Monday, September 6, 2010

Muslim Wants Culturist Discrimination Against Muslims in the Military

Through a wave of conflicting and ironic multicultural platitudes, Private First Class Nasser Abdo has made the case for, at very least, discriminating against Muslims in the military.  Abdo joined the military in April of 2009.  Since then, he has filed for conscientious objector status because, he says, one cannot be true to their Muslim faith and fight for the U.S. in Afghanistan.  He is right.  Private Abdo’s case perfectly illustrates why the military must drop multiculturalism and employ discrimination.[i]

Abdo’s multicultural hypocrisy is common when he claims that he was irrationally discriminated against while simultaneously asking for special treatment because his cultural differences are so significant that we should pay attention to them. When facing any discrimination, after calling you racist, multiculturalists claim that culture provides no rational basis for discrimination.  Multiculturalists, you see, do not really take culture seriously.  But, they then turn around and tell you that culture is very important when they want special treatment.[ii] 

Either we should take culture seriously or we should not take culture seriously.  Aldo makes a powerful case for discrimination when he tells the media that fighting in the US military runs counter to his “maintaining his Islamic faith.”[iii]

Of course, I do not hold out much faith that we’ll learn Abdo’s lesson.  Even after US Army Majory Nidal Hassan killed 13 people on a military base in the name of Islam, the military continues to enroll Muslim into its ranks. That is because politically correct multicultural thinking forbids all historical and logical thought that question its precepts by calling such thought intolerant, racist, and discriminatory.[iv]

Abdo showed just how completely multiculturalism has destroyed our ability to think when no one laughed at the obvious falsehood of his statement that, “Islam does not allow me to operate in any kind of warfare.”[v] In no forum has he been asked about the concept of Jihad.  Even Fox News blithely avoided editorial commentary on his quote that “"Islam is a peaceful religion, it's not a religion of warfare." And so, multicultural logic dictates that 1400 years of Islamic military expansion from Spain to India to 9 – 11 must be ignored to further the idea that all cultures adhere to the same values.[vi]

If we have any hope for learning about cultural diversity, it will have to come from Islamic media.  All non-Western nations assume a culturist, rather than a multiculturalist, perspective. They routinely take their culture’s side in textbooks, international diplomacy and, even, television.  While Aldo claimed that universal culture-neutral precepts embodied in Islam prevented him from being violent in our media, he told Al-Jazeera he wanted out of the US military because Islam told him he was, “forbidden to kill Muslims.”  The implication, of course, is that he could kill non-Muslims. [vii]

Wanting it both ways, again, multiculturalists often take the globalist tact of invoking the “world community.”  Abdo advocated stopping war in the Middle East by “coming together as a community and portraying Islam as the peaceful religion that it is.”  In this explanation he calls the Islamic community his community.  But immediately after he claimed we need “a spiritual approach, the community approach, the diplomatic approach” for peace in the Middle East.  Herein the world community has no sides.  Again, with multiculturalists and their globalist brethren, in one sentence culture exists and the next minute it melts away.  

Notwithstanding Abdo’s historical and cultural ignorance, the military must assume that the very fact of War negates the ideal of the “world community.”  The military, by its very nature, cannot entertain such multicultural pap.[viii]

When Private Abdo told his people via Al-Jazeera television, “I Don’t believe I can involve myself in an army that wages war against Muslims” he provided a slew of valuable culturist lessons. Cultural identity is important and conflict between civilizations persists.  This statement also gives lie to multiculturalists’ universal “global community” sentiment.  And, since the West’s wars will likely be against Muslims for the foreseeable future, Aldo’s honest and truthful estimation of the influence of culture on the individual provides adequate justification for keeping Muslims out of our military.[ix]  

For good measure, Abdo complained that in the military, “There were racial slurs.”  Well the obvious fact of the matter is that there were no racial slurs.  Abdo is white.  If there were slurs they were about his religion.  And religions are not races.  We can clear up this dangerous conflation by using the word “culturist.”  The slurs referred to his culture, not his race.  We should thank Abdo because he has not only shown us the irony in multiculturalists not wanting to consider culture unless they want special treatment, he has shown us how spurious their charges of racism are.

