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.

Share this Culturist Political Platform

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

 

The British Government Dissolves Itself

(Reprint from LibertyGB)

There is no British government.  It has dissolved itself.  It no longer exists. 
 

Britain has a multicultural government.  A Multiculturalist “British” government is an oxymoron.  The government in the land called “Britain” is not, nor does it purport to be, British.  At best the government of the land of Britain sees itself as a neutral overseer of many cultures, of which the British culture just happens to be one.  As a multiculturalist government, the “British” government doesn’t favor the British culture in the land it controls, any more than it favors Islamic, Hindu or Sikh culture.  As a multicultural government, it is culturally neutral, not British.

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

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

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

Shame: The Culturist Film Review

Ironically, the film “Shame” (2011) portrays the shameless life of a sex addict in New York City. Instead of funding this descent into filth, the UK Lottery funds should have bought and distributed copies of James Twitchell’s marvelous book, “For Shame: The Loss of Decency in American Culture,” (1997).

If I am being generous, the film “Shame,” shows the hollowness of modern consumerism. But the laconic lead, Brandon (Michael Fassbender) explores this dynamic with fewer words than Sylvester Stallone in Rambo V. Despite its lack of verbal insight, the film won award after award. One suspects, the critics were only celebrating its relentless portrayals of transgressions.

In contrast, James Twitchell provides thoughtful cultural analysis of the roots of shame. Employing sociobiology, he portrays shame as a near universal feeling with the biological components of blushing, lowering the head, and averting the eyes. The emotion being so visible to others indicates cultural survival value. For example, it used to keep westerners from irresponsible breeding.

Twitchell lays a lot of blame at the feet of television. Competitive pressures cause programmes to show relentless fun with zero consequences (ie; sex without STDs or pregnancy). And ratings rule all. People used to retire from tv when caught in unseemly acts. Now, they get rewarded with a reality show. So, advertisers’ biggest target, youth 18 – 34, have seen no consequences, boundaries, or shame in their young lives.

Consumer culture doesn’t stop at the television, Twitchell tells us. To attract audiences, Churches speak less and less of hell and more often sing of heaven accompanied by rock bands. Educational philosophy now forbids shame in the name of “self-esteem.” And males’ traditional parenting role of disciplining has been denigrated in favor of the feminine values of sensitivity and unconditional love.

The film “Shame” provides a perfect example of Twitchell’s contention that our culture now gives too much honor (the opposite of shame) to victims. The most significant line in the film comes when, just prior to her suicide attempt, the sex addict’s sister, (Carey Mulligan), pleads, “We’re not bad people. We just come from a bad place.” Poor evil, wretched filth; how sorry we should feel for them.

In the end, Twitchell recommends we bring shame back by denouncing and shunning ethical trash. As is the western tendency, his solution has an individualistic tint. Rather, culturists seek systemic reform such as changing school curriculum, rewards and punishments, inculcating cultural pride and honor with culturist border laws, and such. But, at very least, the UK Lottery should stop funding sex films, with no redeeming values, that parents would be ashamed to watch with their families, like “Shame.”

The Culturist Review - The Great Gatsby

When I say this will be “The Culturist Review” of the Great Gatsby (2013), I should write “The Culturist’s” review. The first person to earn the label “culturist” was Matthew Arnold (1822 – 1888). And, he would have quite a lot to say about the recent remake of F. Scott Fitzgerald’s book. Thus this review – packed with spoilers as it is – will feature the views of the culturist, Arnold.

Gatsby (Leonardo DiCaprio) searches for something true throughout the film. He thinks he has found it in the form of Daisy Buchanan (Carey Mulligan). But, she cannot love him because he is not of the aristocratic “Old Money,” crowd.

Rather, Gatsby he crawled up from poverty. He can only live in their lavish neighborhood and throw ridiculously crass parties because of profits from bootlegging and worse. But this crass display of conspicuous consumption does not impress his betters; Gastby is lowbrow in blood and taste.

Matthew Arnold lived during the peak of the industrial revolution. He recoiled at the proliferation of many Gatsbys equating money and values. And the glamorization of this class, led the middle class to also only worship money, and money only. “Where might cultural leadership come from?” He wondered.

