes.  Modi will fund Hindu temples; but, he will not lead pogroms – he is a politician. 

That said, Modi and his supporters well understand the dangers of Islam. Anti-Jihadists would do well to understand the potential of Hindu Nationalists as allies.  Remember India was conquered, ruled and tyrannized by Muslims for hundreds of years until the British liberated it.  Remember that Islamic terrorism against Hindus is constant in Pakistan and Bangladesh, and it is frequent in India.  Hindus understanding the threat of Islam is why Modi’s BJP party is one of the two largest in India.

Don’t believe the inappropriately named ‘Guardian’ slander. We culturists should all welcome Modi’s election as Prime Minister of India.

Wednesday, April 9, 2014

Culturist Language Policy - Part 1

This is part 1 of 5.  Korea must reject multiculturalism and embrace culturism if it is to survive.

Friday, March 28, 2014

Why Kobe Bryant is my Favorite NBA Player

I love Kobe Bryant because I love the Lakers.  But, whereas some Lakers have made that equation difficult to maintain, Kobe makes it easy.   He has consistently been a patriot, talking on and on about his pride in representing America in the olympics.  As such, I have written about my love for Kobe Bean Bryant before.

But now Kobe, this culturist MVP, has come out against the Miami Stinkers' knee-jerk, race-based support for Trayvon Martin.  Kobe was raised in Italy.  Kobe avoided liberal indoctrination.  Not only is Kobe a great basketball player and exemplar of the Protestant Work Ethic, he is as patriotic as anyone who reads this blog.
Read about Kobe and Trayvon  HERE and cheer!!



Sunday, March 2, 2014

Culturism, Mexicans, and the Ukraine

America has the same situation with Mexicans as the Ukraine has with Russia!  Culturist common sense tells us that borders should, to the extent possible, reflect cultures.  If a nation has many different cultures a civil war is not so likely to start.  But, if a nation hosts two huge cultural groups the potential for conflict is high.  This is especially true if one cultural group belongs to a neighboring nation.

The Ukraine exemplifies the latter, and most dangerous, situation.  The Crimean region of the Ukraine is culturally and linguistically Russian.  They are concentrated along the Russian border.  This is a formula for a civil war that will drag the neighboring nation in.  

America has the very same situation with Mexicans!  They are connected on our southern border with Mexico.  Worse yet, we had a war with Mexico over the same territory, so they think they have a claim to it.  Just as Russians identify more with Russian than Ukraine, Mexicans identify more with Mexico.    This is not racist - Ukrainians and Russians are both “white” - it is culturist.

Mexicans will  naturally feel loyalty towards Mexico.  This is why Mexican majority states will neither introduce nor enforce border laws.  This is why Mexican majority states will never stop the hemorrhaging of remittance dollars back to “their country,” (Over 22 billion in 2011).   In fact, even before a civil war, to have a huge alien group from the bordering nation is to have lost sovereignty over your nation.

In 1953 we had Operation Wetback to push the Mexicans back into Mexico.  That is no longer viable.  We need to enforce border laws, end dual citizenship and stop remittances to force people to choose which country they want to belong to.  And, we need culturist curriculum because multiculturalism teaches one to maintain pride in being “Mexican” by race. Culturist curriculum will teach pride in identifying with America's traditional majority culture and story. These measures will lower the possibility of war.

So, yes, the Ukraine is in anger of having a civil war.  Even if we were to stop Russia from invading, the cultural split means the tension there will never stop.  For that reason, I say there will be more stability if we just let Russia have the Crimean.  But, rather than worry about Ukraine, we should spend our time considering what the culturist laws in play bode for us.

Friday, November 29, 2013

Culturists Versus Racists

Yes, culturists versus racists: we who fight to save Western Civilization have to choose.   And, I think, those leaning towards racism are taking the West towards doom.  Feel free to argue – it is important that we are clear as to whether we are culturist or racist.

Culturism says western nations have traditional majority cultures, and a right to guide, protect, and promote them.   Racism says the western nations are defined by being made of racially white people or groups of national races: The British race: the French race, etc.

Racists would like to make Britain white again.  The only way to do this is to deport non-whites.  But London, for example, is less than 50% white. As such racists will never win an election on the ‘deport non-whites’ platform.  As racists cannot push this policy democratically, their reasoning only leaves us the policy option of extra-legal violence that would devastate Britain: race war.   

