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 ( ebakker@icct.nl).  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.

PUT MUSLIMS WHO PRAY IN PUBLIC ON THE EU TERRORIST LIST

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.

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.

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).

References

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.

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",http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/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.

The Hindu Culturist RSS

British culturist should learn from Hindu culturists. Hindus have been promoting their traditional majority culture in India, as well as combating traitorous Muslims, since the 1890s.  In particular, we should emulate their organization named the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS), meaning the ‘Association of National Volunteers.’  The RSS is said to be the largest voluntary organization in the world.

The RSS is a grassroots culturist educational organization. Culturism is the science that acknowledges, promotes, and defends traditional majority cultures. As such, culturism is the opposite of multiculturalism – which denies traditional majority cultures’ existence and status. Thus, as culturists, the RSS teaches about Hindu culture and promotes the fact that India is a Hindu nation.

The RSS was started by Keshav Baliram Hedgewar in 1925.  The occasion?  During the annual Ganesha festival, Muslims complained that restrictions against music in front of mosques were not being enforced.  In the face of Muslim intimidation, Hedgewar led troops of young men playing music in front of the mosques. 

Hedgewar noted that Hindus were too easily cowed by the Muslims.  The RSS was started to instill Hindu consciousness and strength into the timid Hindus.  Thus from the beginning the all-male RSS included physical exercise, military drills, marches and weapons training along side Hindu ideological inculcation.[i]  The youth wear uniforms. 5 – 6 million members of the current Indian population have been educated by the RSS. 

This video shows what the RSS looks like in action:

The RSS has some affiliated spin-off groups. The Rashtra Sevika Samiti is the RSS's women's group. It has 3,500 branches. The Akhil Bharatiya Vidyarthi Parishad is the student wing. They combat leftist or 'polluting' influences in education. The Vanavasi Kalyan Ashram is the religious affiliate of the RSS. They help people convert back into Hinduism from Christianity and Islam. There is a teachers' council and an RSS affiliated organization dedicated to helping the poor.

Some detractors have likened the RSS to a fascist organization. For one thing, the RSS does not condone ethnic cleansing or genocide. Another difference is that the RSS is strictly non-political. Fascists wanted to control the state; the RSS does not even officially back candidates.²

Despite not engaging in politics, as the RSS was founded in 1925, many of its former and current members now promote Hindu culturism from positions of power. In fact, India's second largest political party, the BJP, came to power with tacit approval from the RSS, loaded with RSS members, and championing the RSS's culturist philosophy.

The RSS refrains from politics because politics corrupts organizations. Political parties have tried to use the massive RSS presence in India to get votes, and then turned their back on the RSS's culturist agenda. If the RSS became political, it too would have to dilute its pro-Hindu message. The RSS's founders understood that India needed to come to understand itself as a Hindu nation before culturist reform could happen via political channels.

India's government is aggressively multicultural. They call this position 'secularism.' But in practice, 'secularism' means that the government denies that Hinduism is India's majority religion and supports minorities rights – specifically in the form of subsidies for mosques and set-aside government seats for Muslims.

The 'secularist' (multicultural) Indian government calls the RSS 'communalists' – we would say 'culturists' – for promoting Hinduism and Hindu identity. As one book explained, "communalism is akin to racism and anti-Semitism."³ So the government calls Hindus, who wish to promote the traditional majority Hindu culture in India, "racist." Sound familiar?

The Indian government has banned the RSS several times, because they promote the idea that India's Muslims are a foreign and potentially dangerous group. Well, Islamic invaders ruled India – often with incredible brutality – for centuries before the British showed up. And Islamic terrorism intent on establishing Muslim dominance continues to this day in India. Cultural diversity is real! As such, it is neither unreasonable nor irrational to ask India to recognize Islam's violent propensities and basic historical facts.

