Resistance is Survival
January 15, 2009
by Jeffrey Imm
As 2009 begins, a new administration assumes power in Washington D.C.,
and world events continue to illustrate the global threat of
Islamic supremacism, we must continue to focus on our efforts in
preparedness, planning, and persistence in defending equality and
liberty. The responsibility to defend equality and liberty against
Islamic supremacism is not an option for a free society; it is
fundamental to our very survival.
1. Importance of Timely Preparedness Efforts Now
While the November 2008 Mumbai attacks have illustrated how Islamic
supremacist terrorists can attack anytime, anywhere, it is essential
that we continue to take steps to protect ourselves as much as practical
from such attacks. The effort to defend equality and liberty from
Islamic supremacism is not fatalistic; our defense of such inalienable
human rights remains one of most optimistic movements in human history.
It is based on more than optimism, however; such defense of equality and
liberty is based on our declaration of such inalienable human rights
that are an innate part of our identity as Americans. Therefore, we must
also not be fatalistic in our stance regarding our personal and family
preparedness against another Islamic supremacist terrorist attack. Those
standing against Islamic supremacism remain valuable and precious
Over the past several weeks, I have heard of additional reports from the
counterterrorism community not only of heightened perceptions of threats
to America's security during the transfer of power, but also for a
number of months following this. We have seen the history of Islamic
supremacist terrorists in seeking to challenge new government
administrations in the UK and elsewhere around the world. Whether or not
such threat perceptions materialize into any future attacks, it makes
sense now to revisit our current preparedness plans and resources - just
as we take precautions against any other type of potential emergency.
Do you have an updated emergency plan with current contacts, telephone
numbers? Do you have ready access to
kits, supplies, and materials? Do you have backup supplies in your
car and office? Since 2001, I have kept my web site at
as a resource for
planning and preparedness, which addresses such topics in detail
with hyperlinks to emergency plans, contacts, and products. There are
pre-packaged emergency kits available for homes, businesses, cars.
Mobile professionals might consider ensuring that they know potential
evacuation routes for both vehicular and mass transit travel, and have
tools on-hand for
personal preparedness, such as
threat detection devices. Moreover, as we have seen with the recent
cyber attacks on Israeli websites, it is essential for the defenders of
equality and liberty to have redundancy in their blog information,
websites, and background information.
Let's not give the Islamic supremacists any easy targets. In the long
war, we will have casualties. That is war. But we want to keep our
resources defending equality and liberty against the onslaught by the
ideology of Islamic supremacism, and continuing to gain new recruits to
the cause of freedom.
Furthermore, we must continue to prepare for a long war
against equality and liberty - and prepare our finances, health, and
resources for the long siege ahead. We have seen the growing efforts of
Islamic supremacists to attempt to gain more influence over the American
financial marketplace through Sharia finance and acquisition of American
resources. We know that our army of freedom is dependent on staying
healthy. If we are to march in defiance against the ideology of Islamic
supremacism, we must take care of our personal health to allow us to
continue to carry the banner; that must be another priority to the
fighters for freedom. We cannot march if we cannot walk. As we are not
fatalistic about equality and liberty, we must also be responsible about
our own finances and health, so that we can continue to be effective
sentinels of liberty in the difficult years ahead.
long war against Islamic supremacism and Jihad, we must never forget
that we are seeking to live for our country, as living testaments of
Islamic supremacism. The resources of those who will
stand up against the anti-equality, anti-liberty ideology resources
of Islamic supremacism are precious; both as individuals and as a team,
our objective must be to preserve such resources. We want to never
forget that our goal is to defend equality and liberty and defy Islamic
supremacism for both our national and personal survival.