Culturists would simply look to end Islamic immigration.  Hindus, a significant non-white minority population in Britain, have their own horrible history with Islam: as such they might vote to halt Islamic immigration.  Other minority victims of terrorism might also vote to limit Islamic immigration.  

Getting such votes would rely on proper education. Culturist curriculum would teach Hindus to love the Britain for modernizing India and Caribbean peoples to love Britain for stopping slavery.   Other minorities could get excited about belonging the nation that invented rights!    This could unite us, with pride, as we were before.  But we need culturist curriculum to reach this goal.  

Racists have no reason to promote this pro-western, educational assimilation agenda: After all, racists believe only whites make good Europeans and neither education, nor any other measure, can change peoples’ race.  No workable education policy stems from racism. 

Culturism is the opposite of multiculturalism.  As such, culturism can win rhetorical arguments because it stands on the truth of cultural diversity.   People believe cultural diversity is real and culturists can use statistics to logically prove it.  While they really don’t think it is real or important, multiculturalists do hype cultural diversity.  Given honor killings, we can beat them on their own turf when forcing them to discuss the reality of cultural diversity. 

Using the reality of cultural diversity, we can argue for reasonable culturist profiling.  A majority of Brits (even some Muslims) could understand and support the need for culturist profiling at airports.  When multiculturalists say, “It’s racist,” we can say, ‘No, it’s culturist; (note the word) and cultural diversity is real, is it not?” This will bring us back to our strong suit: cultural diversity.  Racism offers no comparable logical profiling position or rhetoric.

If multiculturalists say, “culturism is just racism,” note that culturist thought critiques white social pathologies as well.  For example, in Victorian times, whites’ out-of-wedlock birth rate went as low as 4%. It is now over 47.3% in the UK.  Such historical precedents give us hope.  It goes beyond racists’ stupid argument: ‘whites are good; non-whites, bad.’  Culturism isn’t just about minorities. Is this discussion racist?

Racists might reply, “But, look at minority pathology!  It is about race!!”  Yes, in the U.S., blacks’ out of wedlock birth rate is 72.3%.  But, from the 1930s to the 1950s it was around 12%.[i]  Yes, racists, that is higher than it was for whites then; but it is much lower than it is for whites now.  We can all do better. But, our genes have not radically mutated since the 1960s: it is not about race.  It is about culture.  Racism offers no solutions or hope; culturism does.

In place of divisive multiculturalism, culturism provides a purely positive angle that can unite us: celebrating British culture.  When we praise British culture, politicians must agree or make statements that will alienate voters.  When we celebrate western culture with WW II film screenings, art exhibits, historical parades, and such, politicians must attend or go on the defensive.  Racist events only justify politicians’ PC censorship and sanctimonious treason.  

Culturism offers hope of democratically stopping Islamic immigration; education reform; rhetoric with which to win debates with multiculturalists; reasonable policies such as culturist profiling; a way to discuss lowering social pathologies across all races; and fun events - and this is only a partial list!  Racism offers zero positive policy solutions.  As people cannot change their race, racism only offers disunity and race wars.  

We who defend Western Civilization should be clear that we are culturists, not racists. We culturists agree that racism is stupid and dangerous.   We get angry when called racists!  We offer culturism in place of multiculturalism because we love Western Civilization and diversity is real.  As such, we politely demand reasonable public policy debates on Islamic immigration and other topics. 

If you think the culturist policies futile, I look forward to hearing your potentially workable policy suggestions.  If you don’t have any, get to work!  Denounce racists!  Get the words ‘culturist’ and ‘culturism’ in the media, politicians’ mouths and popular conversation: Spread the words today!   