The RSS calls Muslims foreign residents because the Muslim holy land is not in India. Sikhs, Jains, and Buddhists, the RSS founders noted, are a part of the larger Hindu community, because their religions are indigenous to India, while Islam's "holy land is far off in Arabia or Palestine."⁴ As culturists, the RSS wishes the Indian government would officially recognize that India is the one and only homeland of Hinduism and related religions.

Again, the RSS does not advocate ethnic cleansing or anything like it. The multiculturalists tactic of calling people a hate group for recognizing cultural diversity and noting traditional majority cultures is identical in India as it is in Britain.

Throughout many bans, the RSS has continued building character and Hindu identity with its educational programs. By coupling educational efforts with disaster relief, the RSS has won the hearts of many of the people. Thus, friends of the RSS win elections. And, as a result, the RSS, with its long-term educational vision, has assured that Indian culturists will continue to have a loud voice in India's multicultural government for the foreseeable future.

For those who worry that culturism promotes cultural relativism, please note that I am not advocating that British youth start promoting Hinduism. The RSS classes are run by men who take vows of celibacy and dedicate their entire lives to the RSS, based on the traditional Hindu Guru model. That would not work in Britain! However, indigenous western culturist youth groups, such as the English Defence League, might consider being better organized to promote their culturist agenda. In this regard, India's culturist RSS provides a very good model.

------

1. Bhatt, Chetan, Hindu Nationalism: Origins, Ideologies, and Modern Myths, (Oxford International Publishers, Ltd., Oxford, 2001), p. 119.

2. Jaffrelot, Christophe, The Hindu Nationalist Movement in India, (New York: Columbia University Press, 1993), p. 58.

3. Mukherjee, Aditya, Mukherjee, Mridula, and Mahajan, Sucheta, RSS, School Texts and the Murder of Mahatma Gandhi, (Los Angeles: Sage, 2008), p. 19.

4. Savarkar, Vinayak Damodar, Hindutva: Who is a Hindu?, (Bombay: Veer Savarkar Prakashan, 1923), p. 113.

---

[i] Bhatt, Chetan, Hindu Nationalism: Origins, Ideologies, and Modern Myths, (Oxford International Publishers, Ltd., Oxford, 2001), p. 119

Culturism and Cultural Relativism - Domestically

Culturism: The philosophy and science that acknowledges, promotes, and defends traditional majority cultures.  

Some people hesitate to use and spread the words ‘culturist’ and ‘culturism,’ because they think they imply cultural relativism.  In a previous article, I showed that while scientific culturism doesn’t take sides internationally, western culturism does.  This article will look at culturism domestically.

Multiculturalists believe in cultural relativity.  They believe that Britain is neither Islamic, nor Thai, nor Hindu, nor English; it is a neutral space where lots of random cultures happen to co-exist.  British culturists recognize the fact that Britain has a traditional majority culture.   As such, culturism – unlike multiculturalism - is against cultural diversity domestically.

Volumes have been written on the content of western culture.  Here, suffice it to say that our culture has its roots in Athens and Jerusalem.  That is it is Enlightenment based and Judeo-Christian.  And, each western nation will have its own particular cultural heroes (King Arthur and Shakespeare in Britain, for example).   But, western culture is a specific and coherent culture.  It is not Islamic.  We do not celebrate Muhammad. 

Western culturism holds that democracy, freedom of speech, relative separation of church and state, respect for individual conscience, and women's rights are not universal values. These are values that the West nurtures and champions. While this may seem to be straying into topics of internationalism, the point is that our values are for us; Saudi Arabia does not have a right to build mosques in the West. Saudis are culturist, the West can be so too.

Western culturism is nestled. That is, that Britain lives within a larger context of European culturism. That is why the Nazis were evil. The Nazis contradicted everything that Socrates and Jesus stood for. Within the West we have specific values and we need to uphold them. Neither Germany nor Britain should violate our larger Western values. Culturism does not promote domestic cultural relativism.

