United States Action


Jeffrey Imm Articles

Back to US Action Home Page

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 resources.

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 emergency kits, supplies, and materials? Do you have backup supplies in your car and office? Since 2001, I have kept my web site at UnitedStatesAction.com as a resource for emergency 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 masks, pills, and 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.

In the long war against Islamic supremacism and Jihad, we must never forget that we are seeking to live for our country, as living testaments of defiance against 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 Islamic Supremacism

As the new administration takes office, we will continue to see a number of individuals from a wide spectrum of political backgrounds that seek to rationalize appeasement of 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 Islamic supremacism.

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 every day:
--- the efforts of some Congressional representatives to legitimize organizations like CAIR, and support for calls to engage with the Islamic supremacist Muslim Brotherhood from both House and Senate leaders
--- the pervasive denial of Islamic supremacism in America's mainstream media
--- the U.S. Treasury and Federal Reserve using U.S. taxpayer dollars to fund a business selling services to promote the Islamic Supremacist Sharia institution
--- 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 Hamas
--- 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 counterterrorism 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 counterterrorism 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 human rights.

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 us.
-- 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 human rights.
-- 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.

The U.S. 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 addressing the 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 build new Sharia courts, the Afghanistan government seeks the death penalty for those who change their religion, and Afghanistan courts jail people for "blasphemy." This is also the same Afghanistan whose President Karzai has repeatedly made 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 USIP report 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 world.

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. Gerecht 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 values.'"

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 the 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 ignores that 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 undermined democracy, 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 including the "engagement," "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 global reach, stating that "the motivations and identities of terrorist groups are disparate" and 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 growing 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 democracy.

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 published its "Freedom in 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 gained 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 with 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 Islamic supremacism. 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 Sharia 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 imperative of confronting supremacist 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 Hamas, and they claim 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 Washington Institute for Near East Policy (WINEP) such as WINEP's counterterror analyst 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 as seeking 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 reportedly 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. Unlike the 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 liberty.

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 humanity.

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 is survival.

Fear No Evil. Be Responsible for Equality and Liberty.

[Postscript - see also Sources documents for additional reading and background information.]