[i] Marriage and Poverty in the U.S.: By the Numbers, The Heritage Foundation:

Saturday, November 23, 2013


Britain's Matthew Arnold (1822 – 1888) was the first person to be called a 'culturist.'  As codified in his masterpiece, Culture and Anarchy, the label referred to his wanting to avoid anarchy – and cultivate Britain and its morals – via honoring western culture.
In Arnold's time the word 'culturism' had not yet been invented. Culturism is the opposite of multiculturalism: it defies multiculturalism by affirming that the West has a core culture to guide, protect, and promote; this would have been a truism in Arnold's time; he was a culturist with no need to fight multiculturalists.
Arnold was a Christian atheist of sorts. He noted that science was making literal belief in miracles difficult, but recognized that Christianity was western civilization's bedrock. So he taught the Bible as literature; he fought to unify Christians under the Church of England and to have the Bible taught in public schools.
Even though Arnold's mission concerned the domestic perfection of Britain, he discussed Islam once: in the piece, "A Persian Passion Play." For us modern culturists, who must fight multiculturalists – and thus consider Islam – this historical document has relevance.
Arnold's 1871 essay reviews the play that tells the story of Hussein, the grandson of Muhammad, who helped found the Shia sect with his martyrdom. This play is performed during the holiday Ashura, wherein Muslims beat themselves.
As you would expect from the premier literary critic of his age, Arnold reviews the casting, sets, acting and versions of the play. After the dazzlingly crafted review, Arnold moves on to comparing Islam and Christianity.
The Koran's "inferiority," Arnold divines, "may make the Koran, for certain purposes and for people at a low stage of mental growth, a more powerful instrument than the Bible;" it has an "intensely dogmatic character."
As is the Koran, the Old Testament was also harsh in its righteousness, but "Christianity renewed it, carrying into those hard waters ... a sort of warm gulf-stream of tender emotion," modeled by Jesus's "mildness and sweet reasonableness."  
"Mohomatenism," we read, "had no such renewing." With only harsh righteousness, the more it developed, "the more the faults of its original narrow basis because visible, more and more it became fierce and militant."
Arnold thinks the story of Hussein – the Passion Play – is an attempt to instill some lighter qualities into the harsh religion. After all, the "main confirmation of a religion [is] in its intrinsic correspondence with urgent wants of human nature." But, even with Hussein's story, Islam does not fulfill human needs and so, "the more mankind grows and gains light, the more [Islam] will be felt to have no fellows."  
Blissfully ignorant, Arnold believes, since Europe is solidly Christian, the play will likely be the last time western audiences hear the names "Hussein" and "Ali." And so, coupled with his belief that people will leave the narrow religion for Christianity, he doesn't write about Islam again.
Unfortunately, our 'growth' and 'gains' have not led Muslims to largely convert to Christianity. Unfortunately, the names Hussein and Ali are not foreign to us (and Muhammad is the number one baby name in Britain).
Were Arnold to come back to life, he would, undoubtedly continue his 'culturist' mission of using our cultural heritage to cultivate British beauty, unity, and morals. But he would realize that Islam is currently more of a threat than the anarchy he feared. As such, this founding culturist would denounce Islam more than he did – repudiating multiculturalism in favor of culturism.

Saturday, November 16, 2013

Culturist Sex Positions


Sorry! This article will not show sexual positions; it will consider culturist positions on sex! It will tackle the problem that 41% of American, 47.3% of UK and 39.5% of EU births happen out of wedlock. But keep reading, Miley Cyrus's licking will come up later.


"Conservatives are unrealistic if they think people will stop having sex. It's impossible." To these defeatists I say, "Let me reassure you: I am not trying to stop people having from having sex. But out-of-wedlock childbirth is a problem we must tackle." They agree.
For the "it is impossible" crowd, I note that this problem almost doesn't exist in Korea and Japan; a mild racist reply usually follows. But, a culturist public values campaign in Victorian England dropped the out-of-wedlock rate from 7% to 3%. Yes, it was 3%! White people have managed reproduction responsibly.


"Western civilization holds the mind in higher esteem than the body," is a phrase to popularize. Plato gave us platonic love. He did not think sex a sin, but a sad use of our human potential. Jesus taught that lust overpowering the soul was a sin.
Television undermined western virtues. To get advertisers, it promotes fun without consequences. Thus it promotes irresponsible sex, without showing that the resultant out-of-wedlock birth leads to povertycrime, academic failure, and emotional problems.



We need to censor television again, not to mention Internet porn (as Asian nations do). Strip clubs have exploded across America. Zoning laws need to, again, push this flesh-peddling out to the margins of society.
Don't worry sex addicts, you'll be able to get your pound of flesh on cable and illegally on the web. You'll be free to drive to the town's outskirts to spasm; but needing to drive will teach you that you're doing something of which society does not approve.
Rich people make television. Rich people absorb the damage of out-of-wedlock birth better than those in the inner-city, where it is devastating communities. During the Victorian era, the wealthy specifically thought of the impact of their actions on the morals of the poor. We do live in the same society.


