There are no “good” or “moderate” supremacists. Supremacists may employ more or less destructive tactics, but their adherence to a supremacist ideology itself is never “good” or “moderate.” History has shown that supremacists consistently reject the idea that humanity has an inalienable right to equality and liberty. By definition and as shown by history, every identity-based supremacist group rejects such human rights — including such supremacists as white supremacists, Aryan Nazi supremacists, and extremists. Therefore, American government leaders who are responsible for equality and liberty should categorically reject such supremacist groups, nations, and adherents, right?
Yet, in the case of extremism, our governmental leaders continue to fail in this responsibility. Moreover, it is not only just American government leaders in denial about such supremacism, but also American mainstream media, foreign policy groups, and other aspects of society have joined an army of appeasement on extremism which threatens the very foundation of equality and liberty on which our nation exists.
In the past several weeks, we have seen American government officials calling for “reconciliation” with extremists in Afghanistan, and listening to the counsel of those who state that America must negotiate with “reconcilable” aspects of the extremist Taliban. We have seen American government officials alternately ignore and defend Pakistan’s surrender to the extremist Taliban in the northwest portion of Pakistan, where Pakistan has agreed to the Taliban’s demand to implement extremist Sharia law. We have heard the deafening silence by such American leaders as Pakistan extremists denounce democracy and advocate global extremist rule, with such Pakistani “peace” negotiators echoing the very sentiments of Al-Qaeda itself — as Osama Bin Laden seeks “the greater state of Islam from the ocean to the ocean, Allah permitting.”
We have seen the calls by Senators Kerry and Lugar for Americans to provide billions of dollars to Pakistan as a reward for such a surrender on human rights and Pakistan’s recent release of an individual who sought to spread nuclear weapons technology to other extremist nations. Moreover, we have seen American government leaders invite those who seek such surrender on extremism to America’s national capital for discussions and for entertainment of congressional leaders who support engagement with the Muslim Brotherhood and other extremist groups.
We have seen a growing pattern of new individuals added to American government foreign policy with a history of appeasement on such issues. We have seen American media spin reports on polls of global Muslims who support the extremist objectives of Al-Qaeda promoted as Muslims opposing Al-Qaeda’s “terrorist methods.” We have seen America media repeatedly refer to the idea of a “good Taliban,” while such media ignore the growing global crisis of extremism in threatening human rights and lives around the world.
But the larger crisis point that continues to build is the growing gap between American government leaders and mainstream media leaders who are willing to appease supremacism and surrender on equality and liberty — versus a growing number in the American public that are willing to defy supremacism and be responsible for equality and liberty.
With every new embarrassment, with every new outrage by such appeaser government leaders and mainstream media, those responsible for equality and liberty are becoming more determined to prove that the appeaser crowd will not represent America.
Apologist speakers are outraged that “Americans do not know the difference between Islamists, who have a clear goal of creating a national Islamic state, and terrorists who call themselves jihadists.” They are outraged that we recognize that extremists are extremists, no matter what their tactics are. Such apologists seek those supporting freedom to surrender, saying: “the only way to win a cosmic war is to refuse to fight in one.” They fail to understand that being responsible for equality and liberty is a human responsibility that doesn’t end – and as we have fought supremacism before, we will continue to fight supremacism in the future. We are responsible for equality and liberty – yesterday, today, and tomorrow.
1. The Evil of Supremacism is Never “Good” or “Moderate”
Could you imagine being led in World War II by those who wanted us to believe that there were “Good Nazis” versus “Bad Nazis”? Or to try to distinguish between “Extremist Nazis” versus “Moderate Nazis”? Or seeking the evolution of Aryan Supremacist Nazism into becoming a “mainstream” political ideology for “reconciliation” of “moderate Nazis”?
Similarly, where would we be in America’s civil rights today, if our national confrontation against white supremacists was led by those whose idea of defending equality and liberty was to try to distinguish between the “Good KKK” versus the “Bad KKK”? Or to try to suggest that our national strategy should be based on recognizing the difference between “extremist white supremacists” versus “moderate white supremacists”? Or seeking the continued tolerance of white supremacism as a “mainstream” political ideology for the vague goals of national “reconciliation”?
Imagine further if appeasers rationalized that such “reconciliation” with supremacists could be achieved by addressing “historical grievances” by such groups. Such as, perhaps entertaining the Nazi “grievances” regarding Czechoslovakia and Europe, or their “grievances” with Jews? Or entertaining white supremacist “grievances” calling for “separate but equal” segregation, concerns about federal government “meddling” in local white supremacist-based laws, or their “grievances” with blacks? What if our answer to Nazis and white supremacists had simply been to provide them with more “economic development opportunities” in the absurd belief that this would make them abandon their supremacist ideologies?