The larger western context also restricts what is allowable in Britain. One might try to argue that parts of London are now traditional (majority) Islamic. But the existence of Islamic neighborhoods violates the larger tradition of British and western values; London being within Britain and Britain being with the West. So, unlike multiculturalists, culturists do not embrace domestic cultural relativism.

Ironically, being held together by a belief in individualism (among other values) western culture is hard to see; the Western culturist tradition puts limits on top-down cultural mandates. But the West has a traditional majority culture. We are against stupid theocratic systems like Islam (see the Greek-Persian Wars), and we are not Islamic (see the Crusades). Ours is not unlimited generic tolerance. It is western tolerance for western cultural expressions.

As outlined in my previous article, culturism does not promote cultural relativism internationally. Neither is it culturally relative domestically. Opposing multiculturalists, culturists acknowledge that the West has a traditional majority culture; Britain has a traditional majority culture. On British soil, only British curriculum, laws, and holidays should get official sanction.

Challenge the domestic cultural relativism of multiculturalism, spread the words 'culturism' and 'culturist.'

Culturism Does NOT endorse Cultural Relativism

Culturism: The philosophy and science that acknowledges, promotes, and defends traditional majority cultures.  

Some people hesitate to use and spread the words ‘culturist’ and ‘culturism,’ because they think it implies cultural relativism.  “If culturism is the philosophy that protects, promotes and defends traditional majority cultures,” they ask, “do western culturists need to celebrate Pakistani culture in Pakistan?”  The answer is an emphatic “NO!”  This article will explain why. 

As a science, culturism is normative.  That is, it describes reality without adding a value judgment. Scientific culturism does not argue that it is either good or evil that traditional majority cultures protect, promote, and defend their traditional majority cultures.  It is just a factual observation: All nations are, and all tribes have always been, culturist. 

Pakistan practices culturism.  We say this without celebrating it or denigrating it.  Think of physics.  England’s Sir Isaac Newton discovered gravity.  Objects with mass attract objects with mass.  To note this is not to celebrate gravity.  To note that Pakistan is culturist is not to celebrate it.  The observation simply confirms that fact that all non-western nations are (as we used to be) culturist.

What does follow from this scientific culturist observation, however, is that it is unnatural for the West to be the only place in the history of the world where culturism is not practiced.  

And, in truth, the question we should ask is not, “will Pakistan be culturist if we accept culturism as a political norm?”  It is a scientific culturist fact that Pakistan will be culturist regardless of whatever we say (same for China, Mexico, etc).  The only meaningful question is “Will the West go back to being culturist or stay multiculturalist?”

“But morally,” our skeptic might continue, “doesn’t acknowledging culturism as norm mean that Pakistan’s culturist policies are normative?  Are correct? Within Pakistan’s borders?”

Again, our main question should not be, "Will Pakistan continue to be culturist if the West is culturist?" They will be culturist regardless of what we think. We need to worry about the West being culturist. That is the real question. But let's take the question at face value, despite its irrelevance.

Here I must answer, not from the point of view of scientific culturism, as an objective scientific observer, I must answer as an interested western culturist – as a person of the West. The question of western culturists approving of Islamic culture in Pakistan underestimates just how deeply culture penetrates our souls. As a westerner, I cannot help but be disgusted by Islam's theocratic, anti-gay, anti-women culture. It disgusts me to my bones. From a western culturist policy perspective, I want and will continue to promote western values worldwide. Islam horrifies me.  

From a scientific culturist position, I must accept that Islamic nations will continue to attempt to promote and expand their culture into our lands. It is a scientific culturist truth that all nations try to expand their power. But, as scientific culturists we also note that cultural diversity is real. Culturists are not surprised that the attempt to militarily turn Afghanistan and Iraq into secular progressive states have not succeeded.