2. Planning to Address the Arguments and Lexicon of Denial Regarding
As the new administration takes office, we will continue to see a number
of individuals from a wide spectrum of political backgrounds that seek
Islamic supremacism. Our focus needs to remain on the imperative of
defending equality and liberty in the face of such efforts at
minimalizing the Islamic supremacist global threats. If the last
administration ended up with the U.S. Department of Homeland Security
publishing recommendations to
promote "progress" over "liberty," we can only imagine the new
challenges ahead of us in growing official and think tank denial on
Those in denial about the threat of "stealth jihad"
offer an "assimilation" argument that the very use of Western courts,
financial marketplaces, etc., as methods of political expression
demonstrates that Islamic supremacists are assimilating into America's
melting pot of democratic political thinking. The "assimilation"
argument further suggests that the use of such Western methods of
political influence allows them to "launder" their practices into a more
politically acceptable practice in promoting Islamic supremacism in
western cultures. Therefore, those in denial about Islamic supremacism
might argue, such assimilation is not a bad thing, as it makes such
Islamic supremacists less violent, less foreign.
Those making the "assimilation" argument to deny the threat about
Islamic supremacism fail to understand that they have it backwards. It
is not Islamic supremacists who will assimilate into America and
democracy, but it is America and democracy that they seek to assimilate
into accepting Islamic supremacism.
We can see the evidence of this drive for Islamic supremacist
assimilation of America and democracy
--- the efforts of some
representatives to legitimize organizations like CAIR, and
calls to engage with the Islamic supremacist Muslim Brotherhood from
--- the pervasive denial of Islamic supremacism in America's
U.S. Treasury and Federal Reserve using U.S. taxpayer dollars to fund
a business selling services to promote the Islamic Supremacist Sharia
--- West Point's
publishing of propaganda calling for groups linked to the Islamic
supremacist Muslim Brotherhood to be involved in counterterrorism
--- the push to
remove individuals critical of Islamic supremacism from positions of
influence in the Department of Defense, the
use of military study group publications to discourage confrontation of
Islamic supremacism, and Secretary Gates' efforts to redefine the
battle as a
"war on extremism"
--- the efforts to
intimidate the FBI and law enforcement agencies into being "trained"
by groups like
CAIR that are linked to support of Islamic supremacism and terror
groups such as
--- the efforts to
undermine our Homeland Security Department by calling for the end of the
use of the term "jihad," and calls to
promote "progress" over "liberty"
--- the efforts by groups in the
foreign policy and
communities calling for "engagement" with Islamic supremacists,
including the Islamic supremacist Muslim Brotherhood ("jihad
is our way"), whose documented
goal is to
undermine the United States of America from within
--- the comments by leaders in policy think tanks
suggesting that Islamic supremacism can somehow be supported by a
"democratic" political system
Sadly, the list could go on for pages. But the point is clear.
America and the understanding of democracy are the growing target and
victim of Islamic supremacist assimilation. The discussion needs to be
focused on how to protect America and democracy from assimilation by
Islamic supremacism. What defenders of equality and liberty really need
is an Islamic supremacist "Assimilation Watch."
The "assimilation" argument bears similarities to the "engagement"
argument that we have heard repeatedly from a number of members in the
foreign policy and
communities. Like the
"engagement" argument, the "assimilation" argument tolerates the
legitimizing of a supremacist ideology with the objective of offering a
"covenant of security" to Islamic supremacists for "political" action to
prevent "violence." Such future Neville Chamberlains arguing for
"engagement" with Islamic supremacists or arguing for tolerance in
anticipating Islamic supremacists' "assimilation" - fail to grasp that
supremacism itself is violence against equality, liberty, freedom,
democracy, and reason. Such appeasement arguments regarding Islamic
supremacism are fundamentally against
Such an "assimilation" perspective is yet another element to add to our
lexicon of dysfunctional denial by political pundits and leaders
regarding Islamic supremacism including:
-- 1. The
"engagement" approach: the idea that if we legitimize Islamic
supremacists as political forces rather than as violent Jihadists that
they will stop hating equality and liberty and coexist peacefully with
-- 2. The
"regionalization" approach: the idea that every Islamic supremacist
demand, oppression, and act of violence is unique to that region of the
world and is disconnected from every other such action elsewhere.
-- 3. The
"relativist" argument: the idea that equality and liberty are of
relative value to humanity and are not worth defending as inalienable
-- 4. The
"reconciliation" tactic: the "realpolitik" delusion that defenders
of equality and liberty can reconcile with Islamic supremacists (that
reject such inalienable human rights as equality and liberty) as
peaceful communities willing to end violent struggles in foreign wars.