Just prior to Arnold’s day, the aristocratic class – the House of Lords and such – had modeled breeding and morals for the populace. But in Arnolds time, they had assimilated downwards towards shallowness. And, here Arnold’s disillusionment parallels Gatsby’s. Daisy Buchannan chooses class over love. Her husband, with all his “Old Money,” plays polo, cheats on his wife with a gas station girl, and parties just as desperately as Mr. Gatsby’s guests.

Gatsby’s main meditation concerns the past – I think this is why he’s called “Great.” When he ran away from his poverty he made up an aristocratic past. Gatsby met Daisy in a small town before her marriage. When discussing his obsessive love for her, he always couples his love with desires to return to the past. He repeats, “Can’t repeat the past? Why of course you can.”

The Aristocratic class being permanently materialized, Arnold hoped public education would allow the middle class to become the new standard bearers for cultivation. This would come via connection with the past and the best that had been thought and said in history. Without the standards culture provided, the culturist Arnold opined, crassness would simply feed upon itself in a vicious cycle of dissatisfaction.

Ever the culturist, Arnold also argued that the West could find guidance in his new secular, literary reading of the Bible. Religion provides values that compete with money and materialism; rather than wealthy, it tells people to be spiritual.

While killing Gatsby – because he thinks him a sinful murderer – the murderer repeats “God sees everything.” And the eyes of God watch over the poor section of town. God likely appears in the poor area of town as the rich are too full of spectacle to see him. The moral act by Gatsby’s murderer also illustrates Arnold’s hope of values coming via infusing the masses with religion.

Arnold foresaw the emptiness of the lavish hedonism director Baz Luhrmann captures so well. But audiences, ironically, go to this film to enjoy this very hollow spectacle. Thus today’s audiences too partake in the shallowness of modernism; they too worship this very “eye of a needle” behavior that keeps the wealthy out of heaven.

Gatsby cannot go back to the past. The aristocrats that used to provide some connection with the West’s grandeur provide no road map. The film and book hint at his being Jewish, but Gatsby has severed ties with religion. As long as we do not get values from the past, religion, or some other source – as Arnold would tell us – the West will continue to slide into the decadence typified in Gatby’s long self-destructive vacuous hedonistic parties.

Culturists Celebrate an Election Landslide (In India)

The parade celebrating the victory of the culturist Indian BJP political party, started with a bang – literally.  A “bomb” firework about eight feet from me exploded.  As embers went down my shirt they burned my upper right back.  I call the BJP culturist because they hold to a variation of “Hindu Nationalism,” (which I’ll detail in another article). Celebrating this culturist victory in the streets of India was exhilarating. If I have a scar from celebrating the BJP political victory, I’ll wear it proudly.

The “bombs” and 30 foot long, six explosive wide, strings of fireworks, were repeatedly detonated as we wound our way through the small north Indian town of Rishikesh.  This aspect of the parade mimicked the main celebration of the major Hindu holiday “Diwali.”   We also painted each other red to duplicate the main activity of another major Hindu holiday’ “Holi.”   Thus, this combination of fireworks and paints replicated Hinduism’s two main holidays and so reinforced Hindu culture.

We marched to the constant pounding of 3 large Indian drums.  The traditionally-dressed women paraded behind the men as a group.  The genders frequently broke out in dance independently from one another.    And though the genders got jostled as we avoided “bombs” through narrow streets, traditional Hindu gender roles got reenacted via this aspect of our celebration.  Raised in progressive circles, the women celebrating a party dedicated to traditional roles, pleasantly warred with my assumptions.  But women frequently left their homes to dance with the parading women.

Often on the route, the hippie tourists would come out of their hotel rooms to look at the parading crowd and wave.  Between the bombs, drums, colors, and dancing, we made quite the impression.    The left leaning youth support, “the people,” in pseudo-Marxist solidarity.  If they actually knew that this was a local celebration of culturist nationalism, they would have hidden in revulsion.  Just earlier a close leftist friend had warned me that the June National Culturist Conference would contain NAZIs.