Such ideas are obviously absurd. The very term “moderate supremacist” is an oxymoron. A “mainstream” political ideology of Aryan supremacist Nazism or white supremacism would still be inimical to the inalienable human rights of equality and liberty. History showed the determination of the allied nations to crush Aryan supremacist Nazism throughout Germany after the war. History shows the determination of Americans to crush white supremacism in this nation in the 1960s, a war of ideas that continues against the fringe remnants even today. In both examples of confronting and defeating a supremacist ideology, we did not cave in to those who would call for “reconciliation” with “moderate” supremacists to return them to power and influence. All the “economic stimulus” in the world for Nazis or white supremacists would have never brought them to embrace equality and liberty.
But such nonsensical suggestions are exactly the direction that many seek to take us regarding extremism — as shown by the arguments that there is a “good” (or “reconcilable” Taliban). Such supremacist appeasers seek to deliberately ignore the lessons of history and the logic that any adult living in a 21st century democracy should readily know.
Yet this completely illogical, historically disproven approach is precisely the direction where many in the foreign policy community seek to take us regarding extremism — a direction that we are continuing to see regarding many of most dangerous nations that harbor extremism in the world.
2. The War of Euphemisms (W.O.E., again)
Can you imagine the euphemism masters defining Nazi supremacists as “German nationalists” or defining white supremacists as “racial purity defenders”? In dealing with extremism, it is worse than that. Such appeasers refuse to even acknowledge that the ideology of extremism exists at all.
They start disavowing that extremism exists by seeking to re-label extremism as something more palatable to public, so that their argument to appease and ignore supremacism doesn’t sound quite so absurd. Instead of a war of ideas that would defend the inalienable human rights of equality and liberty, the appeasers pursue a war of euphemisms, to confuse the public and obfuscate on the threat of extremism. Instead of challenging the supremacists, such appeasers have chosen to attack those who would defend human rights instead, with the inane argument that defending inalienable human rights is not “culturally sensitive” to supremacists.
To be more “culturally sensitive,” such appeasers prefer to use such terms as “extremists,” “fundamentalists,” etc. They attempt to argue that extremist activities are actually “anti-Islamic” activities, and that we are really challenged by “takfiri” or “hirabah,” not “jihadists.” They would rather talk about individuals and specific groups, and when such groups have unquestionably shown to be supremacist, then they try to argue that such extremist groups are “regional” as opposed to “transnational.” The last thing they want to do is “generalize” about a larger problem that would point to an ideological struggle, when they can suggest that all the extremist issues in the world are nothing but an endless series of disconnected, “isolated incidents.”
If the appeasers are challenged on this, they seek to prove that they are the only “experts” on such issues, and that anyone without a Ph.D. in Islamic studies working for a Saudi-funded program can’t possible grasp the endless “nuances” involved in fighting “extremism – fundamentalism – whatever euphemism they choose today.” They don’t think it is arrogant in the least to argue that they are sole possessors of knowledge or insight on such issues. The last thing that they want is to dignify mass public concerns about such issues, when clearly they believe public is too ignorant to grasp the obvious lessons from history on this. These imams of euphemisms believe that they have the sole right to declare fatwas on what is and is not a threat to America and human rights.
In 2008, we saw the movement within U.S. government leadership and the foreign policy cliques towards a policy of a “War on Extremism” (W.O.E.), where no matter what happened, those responsible were always “extremists.” In April 2008, U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates embraced this idea declaring that “the enemy is extremism.” The group in the National Counter Terrorism Center who circulated a memo in March 2008 that stated when addressing extremist activity, government employees should never use such terms as “jihad,” “mujahedeen,” “caliphate,” or any term linked to Islam was (predictably) the “Extremist Messaging Branch.” None of them were embarrassed that 6 months prior to this, Osama Bin Laden himself came out as being against “extremists” — showing how utterly meaningless the term “extremism” was and remains today. Such a War on Extremism (W.O.E.) is part of a larger War of Euphemisms (W.O.E. again) that has continued into 2009 to try to suppress public debate on extremism and silence anyone who seeks to honestly identify the threat of extremism.
So now in 2009, we have gone beyond the national embarrassment of our leaders and government deliberately ignoring supremacist threats by simply calling them “extremists.”