As a culturist, I concur with Private Aldo.  He and the Islamic Fort Hood massacre demonstrate that Muslims should not be in our military.  But to make this a policy, the military must drop multiculturalism’s blindness to culture in favor of culturism.  As its very reason is fighting conflicts between civilizations, the U.S. military cannot safely entertain the multicultural platitudes that have crippled civilian discussion and reasoning.  The military must separate irrational racism from rational culturism. Private Aldo declared that he could not, “Serve both the US Army and his God simultaneously.”  We must listen to Private Aldo.[x]  

John K. Press, Ph.D. is the author of the Book, “Culturism: A Word, A Value, Our Future.”  www.culturism has more information about culturism.

[i] Free Nassar Abdo Website,

[ii] The Atlantic Journal, History Repeats in Anti-Islamic Mood,

[iii] CNN Interview,

[iv] Wikipedia, Fort Hood Shooting,

[v] CNN Interview,

[vi] Fox News, U.S. Soldier, Citing His Muslim Religion, Seeks Conscientious Objector Status, Joshua Rhettt Miller, Sept, 02, 2010,

[vii] The Middle East Media Research Institute, August 21, 2010,

[viii] Interview with KPFA’s Aimee Allison,

[ix] The Middle East Media Research Institute, August 21, 2010,


Lexcen said...

I think one way to discredit multi-culturalism is to identify its origins in the ideology of communism.
The myth of equality has it's basis in the idea that everybody and everything is equal. A more in depth dissertation on this idea can be found here
As for the Muslim's just another example of the schizophrenic nature of the Muslim mindset where they plead for special consideration and yet claim discrimination.

The Baby Mama said...

Why is it such a conflict of interest to have a Muslim fight against Muslims in another country, but if America went to war against Germany (as an example), then that would be fine. If we're looking at culture, surely it would be a conflict of interest in both cases and yet somehow, in life, it is not viewed that way. I believe very strongly in being true to who you are - and having amazing respect for both Muslims and non Muslims who are true to their culture AND allow me the freedom to be true to mine. You can't expect or demand the freedom to be true to your culture and then deny me that very right.

Anonymous said...

I'm not sure I understand the 'culturism' thing. If this means mono-culturism, than that sounds forced to me. America, for example, has been a mish-mash of religions and cultures for hundreds of years. Even the British have, and they were our 'founding fathers'. To say that we should now adopt an overarching culture is ludicrous, and impossible. I think a social identity, and patriotism is separate to culture, or at least semi-detached. Sociologically, and psychologically, people do not want to be 'the same', we want to be different and unique. If our culture was the same, we'd find something else to separate ourselves.
The link between multi-culturalism and communism is weak--at best. Communism, if you looked it up, isn't all about equality.
I'm not sure what the deal is with this particular Muslim soldier. I would assume that he knew he *might* possibly have to fight in Afghanistan or Iraq at some point; so, if that is against his religion, he shouldn't have joined up in the first place.
And Christians are no less 'schizophrenic' than any other religion. Many Christians say that being gay is against God's law, because its written in Leviticus 18.22. However, how many Christians follow the rules about diet in the same book?

Anonymous said...

Is Wikipedia a valid source? I'm sure IF you have a PhD that your school taught you better than that.

Tehmina said...

Can you please define culturism to me first so that i can understand your shit better?

Summer said...



Anonymous said...

A few issues with this post, mixed with a few more I've gathered insofar from this site and the home page of Mr. Press.