"Ultimately, though, does culturism just see values as a matter of 'he said, she said?' Can it never tell us which side is right?'" From a scientific culturist point of view, the answer is "No, scientific culturism cannot tell us which side is right or will win." Scientific culturism just objectively notes there is an inter-cultural fight between Islam, the West, and China. It notes techniques all sides use. It does not say who will win. In fact, scientific culturism would predict that if the West does not quickly replace multiculturalism with culturism, it will lose.

But, as a western culturist, as a western person, I am not at all objective. I pray and work to see that western culturism wins. Unfortunately, despite our scientific analysis, for us real, living-breathing, individual humans there is no neutral cultural ground. I am western (not a 'citizen of the world'), and would rather die than submit to or live under Islam's horrible, sexist, anti-gay, anti-western, theocratic, dogmatic, nightmare of a system.

Culturist and Nationalist Must Stop the Globalists’ War in Syria

We must all worry about Barak Obama dragging us into the middle of the Syrian conflict.   This globalist politician has justified this possibility with ‘human rights’ rhetoric.  Knowing the difference between nationalist and culturist foreign policy, on the one hand, and globalist human rights policy, on the other, will aid our efforts to stop America’s entry into this Muslim civil war.

Obama has been discussing attacking Syria’s government because we should not tolerate the violation of “international norms.”[i]   His ally, the Prime Minister of the UK, David Cameron, said the “world should not stand by” as the Syrian government uses chemical weapons against its own people.[ii]    As globalists – equally concerned with all parts of the planet – both Obama and Cameron want to fight in Syria to protect human rights and internationalism.

The looming strike on Syria could be denounced from both nationalist and culturist premises.  The American nationalist perspective is a fine doctrine wherein we only fight when America’s national security is threatened.  Culturist foreign policy would have us protect our friends as well.  In this culturism is slightly more belligerent than nationalism.  But, the ‘human rights’ foreign policy justification that Obama suggests requires us to go to war every time someone’s ‘human rights’ are violated. 

‘Human rights’ is a vague phrase; it certainly doesn’t refer to American interests; it doesn’t even refer to the survival of the West; in fact, it is culturally neutral.   Whereas globalist human rights advocates see no borders, culturists see the world as divided along cultural lines.  Furthermore, culturism sees these sides as being in competition.  Syria, from a culturist perspective, is on the Islamic side; whereas America is on the western side.

Culturism, again, flatly rejects globalism while augmenting the nationalist perspective. From a purely nationalist perspective, America and Britain have nothing in common.  From a culturist perspective, these two nations share a common identity as a part of the West.  Thus culturism provides the West with a parallel concept to the Islamic concept of “Ummah,” (meaning larger Islamic community that transcends nations); culturism transcends our national borders.

Culturist foreign policy is based on protecting the West.  If Australia, for example, were being attacked by an Islamic nation, strict nationalists would argue that America stay neutral (Australia and America are different nations).  From a culturist perspective, western nations should protect each other as they are culturally linked.  Additionally, western culturists argue that when Christian minorities in Islamic nations are being killed - if we have the means – we should consider protecting them.  Thus, culturists would have American nationalists consider “western interests.”

In reality, culturists and nationalists often agree upon American interests.  Whereas strict nationalists might stay isolationist as Muslims attacked another western nation, many nationalists would not.  But globalists’ human rights foreign policy is anathema to both American nationalists and culturists.  Human rights globalists would have us disregard parochial considerations such as American or western interests.  Again, this very week globalist politicians are seeking to draw America into a Muslim civil war to protect human rights.

Culturists and nationalists must unite against the proposed globalist war in Syria.  American nationalists must tell the public that Syria’s civil war has nothing to do with our nation.  America cannot go further into debt to protect non-American “global citizens.”  Culturists must remind the powers-that-be that Muslims are our enemies in the clash of civilizations.  Moreover, culturists must point out that the Syrian rebels have been attacking Syria’s Christians.

United, American nationalist and western culturists can stop the proposed globalist military action in Syria that Obama is launching in the name of global human rights.