We have now reached the pathetic state in the War of Euphemisms that our government leaders are listening to those arguing that there is a “good Taliban” and a “bad Taliban,” and incredibly, listening to calls by those who ask American government leaders to accept negotiations with “reconcilable” or “moderate” extremists.
3. The Nonsense of Negotiating with Supremacists
While many in the West for years have claimed that they “won’t negotiate with terrorists,” negotiating with supremacists is quite a different issue with some government leaders today, especially when they can control the public discussion enough with euphemisms to hide the fact that they are negotiating with supremacists.
But what exactly do you negotiate with supremacists about? Certainly not ideology, because supremacists are non-negotiable on their anti-freedom ideologies. So you are only left with negotiating about tactics, which is a particularly dangerous route when you are in denial and unwilling to define the threat and its ideology and unwilling to develop a strategy that addresses the overall ideological threat and enemy.
This remains the position of America’s government leadership when it comes to extremism. Refusing to acknowledging the ideology of extremism, such American government leadership’s focus jumps from country to country, group to group, situation to situation, throwing money and tactics to try to address the endless actions of extremists’ terrorist and political activities. A “war of euphemisms” forbids discussion on the “why” or the ideology behind such actions, focusing only on the tactics of the day, and the endless parade of details on “who, what, where, when” — always ignoring “why.” Such a desperate position of weakness devolves into a mere “whack-a-mole” approach of throwing whatever tactics sound good that day at the latest “crisis.” Such American governmental leaders are so under the control of “the crises” that they have resorted to discussions on negotiating with extremists, trying any tactic to try to “make things work.” Moreover, the appeaser influence in the foreign relations community is so pervasive that they have an endless parade of testimony and spin-doctoring of reports on facts about extremism, to ignore history, ignore the 9/11 Commission report, and ignore anything that doesn’t buttress the idea that hand-wringing negotiations with extremism is somehow a good and positive idea.
So what are America’s federal government leaders willing to sacrifice in terms of supremacist tactics to reduce supremacist terrorism?
Equality? Liberty? Human rights? Morality? Are these nothing more than bargaining chips with supremacists who threaten to use terrorist tactics?
Can you imagine if America’s federal government had decided to choose to negotiate with political “white supremacists” on tactics to stop white supremacist terrorism? Would it have been acceptable if America’s federal government negotiated with white supremacists to maintain segregated schools, public activities, and businesses, if “political” white supremacist leaders agreed to ask the KKK to stop blowing up black churches and stopped killing civil rights workers? Would such “peace negotiations” with supremacists have been morally acceptable to a nation committed to equality and liberty? And is there anyone so unschooled in American history to believe that such negotiations to institutionalize supremacism would have not led to even more supremacists and eventually more terrorism? In fact, Americans know from history that the Civil War was not enough. It took 100 years more of struggle to ultimately reach the national ideological confrontation with white supremacism to show the courage of our national convictions, and prove that we are a nation that believes that “all men are created equal.”
Is that commitment and sacrifice for sale now by those who would negotiate with extremists?
Do they, like the infamous Neville Chamberlain, believe that they can trade away land, human rights, hope for oppressed people, by letting supremacists grow in power and influence with the pleading hope that it will mean less terrorist threats for America? History also shows how those who sought to negotiate with Aryan supremacist Nazis fared, and the global tragic consequences for such moral failures to be responsible for equality and liberty. History shows that the appeasers of that generation, those who sought “peace for our time” at any price, allowed the Holocaust to happen, and allowed an ideology of supremacism to grow to where it could threaten not only Europe, but also attack the entire world. Every high school graduate knows this basic lesson in history.
But America’s federal government leaders who seek negotiations with extremists believe none of this history applies, and the lessons learned from those who sacrificed to defend equality and liberty should be ignored. Moreover, they will insist they are not fighting a threat of “extremists,” but merely a misunderstanding with some “extremists,” “fundamentalists,” “takfiri,” or whatever the euphemism of the day is. Furthermore, each extremist group is different they argue, with regional issues and grievances, and therefore we should disregard the endless calls for the creation of a global extremist caliphate, instead focusing on “local solutions” for isolated incidents. Should you point to the obvious, such government leaders will call upon an army of appeasers in the foreign policy community to spin their latest “engagement” report that says so. Rather than facing the facts, they create their own facts in a growing industry of appeasement that will brook no dissent.
