Extremists and Moderates

I've been meaning to write an article about this subject for a while now, but the more I researched it, the more it became clear there's no absolute definition to apply to these terms.
In other words, they are completely open to one's personal interpretation, which is why propaganda spewers constantly slam it in our faces. Therefore, rather than deal in theory, I instead intend to use this article to show a specific case, and how to retort to common misconceptions of 'moderates'.

---

In Daniel Greenfield's satirical The Virtue of Being Moderate, he provides a few stingy descriptions of moderates:

• "Being moderate is truly a wonderful thing, and a surprisingly easy one. To be a moderate all you really need to do is take a look at your principles, and subtract half of them. Congratulations, now you're officially a moderate. Repeat as many times as needed."


• "Moderates aren't necessarily cowards. They're just people who decided that the world would be a much nicer place if people didn't feel too strongly about things. Moderates are naturally very suspicious of things other people are enthusiastic about."


• (And my favorite) "The only form of extremism that moderates support is to get extremely worked up about extremism. Even talk about extremism upsets moderates a great deal."

The last claim was immediately proven by the great deal of flak from self proclaimed moderates that he took for the article. What follows is my response to every argument used by these people, no matter how unrelated and far-fetched it may be.

• "moderation is often a symptom of a balanced and empathetic weighing up of both sides of an issue."

Wrong! Weighting of all sides of an issue will often lead to multiple options, and a balancing solution to an unbalanced situation, is usually not moderate.
For example, faced with the aftermath of Pearl Harbor - two possible extreme responses America might have weighed would be vowing to wipe out every single Japanese off the face of the planet, even if it takes them 15 centuries (the Muslim solution to Jews), or Sending flowers to the widows of the Zero pilots that fell in the attack (the leftist solution to terrorism). Somewhere in between, were the options of a firm, but useless diplomatic protest, and going to war, in order to put a stop to Japanese Imperialism.

• "Being moderate means that you understand that you do not have all of the answers and that someone on the other side might have some good ideas as well."

This is valid if 'the other side' means someone honest with similar cultural values as yourself, not a deceitful enemy, but in any case - just because someone else has ideas, doesn't mean you have to accept them.

• "The world is generally not black and white. Living as if it is won't help find the real answers that everyone can live with."

African racism indeed teaches us there are many shades of black (just ask the Ethiopians why they won't marry someone from a different colored tribe), but 'the real answers that everyone can live with' is a black-and-white approach that believes everyone is willing to compromise in order to get along. Islam's answer to all questions is to kill people. That is not something everyone (especially those they kill) can live with.

• "Sharing information is the only way to reach [the real answers]"
• "In a world of perfect information, there would be no moderates or extremists. Everyone would (or should) just be right."

Everybody chooses what information to believe, and what to disregard. That's why having more information can combat ignorance, but "against stupidity, the gods themselves contend in vain" - Friedrich Schiller.

• "a society of extremists would lead to little more than constant war"

While a society of moderates would be taken over by a more extreme one. What really invalidates this sentence is that people turn more and less extreme in reaction to outside forces. A cornered tiger may slice you into pieces one moment, and sleep peacefully the next one.

• "while extremists may make the revolutions, it is the moderates who organise the ceasefires, build lasting democracies and rule fairly and equitably."

Allow me to offer one such 'moderate' - the US backed Abu-Abbas, who rules over the Fatah thugs. Relative to the Hamas and Al-Qaeda, they are considered moderates. Unfortunately, in comparison to decent human beings, they are brutish, murderous cretins, who won't be able to build a lasting Democracy if we gave them 13 trillion dollars, much less a fair and equitable society.

• "Moderation is having something but not too much of it."

If for someone who works as a street cleaner, donating 5$ might be moderate, what would be a moderate sum for Donald Trump? And do moderates understand math?

• "A moderate political view is a view that has principles, but does not push these to the point of infringing upon the rights of others."

Which means its principles are good as long as nobody else contests them, or (shorter version) that it has no principles.

• "If a moderate believes that we have a problem... He will speak with both sides to develop an amicable solution... it is the moderates' drive to solve the issue above all else... that allows it issue to be resolved."

Another case of the assumption that every problem has only two sides, which are equally willing to compromise, and respect the authority of a third-party arbiter.
One way to demonstrate the fallacy of this argument, is the numerous cases where some men are engaged in a violent fight, and an heroic 'peacekeeper' tried to separate them, only to end up stabbed. Another example is the incessant intervention of the EU and US government in Israeli business, in an attempt to force a 'moderate' solution to the Arab settlers issue.

• "if you hold an extreme position, by definition you are in the minority"

Tell that to Nazi Germany, or better yet, the world's billion Muslims.
In Daniel's own words, the response is: "you've made a number of false assumptions, including the belief that moderates are necessarily in the majority, rather than reflecting a view that is safe and politically mainstream."

• "You're right, of course. You're always right. So is the other guy. He's right too. He's always right."

Relativism wants us all to believe that everyone is right all the time. All it takes to disprove this argument is to point that this relativist simpleton assumes he is right and Daniel is wrong.

• "moderates just want to minimize the blood spillage"

No, they just want to avoid taking action. The second world war has already proven this maximizes the eventual blood spillage, but let's assume for a second that it never occurred - the ongoing, 'moderate' policing in Afghanistan, Iraq, Lebanon, Gaza, Judea and Samaria have caused more death on all sides, for a much longer period of time, than both gulf wars, and all the wars fought by Israel.

• "You remind me of a Klingon. All you are interested in is the battle."

Since people who see themselves as moderate fight whoever they consider is extreme, and they consider everyone who isn't on their side as extreme, then I guess we're all Klingons. This point of view stems from the false 'moderate' belief that only their way of fighting is ok.

• "I submit that a moderate is someone who has evolved the ability to empathise with his enemy."

I submit that someone who empathizes with his enemy is a lunatic.
Hate your enemy for forcing you to fight, pity him for being foolish enough to stand against you, but don't empathize with him. That shows not moderation, but rather a severe lack of self-identity (AKA backbone).

• "Being moderate means that you respect people who have different viewpoints."

To respect those who disrespect you is not respect, but fear, and as you can see from the quotes above, 'moderates' do not respect those they don't fear.
Last one, for laughs and giggles:

• "if everyone cared enough to consider others and tried to help everyone live together, wouldn't the world be a nicer place?"

Sure, for the exact five seconds that it would take a less 'extremely nice' person to figure out he can become the despot of mankind by using a board with a nail.

---

So, as everyone has hopefully realized by now, the usage of 'moderates' and 'extremists' is completely devoid of actual moral value, and is only used to label people that belong to different camps.
Therefore, patient and valiant readers who have made it this far, I encourage you to denounce these labels, and reverse their usage - for to seek peace with a ravenous, imperialistic, oppressive enemy, is not moderate; and to block the advance of his hostile culture into your own lands, is not extreme.
To force hard working folks to support the living of slackers and parasites is extreme, while asking everyone to carry their own weight is moderate.
To allow people to have different beliefs and religions is moderate, but allowing one religion to tread on all others in the name of 'tolerance' is extreme.
To send the sons and daughters of your nation to fight overseas, in order to crush an enemy, and force him to surrender on your terms - is moderate. To send them overseas to become police officers, well diggers, peace keepers, and nation builders, while both under fire and the scrutiny of a hostile press - is extremely extreme!