America heavily subsidies out-of-wedlock birth when it gives financial support to unwed mothers – in fact, under our welfare laws, women lose benefits if they get married. If we cut benefits off, women with children will be on the streets – some will need to give their children to orphanages.
In America, if a teenager gets pregnant she cannot be penalized. She is given extra accommodations (such as alternative assignments) and extra time to graduate. In Korea such girls are expelled from school immediately. We need to expel pregnant teens.
In order to reinstitute morals, natural consequences need to be felt. If we end subsidies to out-of-wedlock parents and expel pregnant teens from public school, we will see a rise of homeless women with children. After the very real consequences of irresponsible parenting become public, the rate will plummet.
As a corollary, the Victorian era also saw an explosion in charitable organizations. Unfortunately, these got taken over by government programs, which sapped our sense of community responsibility and hid the consequences of such irresponsible behavior. We must not repeat this mistake.
In the modern, bureaucratic, post-Judeo-Christian, multicultural, commercial era, we have moved to the idea that government is to be neutral in regards to values. We need once again to think of ourselves as a western, Judeo-Christian civilization that needs to be sustainable, and so neither promotes nor subsidizes vice.



So, what about sex prior to marriage? Yes, worried modern, Christians would call that a sin. But let's not worry about them right now because they already have a solution that works. What of us more secular culturists?
Premarital is okay. But, if you make a baby, you need to stay with the mother through adulthood. So, if you cannot agree to that, don't take the risk with her. When you have sex with a stranger – whose hotness will soon drain – know that you flirt with disaster.
And, I would ask you to be brave. I agree with the prescription James Twitchell put forward in his book For Shame: we must be willing to tell people their creating an out-of-wedlock child was bad and even shun them and lose them as friends.
What Miley Cyrus did – especially as an ex-Mousketeer – hurt us collectively. We need to be able to tell people why. Basically, as Aristotle said, our minds separate us from animals. We are elevated when we honor intellects; her animalistic depiction of us as licking machines, degrades us as it – materially – perpetuates out-of-wedlock birth.
Ultimately, yes, you can have sex when not married and still be a good culturist. But that stops with the first child. And you can disentangle yourself from the constant testosterone-elevating advertisements and ask yourself if you see no elevating nobility, if you can take no pride, in the West's traditional elevation of the mind over the body?


Culturism is the opposite of multiculturalism. As such, it says that the West has a particular, wonderful – yet fragile – culture to promote, defend, and guide. It takes pride in western civilization; as such it suggests we revere our past and protect our future.
Culturism also counterbalances individualism: when we tell a child, "If you don't study, it will hurt your future," it simply becomes their business whether or not they do so. Culturism frames virtues in the context of a duty to society. This is a more solid basis of virtues.
'Culturism' and 'culturist' are also good words in that they outline common ground between Christians and secular conservatives. Plato and Jesus, again, both esteemed the mind over the body. And, both understood the connection between immorality and social decay.
The West needs a moral counter-revolution. The words 'culturism' and 'culturist' can spread quickly, succinctly expressing a non-narcissistic point of view that considers our collective cultural welfare.  Use the words 'culturism' and 'culturist' daily!


In our sex-saturated era, we have traded virtues and values for mindless immediate gratification. Loving people for their minds, rather than their skin, shows a higher regard for their whole being; it elevates all of us.
The Victorian ethos was one of spiritual equality. Both the poor and the rich could take pride in being upright; mutual respect – when earned – resulted. When people live up to civic ideals, they feel pride. Communal pride and dignity are not to be underrated.
When out-of-wedlock birth goes down, poverty goes down, education goes up, and fewer people go to jail. (The Victorian ethos was one of material equality too.) An educated culture produces more inventions. Wealth leads to opportunities and increased hope for the future.
Families are a joy. Children love having fathers. Fathers feel tremendous pride in being caregivers and respected and loved.