The Robert Gates' "war on extremism" approach is dependent on such
tactics of denial such as "reconciliation," in lieu of actually defining
an enemy and a strategy regarding Islamic supremacism. Reconciliation
also deliberately ignores that by reconciling with such Islamic
supremacists you provide additional legitimacy, power, and influence for
them to promote future violence. (We could also call this "surrender.")
-- 5. The
inappropriate Cold War analysis: believing that identity-based
Islamic supremacists can "moderate" their beliefs and "transition" as
some statists did from Communism to Socialism to liberalism, rather than
recognizing that Islamic supremacists retain their Islamic supremacist
beliefs and merely change their short-term tactics.
-- 6. Finally, let's not forget
the "Northern Ireland delusion" which is the oft-repeated argument
by the UK policy analysts and their indoctrinated fellows dedicated to
ignoring reality that you can find a way to negotiate Islamic
supremacism away based on their delusion that global Islamic supremacism
is similar to their regional Northern Ireland conflict.
All of these perspectives stem from the same root of denial that
Islamic supremacism is a global
threat to equality and liberty. In every case, those in denial
regarding Islamic supremacism continue to search for rationalizations to
justify denial of the obvious Islamic supremacist violence, oppression,
threats, and demands made around the world on a daily basis.
3. Persistence in Addressing Those in Denial on Islamic Supremacism
We have continued to see a series of recent reports, from both the left
and the right, that attempt to continue to promote a combination of such
theories of denial regarding Islamic supremacism. In 2009, we must be
persistent in addressing such denial and delusion.
Unfortunately, this denial continues to seek to twist the very concept
of democracy itself in an attempt to ignore the growing global threat of
Islamic supremacism. Such continuing reports represent yet another
warning sign of the Islamic supremacist appeasement inroads gaining
popularity among American policy and political analysts.
Institute of Peace (USIP) has recently issued a report on the
"Future of Afghanistan" which incredibly argues that Afghanistan has a
vision for "a stable Islamic constitutional democracy at peace with
itself and its neighbors, standing with full dignity in the
international family; a tolerant, united, and pluralistic nation that
honors its Islamic heritage and deep-seated aspirations toward
participation, justice equal rights for all." (Full
reference: USIP, Future of Afghanistan, page 36, "The Long Democratic
Transition" - by Grant Kippen - 7.8 MB PDF file)
The USIP argues that the failure to meet such goals are based on
challenges with Afghanistan's security, economy, public education, and
political parties. But the real challenge is ideological. It is not the
lack of education in Afghanistan that represents the primary reason for
Afghans to effectively to adopt democracy; it is the ideology of Islamic
supremacism that remains Afghanistan's recent "heritage" that is opposed
to democratic values such as equality and liberty. Therefore, when
rampant Islamic supremacism in Afghanistan, support for the Taliban
and Sharia, we are not facing just an educational problem, we are
primarily addressing an ideological problem.
Those in denial on Islamic supremacism fail to address this basic fact,
while the Taliban continues to
Sharia courts, the Afghanistan
government seeks the death penalty for those who change their
religion, and Afghanistan courts jail people for
This is also the same Afghanistan whose President Karzai has
overtures to the Islamic supremacist Taliban to join his government;
Karzai continues to question why the U.S. military is even there in
Afghanistan. Yet the
argues that progress on a vision for a democratic Afghanistan can be
achieved by simply "educating" Afghans and throwing more money at trying
to convince Afghans to accept an ideology that Islamic supremacists
reject. The future of Afghanistan, like the future of the world, depends
on those defending equality and liberty by speaking out against the
failure to acknowledge the
growing influence of Islamic supremacism in Afghanistan and around
The American Enterprise Institute (AEI)'s online magazine "The
American," published an article with a similar position on democracy in
its November 2008 issue. The article,
"God, Man, and the Ballot Box," attempted to suggest that democracy
is somehow compatible with Islamic supremacist values, rather than
recognize democracy as a vehicle to promote the inalienable human
rights of equality and liberty.
The author of this
article, Reuel Marc Gerecht, is a resident fellow at the American
Enterprise Institute (AEI), a former Middle East specialist at the CIA,
and the director of the Project for the New American Century's (PNAC)
Middle East Initiative. In Mr. Gerecht's article "God, Man, and the
Ballot Box," he
argues that '[t]here is probably no more pressing issue among Middle
Eastern Muslims than the increasingly vibrant marriage of
Islamism and democracy."
