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,

Thursday, October 24, 2013

Counterterrorism Centre Threatens our Lives

I have been taking an online course entitled "Terrorism and Counterterrorism," given by the Director of the Centre for Terrorism and Counterterrorism (CTC) at Leiden University in The Hague, Edwin Bakker (  This week's lectures have attempted to show that terrorism is not "predominantly anti-Western." Indeed, less than 17 lives were lost to terrorism in Western Europe in 2012. Bakker thus concludes that fear of terrorism is unwarranted in the West.
From a culturist perspective (in which civilizations differ and clash), the West (Christendom) is the historic heart of Christianity. Thus all attacks on Christianity are ultimately aimed at us. Using the pan-Christian measure, the anti-West terrorism total rises to 20 attacks, claiming 64 lives in just December of 2012. But even then, counting isolated incidents does not allow us to understand the nature of Islamic conquest as seen in the pending Muslim genocides of Christians in Egypt, Sudan, Nigeria, Iraq, and Syria.
Terrorism is just a technique. The aim of terrorism, which we should fear, is Islamic domination. Mr Bakker should note that his own Netherlands has 40 no-go zones. In fact, his city, The Hague, has one known as the Sharia Triangle. If Bakker gets beaten in the Triangle, he will not count it as terrorism because no bombs were used, it is only an isolated incident, and has no stated political aims. From a culturist perspective, even the threat of violence for going into such an area has a political end: Islamic domination – it too is terrorism.
Bakker and his professional counterterrorists find the assumption that "terrorists are successful" only "partly true." But, even then, we learned, terrorism being successful is only "partly true" if you count getting media attention and generating fear as "success." (Again, he says this is an irrational fear because so few people are actually killed by terrorists in the West.) In reality, experts attest, only seven percent of terrorists achieve their political goal. Ask the Copts about terrorist success. Consider the role of rapes in establishing no-go zones, Mr Bakker.
As the head of the CTC, Bakker endangers us when he minimizes Islamic danger (even calling the Boston Marathon bombing "minor"). But it is worse. The course forum has 'hate speech' guidelines. My post with the title "Culturism" was disallowed, (I believe) because it was deemed 'racism.' Mr Bakker is part of the clique that tried his compatriot, Geert Wilders (an anti-jihad Dutch politician), for racism, when he dared discuss the reality of cultural diversity and Islamic expansion goals. Geert's concerns are not irrational racism, Mr Bakker, they are rational culturism.
In our course, Bakker considers America's Unabomber and 9-11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed equal as terrorists. The Unabomber was a loner in a remote cabin; he had no civilization behind him. Without a culturist perspective, Mr Bakker cannot begin to understand Islamic terror. Yes, to return to his original question, it may be the case that Islamic terror is notpredominantly anti-Western.
But to minimize it via concise and constricting definitions, to mock those who worry about it (while you work near a no-go zone), to censor those who bring in historical perspectives and discuss cultural diversity, aids the terrorists. I hope The Hague does not have to get completely encircled in violent Islamic intolerance for you to recognize the true definition of terrorism.