Tuesday, November 12, 2013


'Data mining' – the computational extraction of meaningful information from large data sets – includes a technique wherein you count how many times a word appears in a book or a set of books.  From it we learn that 19th-century American authors mentioned 'Europe' more than we realized; so, critics can reposition these writers as a part of a cosmopolitan discourse. But, as Stanley Fish asked, what if the word 'Europe' comes after the words 'never been to'? Such scientific readings ignore literature's actual wonderful stories and meanings. We must act to stop it.
There are other ways literary academics have perverted our reading. Academics frequently look at a work's relationship to colonialism. Thus, Shakespeare's The Tempest is now about the Caribbean in the European imagination. Beyond this thematic hijacking, esteeming Shakespeare itself is seen as complicity in Euro-centric dominance. Western students are told they must abandon their own literature for that of 'the other' in the name of post-colonial social justice. In fact, literature isn't even called literature any more, it is just a 'text,' meaning a socio-cultural artifact. Really!
Largely anti-western, some academics claim that the global spread of the web has now made national boundaries obsolete. But westerners do not go online to read Chinese news in Chinese. We read about our own nations and cultures in our own languages. The nation has not disappeared into cyberspace. What the Internet has done is diminish our attention spans. Thus, rather than use the Internet as an excuse to undermine attention to our national literary classics, academics must uphold cultural standards by modeling attention to our substantial works.
It is wonderful that academics have made us aware of the political implications of the western canon as well as the impact of the Internet on readers' sense of belonging. But, as a pro-western culturist, I draw opposite conclusions from said realizations: we must emphasize our canon because it binds us, because it glorifies the West, because it makes me proud to be from a civilization that created such treasures. And no matter the frequency of the word 'blog' online, we need to esteem longer traditional classics over blog posts to uphold morals, cultivate cultural pride, and raise intellectual standards.
People love stories; we love being a part of the western story. Teaching that literature is a quantifiable tool of imperialist oppression in a post-national world is worse than anti-humanistic, it is anti-western. And, as such, it hurts us collectively and personally. Culturist students must challenge their professors' quasi-scientific, anti-western agendas in reading 'texts.' They must announce their pride in doing the hard work of reading long literature classics in the Internet age. We need to cultivate a generation of tough, literature-loving, pro-western scholars in order to foster a much-needed western cultural renaissance.

Saturday, November 2, 2013

Alice in Terrorland

The humor in Alice in Wonderland comes from her being unfailingly polite no matter what the situation. A somewhat hostile giant caterpillar on a mushroom? A surly talking egg? Oh, Dear! But, we mustn't forget our well-worn Victorian manners.
In the final week of the terrorism and counterterrorism course I am taking, we discussed "fear and impact management" – what authorities must do after an attack. We learned that, much like Alice, you must stay unfailingly polite to Muslims no matter what.
Immediately after an attack, our professor told us, we must establish partnerships with "spokespersons of ethnic, cultural, and religious minorities," to avoid, "distrust and stereotyping of certain groups in society," which could lead to "polarization, tension between groups."
Like Oscar Wilde's "love that dare not speak its name," even in the course, in presenting imagined scenarios, our professor, Dr Edwin Bakker, Director of the Centre for Terrorism and Counterterrorism (CTC) at Leiden University, could not specify which minority group might be causing terror.
Could it be the Hindus? Might it be the Mormons? It would be impolite to point fingers.
Dr Bakker warned that not following his rules of etiquette could lead to "Simple explanations for terrorism" that, in turn, could "lead to polarization of society", that could lead to "a negative spiral in which fear of terrorism leads to more terrorism."
This is the Franklin D. Roosevelt, "we have nothing to fear, but fear itself," defense against terrorism. But terrorism is not a delusional phobia, that feeds on itself, which we can ignore out of existence. Many Muslims aiming for world domination use terror, Jihad, as a tool to achieve our submission. These are facts. We have more to fear than fear itself.  
We are not in Wonderland, this is the real world.   
Israel has created an anti-terror wall, at which they can screen Muslim commuters. They will not allow uninhibited Islamic immigration into Israel – they recognize Israel as a Jewish state. After being polite while rockets fell for years, they launched an all-out assault on Gaza. That alone slowed the inflow of rockets.
I agree Dr Bakker, we do not want innocent Muslims to undergo unlawful attacks or excessive discomfort. But culturism is not vile racism. And to not screen Muslims at airports or to allow them to have airport jobs because we don't want to be rude is to implement a policy that is only fit for Wonderland.