Once again, we see the use of
"Islamism" as an ideology that can be viewed as somehow acceptable
to a free world. Before I realized how the term was being perverted, I
previously used the term Islamism myself, which I repeatedly defined as
an "anti-freedom" ideology and attacked as an anti-democratic ideology.
The 9/11 Commission Report expressly
states this: "Islamism is defined as 'an Islamic militant,
anti-democratic movement, bearing a holistic vision of Islam whose final
aim is the restoration of the caliphate.'" (9/11
Commission Report, Notes Chapter 12, Note 3, page 562, Paragraph #3543).
Mr. Gerecht - how can an "anti-democratic movement" such as "Islamism"
be "married" to democracy? Of course, it can't. Islamic supremacist
democracy, Nazi democracy, white supremacist democracy - these are all
oxymoronic phrases. Such supremacist ideologies, by definition, are
against democratic human rights of equality and liberty. Such
totalitarian "democracies" are simply mobs defined by a shared vision of
intolerance, hatred, and the big lie that their religion, race,
ethnicity is inherently superior to all others. Human rights, equality,
reason mean nothing to such mobs; they are held together merely by the
glue of their total contempt towards all those who do not share their
identity-based supremacism. Their rejection of such
human democratic rights is a rejection of democracy.
But Mr. Gerecht has a view of "Islamism" as an ideology that could
somehow be compatible with democracy. Therefore, Mr. Gerecht
notes the increasing influence of "the Islamist Muslim
Brotherhood... [as] the most popular political and cultural force in
Egypt," and concludes this as a positive for "triumphing" of democracy.
Mr. Gerecht's critique of the Muslim Brotherhood is merely
that it is "the intellectual mother-ship of Sunni fundamentalism,"
not as an Islamic supremacist organization with an ideology based in
global Jihad whose goal is the promotion of a global caliphate. Mr.
continues in this denial that "[t]he democratic idea is triumphing
among devout Muslims for two reasons: democracy is the only alternative
to dictatorship, and it is considered a vehicle for protecting 'Islamic
Mr. Gerecht uses the word "democracy" as referring to the "ballot box,"
or in essence, majority rule. He ignores that this is only one aspect of
definition of democracy which includes "the principles of social
equality and respect for the individual within a community."
Moreover, once again we see the term "fundamentalist," here used by Mr.
Gerecht, where we should see the term "supremacist," and therefore those
in denial regarding Islamic supremacism can justify a path that would
allow "democracy" and Islamic supremacism to co-exist. Such denial
Islamic supremacism is against the inalienable human rights of equality
and liberty that are fundamental to a real democracy.
The United Kingdom's Foreign Secretary David Miliband has also
making the spurious claim frequently repeated by UK appeasers that
the solution to terrorist groups is "channeling their followers into
democratic politics." Mr. Miliband refuses to acknowledge that Islamic
supremacist "democracy" is no democracy at all - as Islamic supremacism,
by definition, is against the democratic human rights of equality and
liberty. In the January 15, 2009 edition of the UK Guardian,
Mr. Miliband's commentary "'War on terror' was wrong" combines a
variety of craven arguments of denial regarding Islamic supremacism
"assimilation," and the
"regionalization" arguments all at the same time. This is what we
must expect in the future from those who live to compromise on equality
and liberty -- a barrage of combined arguments of denial on
Islamic supremacism designed to mask the real threat. Like others in
denial, Mr. Miliband ignores the ideology of Islamic supremacism or its
stating that "the motivations and identities of terrorist groups are
that "[t]he more we lump terrorist groups together and draw the
battle lines as a simple binary struggle between moderates and
extremists, or good and evil, the more we play into the hands of those
seeking to unify groups with little in common." But the battle between
equality and liberty versus Islamic supremacism is a binary struggle,
and despite their factions, Islamic supremacists have the shared goal of
assimilating all of humanity into submitting to Islamic supremacism.