Tuesday, October 15, 2013


As a culturist, I believe we must put the mosques of the Muslims who prayed publicly, after the ban in France, on the EU list of terrorist organizations. The ban was put in place to maintain the secular nature of the French public.Their defiance was an attempt to make the public sphere religious: i.e. Islamic. The terrorist defiance to which I refer happened on September 16th, 2011. But it is not too late: we need a symbolic act and that one will work.
The relevance of the 'culturist' designation in my proposal is that it affirms that Islam and the West (not to mention the rest of the non-Muslim world) have been at war for over a millennium. History has not ended; in 732 Charles Martel turned back the Muslim attempt to take over France (as they had done in Spain), but the Muslims have now returned with a demographic strategy, based on our weakness: the adoption of multiculturalism – the opposite of culturism.
As per the EU terrorism list criterion, these public prayers were "carried out with the aim of seriously intimidating a population" and "destroying the fundamental political, constitutional, economic or social structures." Violence can include a show of force. Nuclear deterrence provides evidence for this claim. One need not use such a bomb to cause fear in adversaries; the mere possession of it is enough. The Muslim displays of numbers work to the same effect; they say, "we occupy our streets and there is nothing you can or will do about it."
A recent author asked, "If anti-gay marriage Catholics can pray in public in France, why can't Muslims?" After all, he noted, the ban on Muslim prayer was done to confirm France's secular nature. We do not ban Catholic prayer because Catholicism is a western religion; it is not at war with the West. As a culturist, I partially wish to put the publicly praying Muslims' mosques on the terrorist list specifically to challenge that multicultural view that western nations, such as France, are just neutral, 'secular' spaces with no particular history; we are Christendom.
We must put the mosques of those who defied the ban against public prayer on the EU terrorist organization list because it affirms that we're not globalists who believe in open borders in a conflict-free, competition-free world where people don't take geo-political sides. We are not multiculturalists who believe that the West is just as Islamic as Christian; we are western culturists who believe in protecting the West. If do not affirm these basic facts, we will lose the war on terror, which is just the Muslims' means towards a larger goal: making Europe Islamic.

Friday, October 11, 2013

Multicultural Hypocrite Historians Exposed!!

Multiculturalists are hypocrites. They say that non-western nations' culturism is wonderful, but any deviation from total multiculturalism in western nations gets denounced as horrible racism. Bruce Cumings's book, Korea's Place in the Sun: A Modern History, exemplifies this double standard in the extreme.
Cumings justifies Korean-Americans raping white women. He tells us that due to the "diabolical inversions that a racist society conjures up in the mind of the oppressed," the Korean becomes obsessed by a "face-pressed-up-against-the-glass sexual and romantic desire for white women, especially blond-haired, blue-eyed ones." (1) So whites' racist oppression merits sexual revenge fantasies. In the multiculturalists' world, rape = justice.
While justice requires raping white women for western culturism, Cumings's entire book asks us to sympathetically understand Korea's culturism. He informs us that, "The perceived purity of the minjok, the ethnic people, gives to them a long, continuous history, culture, and durability of which Koreans are deeply proud." (2) His book details the Hermit Kingdom's culturist self-reliance philosophy, and thus helps us to understand both North and South Korea as one.
Personally, as a western culturist, I respect Koreans for being culturist, (even though, as a westerner, I do not like their overt reliance on race). But, as a historian, I try to be objective. Multicultural historians routinely condemn western historical figures for believing western nations have traditional majority cultures and working to protect them. Even more hypocritical, multiculturalists like Cumings praise foreign nations' culturism and condemn western culturism in the same book.
Cumings denounces us as racist saying, "America's anachronistic racial exclusion laws ended only in 1965." (3) As Cumings relates, the Unites States' 1921 quota law limited annual immigration to 3 percent of the foreign–born population in question then residing in the United States. In 1924, there were only 3,000 Americans of Korean descent in the United States. (4) That meant that thereafter (but for the 1965 law) only 90 more would have been allowed in annually.
But the 1921 law was culturist, not racist, as it targeted whites (Italians and Jews). In preferring northwestern Europeans, the law affirmed our Protestant heritage; it protected our culture, not a white race. While as late as the 1970 census there were still only 8,881 Koreans in Los Angeles County, it is not because we have traditionally been irrationally racist, it is because we have traditionally been rational diversity-avoidant culturists.
Due to the 1965 Immigration Act, over 100,000 Koreans now live in Los Angeles. But now that we have allowed immigrants into the West, multiculturalists dangerously seek to enlist them into a race war against whites. Cumings indignantly denounces the "divide-and-rule tactics that whites have long used ... to assure that they do not face a unified multiracial opposition from below." (5) But, according to Cumings's own statistics, we only recently let minorities into the West (so "long used" doesn't apply), and it is not clear why homogeneity is laudable in Korea, while it justifies a racial uprising in America.
Cumings tells us that the lynchpin of Korean culturism is "chuch'e," which means, in part, "always putting Korea first." He says it is "what one would expect from an ancient people prizing ethnic homogeneity and long subject to outside threat." (6) I accept this logic and think it honorable that Koreans have been and are culturist. But, to praise non-western cultures' culturism and pathologically denounce ours is hypocritical and dangerous.
If you hear multicultural professors denouncing the West for being culturist, ask them, "Is it all right that Korea, China, Mexico and Saudi Arabia are culturist or will you denounce those nations too?" If they praise other nations for upholding their wonderful traditions, please ask them, "Can Christendom then protect and uphold its traditions too without being scolded as 'racist'?" We must never miss an opportunity to point out multicultural historians' horrible hypocrisy.