"Aldo’s honest and truthful estimation of the influence of culture on the individual provides adequate justification for keeping Muslims out of our military" (Press 1). No, it doesn't. Firstly, one man's "estimation" is not enough to render the values cited in the Constitution useless. Secondly, if any individual feels that he or she cannot fight in a war, one might propose that they refrain from enlisting in the military. A single instance of hesitance from one individual, regardless of their religion, does not render an entire religious community hesitant with a biased support for the Middle East. In this post, examples are selected from very specific instances and used to promote unconstitutional, discriminatory, and (excuse me) outright vile thoughts against other members of the human race. The broader spectrum of the issue is not examined, nor even looked at, which suggests either a lack of real research, or a disregard to open-minded thinking directed toward problem solving. One might even suggest that the notion of culturalism is a problem. Other ways of life are something to be cherished and appreciated. Culture is not a weapon with which we work to annihilate other beliefs. It is not a tool to destroy generations of tradition and faith, however different those traditions may seem. And it most certainly does not fall to any one individual or group of individuals, however misguided, to spread discord regarding judgment on the human race. Turn it around, and wonder what would happen if another culture began seeping filthy ideas regarding your beliefs. I'd like to know what gives Mr. Press the right to condemn an entire religion with only a few kernels of poorly backed fact.

Lexcen said...

The Baby Mama, you value culture no matter which culture it may be. I suspect you are a multi-culturalist.
I also suspect you might believe that world peace is attainable if only we all join hands and feel the love.

Lexcen said...

As for what is communism? If it isn't about equality then it must be about inequality...where are you getting your information?

Damien said...


In all fairness, communism in practice is not equality, regardless of what it is in theory.

Lexcen said...

Excerpts from the article by Frank Ellis. The points I want to emphasize is the similarities between communism and multi-culturism.

Today, of course, we are made to believe that diversity is strength, perversity is virtue, success is oppression, and that relentlessly repeating these ideas over and over is "tolerance and diversity."

What we call "political correctness" actually dates back to the Soviet Union of the 1920s (politicheskaya pravil'nost' in Russian), and was the extension of political control to education, psychiatry, ethics, and behavior. It was an essential component of the attempt to make sure all aspects of life were consistent with ideological orthodoxy – which is the distinctive feature of all totalitarianism. In the post-Stalin period, political correctness even meant that dissent was seen as a symptom of mental illness, for which the only treatment was incarceration.

This, of course, is the beauty of "racism" and "sexism" for today's culture attackers – sin can be extended far beyond individuals to include institutions, literature, language, history, laws, customs, entire civilizations.

The charge of "institutional racism" is no different from declaring an entire economic class an enemy of the people. "Racism" and "sexism" are multiculturalism's assault weapons, its Big Ideas, just as class warfare was for Communists, and the effects are the same.

The purpose of these multi-cultural campaigns is to destroy the self. The mouth moves, the right gestures follow, but they are the mouth and gestures of a zombie, the new Soviet man or, today, PC-man. And once enough people have been conditioned this way, violence is no longer necessary. We reach steady-state totalitarianism, in which the vast majority know what is expected of them and play their allotted roles.

Ancient liberties and assumptions of innocence mean nothing when it comes to "racism:" You are guilty until proven innocent, which is nearly impossible, and even then you are forever suspect. An accusation of "racism" has much the same effect as an accusation of witchcraft did in 17th century Salem.

Multiculturalism has the same ambitions as Soviet Communism. It is absolutist in the pursuit of its various agendas, yet it relativizes all other perspectives in its attack on its enemies. Multiculturalism is an ideology to end all other ideologies, and these totalitarian aspirations permit us to draw two conclusions: First, multiculturalism must eliminate all opposition everywhere. There can be no safe havens for counter-revolutionaries. Second, once it is established the multicultural paradise must be defended at all costs. Orthodoxy must be maintained with all the resources of the state.

Lexcen said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Lexcen said...

Nasser Abdo, you are full of shit because Sunni Muslims kill Shia muslims and Shia muslims kill sunni muslims all the time.