Islamic supremacists use many other tactics beyond simply terrorism to
gain their supremacy on Earth. The history of the United Kingdom's
political leadership's accommodation of Islamic supremacists through its
"covenant of security" remains an example of
what not to do for democracies around the world. The
influence of Islamic supremacism in the United Kingdom demonstrates
precisely how dangerous such a redefinition of democracy and an
appeasement of anti-equality, anti-liberty ideologies is to any
In America, those seeking Islamic supremacism's assimilation have taken
advantage of America's innate peaceful nature, its desire for peace, its
ready acceptance of other cultures and ideas, its respect for religious
freedom, and regrettably, its inconsistent dialogue on what democracy
and freedom mean.
Even the venerable Freedom House organization has been caught up in the
whirlwind of propaganda efforts by those who would deny the threat of
Islamic supremacism. Most recently, the Freedom House organization
the World" report showing the continuing threats to freedom around
the world. However, the mainstream media, including the
Pakistan press, focused on the
Freedom House press release stating that there have been
"significant improvements in Pakistan" in freedom. In the
details of the Freedom House report, this is explained as due to the
ending of former President Musharraf's period of martial law, and it is
made clear that Freedom House condemns Pakistan's "restrictions on
religious freedom" and "Islamists" in Pakistan. But you won't read any
of that in the media reports. The
media reports suggest a nuclear nation such as
Pakistan with pervasive Islamic supremacism has become more "free,"
when in fact the Islamic supremacist Taliban has
increasing influence and sympathy in a nation where
75% of the public has repeatedly told pollsters that they seek the
Pakistan government to implement strict Islamic supremacist Sharia law.
However, if we had a common understanding and dialogue on Islamic
supremacism - and its efforts to pervert and assimilate the meaning of
"freedom" - the
Freedom House press release might have focused more on the
growth of Islamic supremacism in Pakistan's affect on freedom, and
less on Musharraf's period of martial law.
This is yet another example of the imperative to more clearly discuss
the real meaning of freedom, democracy, and the inalienable human rights
of equality and liberty. If we fail to have the persistence to do this,
those who would define such human rights and freedom as being consistent
Islamic supremacism will continue to gain more adherents.
4. The Responsibility for Defending Equality and Liberty
The denial of Islamic supremacism is also due to an unwillingness to
confront the magnitude of the problem of
Sharia is a faith-based
institution that is not based on either logic or reason. Appealing to logic and reason will not persuade those adherents to
such a "faith-based" Islamic supremacism. Free people must defy such
Islamic supremacism and its
institution as a consistent, persistent, unending
resistance movement, based on our set of truths for human beings -
the universal truths of human equality and liberty.
The magnitude of such a challenge is indeed daunting. We should not be
surprised that professional politicians and policy makers whose
livelihoods are based on compromise and political correctness are not up
to such a global challenge of confronting Islamic supremacism.
Certainly, I do not mean to suggest that such politicians, policy
makers, members of the foreign policy and counterterrorism communities,
do not understand the idea of Islamic supremacism or do not realize that
Islamic supremacism is
inimical to equality, liberty, and democracy. These are
well-educated, highly trained individuals. Of course, they understand
this. They simply believe that they can choose not to be responsible for
recognizing this reality. In their view, denial of
Islamic supremacism is more expedient and easier than dealing with
the reality of the global problem. They have been successfully bullied
into the fear of being labeled as an "Islamophobe," so they avoid any
analysis that could possibly allow for an honest assessment of the
global threat of Islamic supremacism.
They are simply terrified of the power of Islamic supremacists.
That is how deadly, how serious, the issue of Islamic supremacist
assimilation of America and democracy has become. Such apologists are
more afraid of the wrath of Islamic supremacism than they are of being
responsible for the survival of equality and liberty. They fear the
influence of Islamic supremacists more than they respect reason and
rationality. Therefore, in their panic, they cling to irrational denial.
They ignore the obvious lessons of
American civil rights history that have shown the
ideologies to ensure equality and liberty in America. They
rationalize the delusion that "democracies" exist in the Islamic
Republics of Pakistan and Afghanistan, they defend the "terrorcracy" of
that Islamic supremacist organizations like the Muslim Brotherhood
offer a solution for "peace in our time" with Islamic supremacism.