4. We Won’t Take It Anymore – Supremacists and Their Appeasers Will Make Sure of That
Those who support such appeasement of extremism are dependent on the silence of the American public on these outrages. They feel empowered when they can make such outrageous claims as calling for “reconciliation” with extremists without massive public demand for their resignation or impeachment. They feel untouchable when they can publish and broadcast reports about a “good Taliban,” without public outcry from our veterans, their families, and the American people. They are counting on Americans to be so focused on economic and personal crises that they do not have the time, resources, or leadership to rebut their outrageous reports and actions. They believe the distraction and silence of the American people is our acquiescence and acceptance.
Their house of cards built on appeasing supremacism and “newthink” words such as “good” or “moderate” supremacism is going to fall. While the stewing outrage of the American public has not yet hit the boiling point, a movement to restore our national responsibility for equality and liberty is on the horizon. What the appeasers have not yet realized is that there is a growing number of Americans who have had enough, and are working tirelessly in their efforts to regain the leadership of America’s government and restore America’s image to the world as a people responsible for equality and liberty.
The endless series of outrageous activities and comments by those who appease extremism are frustrating to those who are responsible for equality and liberty. But like Al-Qaeda’s 9/11 attacks on America, the appeasers are also overreaching. The appeasers have miscalculated on how a reduced focus on Iraq and a greater emphasis on Afghanistan and Pakistan, the homes of the Taliban that aided Al-Qaeda attacks on America, would play to public opinion with calls for appeasement on extremism. The appeasers have misjudged the influence of UK diplomats calling for supremacist “engagement” versus the numbers of Americans rightly concerned about UK’s history of appeasement of extremism translating into growing threats towards American homeland security.
Disgraces by extremist appeasers involving Pakistan, Afghanistan, and the United Kingdom may begin to lead to the tipping point in driving the America public and other free people to activism. As CNN trumpets negotiations with the “good Taliban,” the national nausea over appeasers in the mainstream media and in American government is growing, and more and more consciences are being awakened.
Ultimately, this is why supremacists and their appeasers will always fail, and this is why those in support of the inalienable human rights of equality and liberty will always succeed. As America declared in 1776 in its Declaration of Independence, and as civilized nations agreed 60 years ago with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, equality and liberty are inalienable human rights. Free people recognize that supremacist ideologies — by opposing equality and liberty — also oppose humanity itself. These truths are indeed self-evident, and all supremacist ideologies are dependent on the lie that denies these self-evident truths.
The ever-controlling supremacist ideologies are also dependent on one other factor that will always destroy them… they must always have MORE. As an ideology that seeks to control every aspect of human life and thought, supremacists must always have MORE. So in the surrender of Pakistan in implementing strict Sharia law in its northwest, Islamic supremacist Sufi Mohammad was not content – he had to denounce democracy, he was compelled to call for extremist rule over all of the Earth. This example of the endless demands of Islamic supremacists can be seen also in the history of other supremacists. The Aryan Nazi supremacists were not just content in controlling all of Germany, then part of Europe, but were compelled to seek nothing less than to dominate the world. The history of American white supremacists shows that they were not content in merely controlling the voting rights of black Americans, or having segregated schools and public facilities, or institutionalizing white supremacism in society and business, they also had to kill black Americans worshipping in their own churches and attack black Americans who dared to seek their civil rights. Their sick lie of supremacism perverts their humanity — making them nothing more than soulless creatures that live only by the endless destruction, control, and dehumanization of others. They are truly the dark side of the human experience. But in their endless demand for MORE, supremacists always sow the seeds of their own destruction, and the disgrace of those who appeased them.
The world is not enough for supremacists – they must own your heart, your mind, your very soul. Their dark lie denying equality and liberty is so huge that they must paint every aspect of the world with their dark lie to prevent even a crack of the light of equality and liberty from shining in and reawakening the memory of humanity’s inalienable rights. But they will always lose their hopeless battle in denying who and what humanity is – equal and free. The light of truth will always shine again.
We know how this will ultimately end. History has shown the answer over and over again. Supremacists always overreach and destroy themselves. The words and actions of cowardly supremacist appeasers live on in infamy in history. Those who defy supremacism are remembered as champions of equality and liberty.
But every day that extremists grow stronger and more powerful, more lives are lost, more people are oppressed, more helpless suffer as victims.
It is not enough to wait for supremacism to ultimately fall.
Those responsible for equality and liberty must demand an end it to it. This is a responsibility that all free men and women must bravely undertake and carry on the battle for freedom that our forefathers started before us. It is our turn to carry the torch of truth about humanity’s right to equality and liberty against those who seek to cloak the world in a fog of appeasement and against those who seek to darken the earth with the evil of supremacism.
Will you join those who are responsible for equality and liberty?
Fear No Evil.
[Postscript – see also Sources documents for additional reading and background information.]