Most nations have been and are culturist.  The people support the traditional majority culture’s right to protect, promote, and defend itself.  The era of all indigenous peoples feeling bullied by the Cold War ended decades ago.  Culturist celebrations and identity trump the “globalist” social justice model the left assume “humanist,” “global citizens” desire. India is an overwhelmingly Hindu nation, thus the hippies should have guessed that a political party celebration would be for a culturist Hindu party.

As we wound through the streets, the winning candidates and the crowd stopped at Ashrams (Hindu monasteries).  As Rishikesh is a holy city on the Ganges, my town is packed with them.  At each the ashram head would emerge and exchange blessings with the new political bosses. Hippies, as they see Hindu political figures as holders of ancient wisdom far superior to the West’s, would have found this mix of nationalism and religion counter-intuitive.  But, Yogis must have contributed to my state’s Hindu Nationalists landslide – the BJP takes their culture seriously.

I danced and marched with the BJP for about two hours.  In every part of the town locals came out and waved and exchanged greetings with us.  At one point a child tore down a poster belonging to the opposition party. The elders scolded him. I detected no hostility by the culturist celebrants towards any minority group, Muslim or other. Good feelings and respect appeared to be the order of the day. No NAZIs, my leftist friend would have been shocked to see, appeared.

As a member of the National Culturists, this a culturist victory parade bolstered my spirits. Our political philosophy can lead to electoral victories and incredible parades.  The BJP is one of the two biggest political parties in India.  The National Culturists are not alone.

The Woolwich Beheading and the End of Islamophobia

As you know, recently two Muslim men beheaded a British soldier, in the name of “Almighty Allah,” in London.   In the name of the slain soldier, Lee Rigby, we must insist that all political correctness stop now.  Every person who uses the tired, dangerous phrase, “Islamophobia,” is complicit in the killing of Lee Rigby and must be confronted as such.

A phobia is an irrational fear.  But, Islam is a violent ideology that celebrates Jihad.  One of the killers’ Muslim names means, ‘Holy Warrior.’  To fear adherents to a violent ideology, of holy war, is not irrational; it is the very essence of the most rational of instincts, that of survival.  And those who would demonize our survival instinct are complicit in the murder of all victims of Jihad.

If someone uses the term, ‘Islamophobia,’ in your presence, yell at them, “Was Lee Rigby ‘Islamophobic’ as his Muslim killers approached him with a large knife after hitting him with a car?”  Scream out of anger!  “It is not irrational to fear people who are trying to kill you!”  Scream out of self-preservation!  Because this term ‘Islamophobia’ may literally kill you as it threatens your civilization.

Every time you go to an airport, you must go through heavy searching no matter what your demographic.  This massive inconvenience happens because we do not wish to appear Islamophobic.  Thus we risk our lives rather than deal with the fact that diversity exists and includes hostile, large, predatory, violent ideologies.  So to save your life, scream at those who use the term, ‘Islamophobic,’ “Were the people in the 9/11 planes Islamophobic during the hijacking?”

While you are at it, please scream violently at anyone who calls you ‘racist,’ when you mention Islamic violence and Jihad.  It is not funny.  The Muslims who inflicted holy war on the Boston Marathon were white.  Noting cultural diversity is rational, not racist.   Culturist profiling of Muslims at airports is neither racist nor, can it be argued after the beheading of Lee Rigby, Islamophobic.

The killing of cartoonists and filmmakers illustrates the danger Islam poses to our values.  Weekly worldwide Jihad proves Muslims’ willingness to kill for their ideology.  Think of the real danger posed by Islam; think of the victims around the world; imagine someone calling Lee Rigby’s widow and child ‘Islamophobic,’ if they – in their horrible grief – criticize Islam; – and scream at them as if your life depended on it.  In fact, it does.

Crafting State – Nations – The Culturist Review

“Crafting State – Nations: India and Other Multinational Democracies,” is an academic argument which refutes culturism. In the academic literature, nation refers to a people; State refers to the government. Thus, you can have a nation (a people) that wants a state. And, you can have a state with several nations living inside of it. In this book, Alfred Stepan, Juan J. Linz, and Yogendra Yadav argue that nations should use multicultural style arrangements to create stability and avoid secession.

Crafting State – Nations focuses on India. The Indian State, got the local states’ nations not to secede by giving them control over their own internal cultural and governmental affairs and the ability to use the local language in State government.  Furthermore, India’s central government bought off secessionist leaders with positions in the central government. This combination of autonomy and perks, froze secessionist movements and has resulted in high regard for the Indian government.