They seek appeasement efforts to
"de-radicalize" Islamic supremacists by offering them legitimacy in
the democratic political arena - providing credibility to an
unreasoning, faith-based Islamic supremacist ideology which seeks
nothing less than total societal control. They abandon not only the
defense of equality and liberty, but also the defense of reason itself,
abandoning anything, if the Islamic supremacists can please, please,
just leave them alone. Their arguments for engagement with Islamic
supremacists are obviously bogus in their unwillingness to use history
and reason to realize that there can be no "deal" with Islamic
supremacists who seek to undermine democracy. To
paraphrase Gary Johnson, you don't need to "de-radicalize" reason,
and Islamic supremacists have no interest in reason, any more than they
respect equality or liberty.
So we see leaders in an organization like the
Institute for Near East Policy (WINEP) such as WINEP's counterterror
Matthew Levitt calling for counterterror policies of engaging "political
salafists". We also see leaders such as
WINEP's Dennis Ross
working with the
U.S.-Muslim Engagement Project, whose
September 2008 report calls for
engagement with the Islamic Supremacist Muslim Brotherhood as well
more sympathetic treatment of the Islamic supremacist terrorist groups
Hamas and Hezbollah. WINEP's Dennis Ross has also been a
foreign policy adviser
to Barack Obama, and
is being sought by Hillary Clinton to serve as a Mideast Advisor to the
U.S. Department of State.
Not only does America have an assimilation problem from Islamic
supremacist appeasers and apologists, but at the root of this problem is
the deadly fear of having to be responsible for equality and liberty.
war against white supremacists, where from Presidents to the average
person, Americans stood tall and courageous against an anti-equality,
anti-liberty supremacist ideology, now we see our leaders shrink in fear
at any perceived slight against Islamic supremacists.
The appeasers of Islamic supremacists are afraid that a war with Islamic
supremacists will never end, and that they might have to be responsible
for defending equality and liberty their entire lives.
It is sad how little they understand that it is precisely being
responsible for equality and liberty that defines our identity as
Americans, as a nation that believes all men and women are created
equal, and that holds as a truth that all humanity is endowed with the
inalienable human rights of equality and liberty. Moreover, such
appeasers do not understand that as long as humanity exists, the endless
war for the inalienable human rights of equality and liberty will exist.
This is why Islamic supremacism will ultimately never win. As long as
one human is left standing, the battle will continue because equality
and liberty are inalienable human rights.
On January 14, 2009, an
audio message reportedly from Islamic supremacist Osama Bin Laden
stated that "Allah has bestowed us with the patience to continue the
path of jihad for another seven years, and seven and seven years. The
question is, can America continue its war with us for several more
decades to come? Reports and evidence would suggest otherwise." This
message recognizes the fear and the weakness of those who live in denial
of Islamic supremacism. But once again, Islamic supremacists have
misjudged the willingness of free people to fight for equality and
Islamic supremacists are so dependent on their lie of superiority to
perpetuate their ideology of supremacism that they cannot conceive that
free people would be willing to endlessly fight for equality and
liberty. Watching craven politicians and political analysts plead for
appeasement, Islamic supremacists cannot conceive that the defenders of
freedom will not ultimately submit to their war to assimilate democracy,
America, and the world.
Islamic supremacists of the world: "We hold these truths to be
self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by
their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are
Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." We continue to declare this
every day of our lives that we exist as Americans. We declare this in
recognizing the inalienable rights of equality and liberty for all
This is our declaration from fear and cowardice. This is our declaration
denouncing weakness. This is our declaration of defiance to all tyrants
against humanity, including Islamic supremacists, who dare to threaten
the inalienable human rights of equality and liberty. And as Americans,
this is our
Declaration of Independence. This is who and what we are. We hold
these truths to be self-evident.
So we have no choice about being responsible for equality and liberty,
no matter what those in denial about Islamic supremacism argue. The
fight against Islamic supremacist assimilation of America and democracy
is not merely a philosophical debate - it is an existential issue for
our nation, our society, our future, and for humanity itself.
Resistance to Islamic supremacist assimilation is not futile. Resistance
Fear No Evil. Be Responsible for Equality and Liberty.
[Postscript - see also Sources
documents for additional reading and background information.]