1. Cumings, Bruce, Korea's Place in the Sun: A Modern History, (New York: W. W. Norton, 2005), 464.
2. Ibid. 448.
3. Ibid. 456.
4. Ibid. 452.
5. Ibid. 462.
6. Ibid. 207.

Monday, September 30, 2013

The Man Who Wasn't There - The Culturist Film Review

The Coen Brothers' 2001 masterpiece, The Man Who Wasn't There, is a critique of the emptiness of modern life. It follows a barber (Billy Bob Thornton) who is barely connected to the events and people in his life; he doubts the basic assumptions of the 1950s society that surrounds him and finds them strange. And, while it is obvious that he, as the title character, is 'the man who wasn't there,' I would like to posit an alternative suspect – Jesus is the man who wasn't there.
Whereas others around him "just talk" the barber seeks answers to life's deepest questions – in hair. He wonders where it comes from, "it just keeps growing," he observes laconically. When he may be dying in a car accident, his possible last thoughts are about "the hair" (as he objectively calls it). After death, he wonders, "What keeps it growing?" Herein, we have a deep thought about the afterlife, the soul. He is blindly striving towards religion.
Being a noir film, the barber blackmails someone, kills him when the blackmailee attacks him, and is sent to death row. From there he tells us death takes you out of the maze, you see life whole, there is peace. As death approaches, he takes a higher perspective, looks up and sees that quintessential symbol of the 1950s, a UFO, in the sky, right where God should be; this marvel of the scientific age takes his confession. This is one of the obvious moments that hints that, in this film, the man who isn't there is Christ.
The Coens' black-and-white noir portrays the emptiness of "modern man" (as the barber gets called during his defense trial). Thus, the film implies that modern man should have a larger meaning and moral compass. Please follow me as I diagnose, and propose a cure for, the emptiness in modern Western society; it is a matter of life and death!

