Add to Technorati Favorites

Wednesday, July 24, 2013

Multiculturalism Killed Trayvon Martin


    As you may have heard, an unarmed 17-year-old black American, Trayvon Martin, was shot and killed by a 29-year-old half-Hispanic man named George Zimmerman in the United States.
    The facts behind this shooting point to several reasons why culturists support point 10 of Liberty GB's Ten Point Plan, which reads:
    Promote British values and assimilation, rather than multiculturalism and division.
    Black Americans are seven times more likely to commit murder, and eight times more likely to commit robbery, than white Americans. And that isn't irrational racism, it's a culturist statistic. The fact that black crime rates vary greatly by region and area proves that this is a cultural phenomenon, not a racial one. Sanford, Florida, where Zimmerman killed Martin, has one of the highest crime rates for a city its size in the U.S. Culturist profiling of young black men in Sanford could literally save your life.
    The leftist media loved the Zimmerman/ Martin story as it provided evidence for the white racism charge they use to justify their multicultural programs. The Left notes disparity in economic and educational achievement, domestically and internationally, and claims it is evidence of 'institutional racism.' They then call for 'social justice.' They use accusations of 'social injustice' to create anger in youth, communities, and nations. The violent demonstrations following the Zimmerman verdict stem directly from the Left's tactic of using inequality to justify anger.
    Differences in cultural behavior patterns explain differences in achievement much better than the charge of 'institutional racism.' Multiculturalists slandering all who would speak critically of cultures as 'racist' makes us afraid to discuss the negative results of some forms of cultural diversity. We cannot say black Americans fail in school because they do not do homework. We cannot note that black youth are treated as gangsters because they commit crimes. But such honest culturist discussions could help move subcultures from anger to self-reflection, and from despair to a sense of responsibility.
    Liberty GB's assimilation plank is not only against division, it is against the Left's angry revolutionary Marxist brand of division, wherein we either have complete equality or a 'racist' society that merits destruction. In promoting British culture, the plank acknowledges the benevolence of British culture. Thus rather than anger and defiance, Liberty GB's assimilation plank will instill cultural pride and the duty to help society via pro-social actions.
    The Left will say that Liberty GB's assimilation plank is racist because it does not simply 'celebrate diversity.' By countering with the word 'culturist,' we can steer them towards admitting the importance of cultural diversity in creating inequality. Add Liberty GB's forcing the Left to acknowledge British culture's greatness or denounce it front of voters, and the multiculturalists will be on the run. Such cultural honesty is too late to save Trayvon Martin. But it may save another generation from being victimized by the Left's dangerous Marxist multicultural rhetoric.

    Friday, July 19, 2013

    Culturist Victory at a Multiculturist Conference

    Read about "What being a citizen means" in this LibertyGB article.


    I recently spoke at a conference entitled, "Embracing Cultural Diversity, Learning to Live Together, Multiculturalism in South Korea." In the West we are used to conferences that celebrate multiculturalism and demonize its opposite, culturism, as 'racism,' and the title of this conference promised the same dynamic. But the conference organizers and attendees were refreshingly open to hearing both sides of issues. In this spirit, we discussed ideas it is vital for Liberty GB members to consider.

    It wasn't smooth. In lovely English, one of the MCs described the audience members as being in "total chaos of shock and embarrassment" after hearing a professor question multiculturalism. People gulped as the professor asked the audience to notice that the name of the country is "Korea." That implied that the country is for Koreans! "Wow!" We thought, "He said that." Think of the implications for Britain.


