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.

Multiculturalism Killed Trayvon Martin

Trayvon Martin, Culturist Profiling and Point 10 of Liberty GB's 'Ten Point Plan'

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.

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.

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.

Please read the rest of the article HERE at Liberty GB. While there read the rest of their articles. Get to know this political movement.