As the barber might intuit, Christendom, Western Civilization, has rung hollow since its name change. 'Christendom' implies a transcendent experience of the universe, as it ties us to our heritage; 'Western Civilization' conveys a longitudinal taxonomy, one in which there must be 'Eastern Civilization' and, likely, others, making it one of several. West is a direction, it is a hollow attribute! In basing itself on a cartographical taxonomy, the phrase 'the West' reveals its source, and thus the source of our malaise: the Enlightenment.
Gertrude Himmelfarb's important book, The Roads to Modernity, (stay with me here, this is a matter of life and death), shows that, though we only think of the French when we think of the Enlightenment, there were also British and American Enlightenments. As we only recognize the French one, it alone gets tied to modernity. If we recognize the British and American Enlightenments as 'roads to modernity,' we will have a much better world.
The French Enlightenment sought to recreate society using universal concepts based on reverence for reason that informed an obsessive hatred of Christianity. The 18th century British Enlightenment figures, by contrast, thought of society as formed by compassion, which gave us moral virtues that were compatible with religion. America's Founding Fathers led the American Enlightenment, and created a thriving republic that relied on religion to instill the virtues necessary to sustain it.
The British Enlightenment led to an explosion of charitable organizations; the American, a just republic. The French Enlightenment, by contrast, smashed the Church, which ended France's only social programs. And, when man did not conform to rational designs, the French Enlightenment led to the guillotine terror. And, though Himmelfarb does not discuss it, the God-abstracting German Enlightenment led to the Holocaust.
Rather than "naked reason," Edmund Burke (1729-1797), the British Enlightenment figure and major culturist icon (who denounced the French Revolution), saw liberty in America and Britain being based on "English ideas and on English principles." Instead of exploding parochial prejudices – such as Christianity – with "reason," he suggested we affectionately embrace them, recognizing the time-tested "wisdom and virtue" in them. (1)
Rather than Burke's tradition-embracing English Enlightenment ideal, the Coen's barber employs a French Enlightenment-style critique which subjects all to reason. Reason might tell us that our ways are irrational; Voltaire(1694 – 1778) mocked the Pope as a man with a funny hat in Italy. (2) But 1950s haircuts, our Christian religion, our particular national heroes, our traditions – as Burke and America's founders knew – sustain our liberties by guiding us; we must appreciate them and hold them as dear as our lives.
The barber and his wife (Frances McDormand) do go to church in the film – to play bingo. As she plays, he laconically narrates; "I doubt if she believed in life everlasting. She'd most likely tell you that our reward is on this earth. And bingo is probably the extent of it." Perfectly, the wife then wins, stands, and shouts "Jesus, Bingo, Bingo!" Thus the Coen Brothers brilliantly highlight the random, God-ignoring characteristics of the French-based modernist ideals we have accepted.
We must realize that Christianity, embracing our heritage, and modernism are not incompatible. While not suggesting that we all become evangelicals (not that that would be a bad thing), we might start referring to 'the West' as 'Christendom' again; it will remind us of the man who isn't here in 'the West,' connect us culturally (mitigating the barber's alienation), and ground us in historical virtues (helping him make better decisions), while supporting our liberties (keeping the State from having to fry us, like the barber, in its electric chair).
1. Himmelfarb, Gertrude, The Roads to Modernity: The British, French and American Enlightenments (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 2005), p. 87.
2. Voltaire, L'Ingenu, 1767.

Tuesday, September 24, 2013

Culturism and the League of Nations

The League of Nations’ had a body devoted to protecting minority rights in the newly configured states following World War I: ‘The Minority Question Section.’  In 1945, its director, P. De Azcarate, wrote a book about it, ‘The League of Nations and National Minorities: An Experiment.’  The League of Nation’s proto-multiculturalism experiment proved difficult.  The reasons teach us valuable culturist lessons, even today. 

The League of Nation’s ‘Minority Section’ tried to enforce multiculturalism on the principle of “equality.” Here, Mr. Azcarate is very perceptive.  He sees two types of equality: “Negative equality,” protects the minority against unfavorable discriminatory treatment;  “Positive equality” requires funds to maintain minority cultures via minority language schooling and such.

Negative equality, the League found, can be difficult to adjudicate.  Azcarate tells of Yugoslavian police targeting minority Macedonians.  The Macedonians complained to the Leagues’ Minority Section.  The discrimination was real.  But, the Minority Section found that the ‘Macedonian National Committee’ engaged in “terrorist and revolutionary” activities funded by the neighboring state of Bulgaria.[i]  States violating negative equality rights is understandable when hostile foreign neighbors fund terrorists in your territory. 
Recent scholarship, resting on the general consensus in western society, chafes at the prospect of any ‘negative’ discrimination.  But, negative discrimination, such as that preventing Jews from being allowed to hold certain positions, used to be a norm for western states.[ii]  As a Jew, I consider these prohibitions unreasonable overkill.  But, I understand the logic.  I would not want a Muslim to be Britain’s Minister of Defense or Secretary of State for Education.  Even Azcarate himself noted that it was sometimes reasonable to limit minority access to, “public posts, functions, honors, military ranks, etc.”[iii]