---

[i] http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/08/29/obama-advocates-for-shot-across-bow-in-syria-as-congress-says-wait/

[ii] http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-23883427

Burn After Reading, the Culturist Review

The Coen Brothers' film, Burn After Reading (2008), is about what happens when our Christian God leaves public life – the government fills the vacuum and people become 'morons'. The film speaks directly to Liberty GB values, culturally. For fun and profit, culturists need to watch this film, study it.

In the opening scene we come from a God's eye view of Earth to the CIA headquarters. Therein, John Malkovich gets fired from his job as a CIA Balkans analyst. He says his firing is a crucifixion and stands with his hands out wide. He is Jesus. In the very next scene he's being asked about picking up "cheeses" (Jesus) because the Pharaohs are coming to dinner. Fun stuff.

The political messages are subtle but strong. On a boat at sea, Malkovich tells his silent father (God) that he quit his job because it is not the same as when he (God) was "in State." Malkovich's Jesus character guesses that perhaps it is the end of the Cold War (when we were fighting Godless communists). Now government seems to be "all bureaucracy and no mission."

As for politics, it is interesting that Jesus (Malkovich) calls himself a good analyst of the Balkans. Indeed, removing God from our Balkans analysis led to NATO backing Muslims against Christians in that region. When Linda Litsky, who we'll meet in a moment, gives secrets to the Russians she is apathetic concerning ideology. But, rather than political, the film's sadder message is how shallow Western society has become in God's absence.

The sadness of modern persons gets dramatized by the aforementioned Linda Litsky (Frances McDormand), who needs money to "reinvent herself." Specifically Linda Litsky needs to pay for four cosmetic surgery procedures because she's "gone about as far as I can go with this body." These surgeries include a lift on her eye area, which she calls "the window to the soul." Her employer at the gym "Hardbodies," a retired priest, tells her that perhaps someone might love her as she is. But Litsky seeks to be born again via surgery.

Linda Litsky sees an opportunity to get her surgeries paid for when she and her equally comical co-worker, Brad Pitt, find a top secret CIA CD ROM on the bathroom floor. Litsky and Pitt blackmail the person who lost it, John Malkovich, Jesus. Litsky and Pitt demand money for being "good Samaritans" and returning the CD. That is, these gym employees blackmail Jesus (Malkovich), using his found  information (CD) to get money. Cultural degradation to the extreme.

When the blackmail ploy fails, Linda Litsky has nowhere to go. She doesn't believe in the West, as evidenced by her giving secrets to the Russians. And, not being religious, having sold Jesus' information, she doesn't turn to God. Instead, she sadly calls the insurance company that has already rejected her request to pay for her surgeries. Tying Litsky to the CIA rather than God, she repeatedly pleads for an "agent." This false prayer portrays modern man's pathos beautifully.

Here the film gives a strong nod to British viewers. As MacDormand's Litsky finally gives up on the agent, the unofficial anthem of England, "Jerusalem," plays in the background. The William Blake poem the English anthem recites, also named "Jerusalem," asks if Jesus had actually been in England. And Blake's poem encourages us to fight to get religion back into England's collective soul. The satirical sadness of Linda Litsky of Hardbodies illustrates the void Liberty GB's cultural focus seeks to address.

Burn After Reading? 'Burn' fat at Hardbodies gym after 'reading' the Bible? What of this title?

In the final scene a CIA chief learns that Jesus (Malkovich) has been shot and is in a coma with no brain function. The chief calmly says, "Good. Great." The chief continues, "If he (Jesus) wakes up, we'll worry about it then." He says he doesn't know what the CIA did to create such a mess. Then the chief concludes the film's dialogue saying, "Jesus f***ing Christ" and closing the case book. The film returns to the opening's God's-eye-view, letting us know someone's watching from up higher.

As the film displays so well, our detachment from our Judeo-Christian inheritance leaves us diminished in meaning, beauty, and elevation. For national enlightenment, Liberty GB needs to answer Blake's question about Jesus having been in the West in the affirmative.