[Warrior-Mentor]

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 Islamic supremacism. Refusing to acknowledging the ideology of Islamic supremacism, 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 Islamic supremacists' 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 Islamic supremacists, 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 Islamic supremacism, to ignore history, ignore the 9/11 Commission report, and ignore anything that doesn't buttress the idea that hand-wringing negotiations with Islamic supremacism 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 Islamic supremacists?

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 Islamic supremacists 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 "Islamic supremacists," but merely a misunderstanding with some "extremists," "fundamentalists," "takfiri," or whatever the euphemism of the day is.

Furthermore, each Islamic supremacist group is different they argue, with regional issues and grievances, and therefore we should disregard the endless calls for the creation of a global Islamic supremacist 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.