Positive equality includes giving minorities the right to "manage and control ... charitable, religious and social institutions, schools and other educational establishments" with their own minority language and religion.4 The problem was that hostile foreign nations would fund these cultural institutions and write curricula that fostered hatred towards the majority culture in the states within which the minorities resided. Germany, for example, pushed a pro-Germany, anti-Polish history curriculum in Poland. Azcárate labeled Germany's use of the multicultural curriculum a "formidable weapon."5
In no situation did the League of Nations' Minority Section, according to Azcárate, regard having minorities as a boon. At best, he reports the presence of minorities as neutral in impact; but usually it is a source of friction. He laments that having minorities was inevitable due to the mixture of people in the Balkans. In Transylvania, for example, the wealthy landholders were Hungarian, while the peasants were Romanian. The two could not be easily torn asunder. But this was seen as a potential for discord, not a reason to celebrate.
According to Azcárate, only one pair of nations made a large decision to counter multiculturalism: Greece and Turkey. Rather than live together, in 1923, these nations exchanged minorities. Greece sent around 500,000 Muslims to Turkey and about 1.5 million Anatolian Greeks were repatriated.6 Thus the only major population exchange Azcárate mentions was between civilizations. Europe's edge was the limit of the League's multicultural experiment.
Mr. Azcárate said that the League's Minority Section "should be not only entirely impartial but free in its origins and constitution from all taint of injustice or privilege."7 To be effective in its multicultural implementation, the League had to be seen as neutral. But, the League itself limited the processing of minority complaints because states that were accused of discriminating too often might leave the League of Nations. Furthermore, Azcárate repeatedly blames Germany for using the Minority Section to rile up Germans in Poland in the years leading up to World War II. We all know how that ended. Even the League wasn't impartial.
Written just after World War II, Azcárate's documentation of the League of Nations' early multicultural experiment with impartiality struggles to help us past minority-majority conflict. In the context of World War II, the book's list of limits to plurality is haunting. The West's current impartiality stance was developed in Francis Fukuyama's 1992 book, The End of History and the Last Man.8 Written as the Soviet Union collapsed, Fukayama argued that western democracy and free markets won the Cold War, so now ideological struggle had ended; the whole world now agreed on liberal values.
Impartiality is an impossible, dangerous, and ubiquitous modern western value. Multiculturalists aim at a culturally neutral government via enforcing negative and positive equality domestically. Internationally, the West takes no side in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. But history has not ended. As Germany used the League of Nations' Minority Section as a "formidable weapon," Islam uses multicultural impartiality and our globalist stance for aggressive purposes. We need to get wise. The West must reject multicultural, globalist neutrality for a realistic culturist preference for our traditional majority culture(s).
1. Azcárate, P. De, League of Nations and National Minorities: An Experiment, (Washington, D.C.: Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, 1945), 68.
2. Fink, Carole, "Defending the Rights of Others: The Great Powers, the Jews, and the International Minority Protection, 1878 – 1938," (Cambridge: Cambridge University, 2006).
3. Azcárate, P. De, League of Nations and National Minorities: An Experiment, (Washington, D.C.: Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, 1945), 142.
4. Ibid. 73.
5. Ibid. 151.
6. "Population Exchange Between Greece and Turkey",
7. Azcárate, P. De, League of Nations and National Minorities: An Experiment, (Washington, D.C.: Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, 1945), 27.
8. Fukuyama, Francis, The End of History and the Last Man, (New York: The Free Press, 1992).

[i] Azcarate, P. De, “League of Nations and National Minorities: An Experiment,” (Washington, D.C.: Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, 1945), 68.
[ii] Fink, Carole, “Defending the Rights of Others: The Great Powers, the Jews, and the International Minority Protection, 1878 – 1938,” (Cambridge: Cambridge University, 2006).   
[iii] Azcarate, P. De, “League of Nations and National Minorities: An Experiment,” (Washington, D.C.: Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, 1945), 142.