    Showing more nuance, the professor then argued that, due to cultural similarities, Polish immigrants were better candidates for assimilation into Western Europe than Muslim ones. Challenging dogma, he told us that dispassionately assessing quantitative impacts was more important than projecting a "liberal" image of "openness." After considering Western Europe's welfare costs, car burnings, and education challenges, he concluded that multiculturalist immigration policies bring an overall "disadvantage."
    The conference MC said that Korean students had not previously heard of the "dark side" of multiculturalism. In today's intellectual climate, such honest debate is a victory.
    Importantly, conference organizers asked us, "What is a Korean citizen?" A North Korean defector who spoke answered this clearly. The audience squirmed as he described the horrors of his escape. He eventually became economically stable in Vietnam. Still, he could not live without his people's language, foods and culture. So he underwent further horrors and the risk of re-capture to get refugee status in South Korea. In the West we have taken citizenship to be a culturally neutral matter of bureaucratic paper work. Even without paperwork, here was a real Korean.
    The Filipino Ambassador who spoke provided a telling contrast. He expressed irritation that only low-skilled Filipinos were allowed to work in South Korea. He applauded a delegation of Filipino guest workers that lobbied Korea's only foreign-born National Assembly member, Jasmine Lee, for more rights and visa changes. Were these demands made out of love for Korea, its people, past, and future? I suspect not. Real citizenship requires identification with, and an altruistic care for, your nation. The protestors showed themselves Filipino, rather than Korean, citizens.
    All in all, Korea has very sensible culturist immigration policies. In a nation of 50 million citizens, only 1.5 million are foreigners. Of the foreigners, the 200,000 involved in marriage can become citizens. People of Korean ancestry from foreign lands also have a route to citizenship. However, the rest of the foreign workers can only stay for a maximum of 5 years and cannot become citizens. Korea's traditional culturist laws can serve as a model for other nations.
    However, problems are on the horizon. Foreign workers routinely overstay their visas and illegally bring their families to Korea. A Bangladeshi speaker gleefully told the audience that by 2035, 15% of Korea would be foreigners. But it's worse than that. Korea's median age is 47. Immigrants have a high birth rate and Koreans have a dismally low birth rate. When you combine these facts with multiculturalism's salad bowl policies that discourage foreign assimilation, we can see that the Korean nation faces real dangers.
    In my talk, I directly challenged the Korean audience members. There are more unemployed Koreans than foreign factory workers. Was their love of country so small that they'd rather lose their nation than do factory labor? I believe that, as earlier presidents did, the current government needs to challenge the patriotism of Koreans rather than concede that multiculturalism is inevitable. Part of the reason Koreans don't work in factories is that they'd be the only Koreans in the factory. But, with a zero low-skilled immigration policy and patriotism in Koreans' hearts, this needn't be the case. Koreans have a choice.
    Rather than a typical western celebration of multiculturalism's total intellectual and policy dominance, this Korean conference entertained debate and allowed a diversity of opinions. My idea of replacing all foreign workers with Koreans may have been too strong and require modification. But the Korean participants' willingness to debate such cultural policies rationally, without slandering and excluding dissenters as 'racists,' gave me hope for their future. Armed with the terms 'culturism' and 'culturist,' perhaps Liberty GB can bring back needed, honest debate to Britain as well.

    Wednesday, July 10, 2013

    Culturist Reasons to Support LibertyGB's Commitment to Abolish "The Human Rights Act."

    The following article will explain why I, as a culturist, agree with Liberty GB's third point in its "Ten Point Plan to Save Britain." Please know that Liberty GB's publishing this article on their website does not imply any official support of my culturist reasons for supporting their plan.

    The plank reads:

    3. Abolish the Human Rights Act, which benefits only foreign criminals/ terrorists.

    The Human Rights Act (1998) applies the European Convention on Human Rights to UK courts. And it has resulted in horrors. Famously, it allowed Afghani plane hijackers to stay and work in Britain. But it isn't only the Human Rights Act that bothers culturists, it is the whole "human rights" regime.

    Rights have a metaphysical ring that offends culturists. Rights come from societies that (i) believe in them and (ii) can afford them. China can afford rights, but they do not believe in them. African nations may believe in a right to education, but cannot pay for them. In other words, rights are a cultural idea, but their existence requires a solvent nation.

    The phrase "human rights" should be replaced with the phrase "Western rights." Neither the Islamic world nor China believes in said rights. Only we do. If the West falls, will China fund human rights? Will Iran fight for them? If we want to safeguard "human rights," we need to protect the West. The phrase "human rights" dulls us to the unique nature of the West while it erodes our sovereignty. But dangerous policy, not just philosophy, follows this idea.

    Share this Culturist Political Platform

    IF YOU'RE IN BRITAIN, WORK FOR LIBERTY GB!!
     

    Wednesday, July 3, 2013

    The British Government Dissolves Itself

    (Reprint from LibertyGB)

    There is no British government.  It has dissolved itself.  It no longer exists. 
     
    Britain has a multicultural government.  A Multiculturalist “British” government is an oxymoron.  The government in the land called “Britain” is not, nor does it purport to be, British.  At best the government of the land of Britain sees itself as a neutral overseer of many cultures, of which the British culture just happens to be one.  As a multiculturalist government, the “British” government doesn’t favor the British culture in the land it controls, any more than it favors Islamic, Hindu or Sikh culture.  As a multicultural government, it is culturally neutral, not British.

    In fact, the situation is worse.  Being multicultural means the “British” government actively works to promote – dare I say it – “non-British” cultures in the land they govern.  To counter what it calls the “racist,” “bigotry” of culturists, the government funds festivals and film festivals for non-British cultural groups.  It must constantly tell the British people how wonderful Islam is and prosecutes those who would say otherwise.  It this way it can remind the population it rules, that nothing is truly British.  Rather than passive, the multiculturalist “British” government actively counters those who would claim Britain is British.

    In fact, the situation is worse.  The “British” government promotes diversity.  The “multi” in multiculturalism means more than two.  Thus a multiculturalist must work to reduce the traditional majority culture’s representation to, at most, 1/3rd of the population. In its dedication to cultural “diversity,” the “British” government actively seeks to reduce the demographic domination of the “British” people (their quotes not mine) by actively importing non-British peoples. Thus the British can reach its main objective, that of increasing diversity.

    A real British government would be culturist.  It would actively protect and promote British culture rather than deny its existence, legitimacy, and primacy.  A British government would not say that Britain is just as Islamic a nation as it is Christian. A British government would not punish culturists for saying Britain should be culturally British. A British government would promote British culture via public events and curriculum. A British government would not work to foster cultural diversity by importing millions of “non-British” peoples.