The authors suggest that, rather than foster attachment to the state by having it represent on nation - one historical people, governments should foster unity via having various nations unite via pride in the state - the government. Their ideal program is called Federacy. To avoid secession, the central state would give tremendous autonomy to the local cultural group’s government, the federacy. Under this model, the local federacy would have exclusive jurisdiction “over culture – making and culture – preserving powers, such as the right to establish the indigenous language as the official language.” The local people of the federacy, if satisfied with the central government’s administration, would feel loyalty to the state.

In my state of California 38% of all inhabitants are Latino and they are poised to become the majority. [i] The group, La Raza, is a secessionist group that has branches on every university campus. And 27% of California's inhabitants speak English either poorly or not at all. [ii] When diversity has its horrid effects, the authors would suggest California’s conduct all government and school programs in Spanish.  But, in our case, this would accelerate the current exodus of non-Latinos from the state. Such language policy, as they retell, may have helped stop the Indian state of Tamil Nadu's secession.  But India is 81% Hindu and so is Tamil Nadu. Allowing Tamil Nadu the ability to conduct local government in their language is, therefore, not so significant a rupture.

The authors show how a variation on the federacy model kept Catalonia in Spain. But here we are talking about two Catholic nations in one State. If we give exclusive jurisdiction “over culture – making and culture –preserving powers,” to Muslims in Denmark, will we not then have Sharia law enforced via the complicity of the Danish government? Is this not entirely contrary to western law? Worse yet, the federacy model grants local states the right to create “extremely restrictive immigration policies and to prohibit those citizens of the polity who are not citizens of the federacy from buying land or establishing commercial enterprises.” So this would create no-go zones for Europeans.

The central government would keep control of foreign affairs and war. But, the federacy could opt-out if the treaties adversely impacted them. To increase buy-in, the federacy citizens would have voting rights in the central government's elections, but those in the center of power would not be able to vote in the state governments. This is secession in all but name. Finally, an international force, such as the UN, would make sure the federacy got all its rights. This worked, as the authors tell us, with Norway and the Aland islands. But, any culturist could tell you having an international force impose a separatist Sharia-compliant zone in Norway would be a nightmare.

The authors note how this model really worked well in keeping the Mizoram peoples in India. But, using the same techniques, federacy did not work in nearby Nagaland. The difference? Mizoram had a perfect culturist formula wherein they had one language and their people (their nation) lived within their borders (their state). Thus, with the Mizoram, a binding treaty was possible. The Nagas,were multicultural, their leaders spoke different languages and the Naga people spilled over into neighboring states. Again, the background assumption of this book is that multicultural diversity can lead to bloody secession movements, and their examples inadvertently prove culturism is a great antidote to such chaos.

The authors call the minority cultural insurgents “cultural nationalists.” But, beyond this acknowledgement, the authors deny the importance of culture. In fact, they claim that their surveys showing that the 161 million Muslims in India are proud to be India and approve of democracy, disproves Samuel Huntington’s “Clash of Civilization” model. This shows, they claim, that Islam and democracy are friends. But, India is 81% Hindu. The only 13% Muslim population is spread throughout India, and only have a majority in Kashmir. The salience of Kashmir, the only Muslim state, being in rebellion, in defiance of federacy, is not lost on this culturist author. Amazingly, the authors read no significance into the Kashmiri cultural nationalists being called the “Muslim United Front.” Multiculturalists often miss obvious cultural dynamics.

Nor do the authors wonder what it would be like were India 81% Muslim. Their other effort to overlook Islam comes in their study of Indonesia. Here the Acehnese people wanted to secede in order to implement a more stringent form of Sharia. Using the federacy program, near total sovereignty was given to them. In turn they put down their arms. And the Acehnese are happy with the treaty. Yet, four scant years after the agreement, the government of Aceh passed a law punishing adultery with death by stoning. Also, terrorist camps have been found in Aceh. As Indonesia and the Aceh are Islamic, this might not be a problem. But, do we really want to have an international body enforce such cultural practices in Great Britain?

www.culturism.us