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.