Sunday, October 27, 2013

Culturism and Human Rights in the Fight Against Terrorism

Part One – The Controversy:
The Belgian government believes that we can win the war on terror without infringing on “human rights.” In fact, they have stated that they are convinced, “that the fight against terrorism can only be waged if human rights and international humanitarian law are fully respected.” They argue that, “Terrorism cannot be battled effectively by flouting the very rights and freedoms that terrorists are intent on destroying;” if we compromise our rights, the Belgians argue, the terrorists win.[i]
In practice, the United States’ Patriot Act was touted as minimally compromising rights.  It allows roving wiretaps, but only with a warrant.[ii] But, the recent spate of revelations concerning our National Security Administration, have shown that such spying has compromised our rights more than we initially thought.[iii]  And so while the United States gives lip service to the Belgian model of not violating rights, its actions indicate that it has found this route impractical. 
Part Two – The Importance:
We must test this assumption because every criminal investigation involves potential compromising of rights.  Recently, the United States has increased its drone attacks, in an effort to decapitate terrorist organizations.  As supposedly uninvolved civilians have died as a result, Amnesty International has suggested they may constitute “war crimes.”[iv]  Such a policy clearly violates the Belgian standards.  Thus policies will vary greatly depending on our assumptions about the importance of protecting human rights in the pursuit of terrorists.
Part Three – The Evidence:
My analysis will assume a “Clash of Civilizations” view as envisioned by Harvard University’s Samuel Huntington, wherein Islam and the West are at war.[v]  Multiculturalists dismiss this view as they never conceive of cultures in conflict.  But, Islam’s 1400-year expansion, taking of Spain, and worldwide Islamic terrorism today, provide evidence that this view should not be dismissed so lightly.  In fact, since the 9/11 attacks in America, Islamic terrorists have carried out over 21,000 attacks.[vi]  Islam and terror are associated.
Multiculturalists may dismiss the source documenting Islamic attacks, as “right – wing “and” fringe; but, these are ad hominem attacks.  If one wishes to deny the overwhelmingly Islamic nature of terrorism, you must disprove the 21,800 documented cases on this website or provide a similar number of non-Muslim terrorist acts.  Easier yet, name a recent non-Muslim terrorist act like last month’s Kenyan shopping mall attack.[vii]  If you cannot, calling my argument “right-wing” or dismissive it as assuming the “clash of civilization” only evades the evidence.
In terms of the violation of human rights in fighting terrorism, we must engage in culturist profiling.  The evidence points to young Muslim men being most likely to carry out terrorist attacks.  When we assiduously avoid targeting such men, in airports for example, for the fear of being ‘racist,’ and violating 'rights,' we endanger lives and give the Muslims a moral victory.   We must profile Muslims in matters related to security. This is not irrational racist profiling, it is rational culturist profiling.
We, however, must not throw out our sense of rights in fighting terrorism.  While we should not allow Muslims to work in security sensitive areas like airports and nuclear power plants, there is no reason Muslims cannot work in banks, run businesses, or engage in any non-security related industry.  Honest, non-terrorist Muslims, will understand the evidence-based need for discrimination in security related areas. 
Eliminating Islamic immigration would prevent future Islamic attacks.  This could be said to violate “human rights.”  But, I have a problem with “human rights” so conceived.  I have no “human right” to be in Saudi Arabia or China.  Both nations discriminate for their people on a culturist basis.  The West too has a right to discriminate on a culturist basis.  “Human rights,” so conceived, violate our sovereignty, culturists rights, provide an evidentiary basis upon which to protect our society. 
Part Four – The Conclusion:
The assumption that we need to violate “human rights" when fighting terrorism is partially true. Ending Islamic immigration and culturist profiling at airports will reduce terrorism.  But, we cannot be arbitrary; we must only spy on Muslims who have connections to terrorist organizations, to safeguard rights.  This will lead to alienation and help recruit terrorists. 
While avoiding gratuitous violations of rights, we cannot foreswear ever violating of any rights, as such an approach blinds us to obvious dangers.  Overall, we must replace our idealistic “human rights” model, which ignores all cultural diversity and the clash of civilizations, with a realistic culturist model for combating terror and safeguarding rights in the West.  

[iii]Joshua Keating, Why the Snowden Leaks will have a bigger impact than wikileaks, the slate,
[iv] Andrea Crossan, US Drone Strikes are Controversial, But Are They War Crimes?
[vii] Guy Alexander, Dozens die as Islamic Militants Attack Kenyan Shopping Mall,