From Patriotic Alternative.
Mark Colett
This week declassified FBI documents revealed that terms such as ‘red pilled’, ‘normie’ and ‘great replacement’ are now considered as ‘Racially or Ethnically Motivated Violent Extremism’. Find out how the term ‘extremist’ has been altered in order to be used as a weapon to silence people and how beliefs that were social norms just a few decades ago are now classified as ‘dangerous extremism’.
WATCH THIS ESSAY AS A VIDEO
What is an extremist? Well, what better way to start than by having a look at some dictionary definitions…
Dictionary.com states:
- a person who goes to extremes, especially in political matters.
- a supporter or advocate of extreme doctrines or practices.
The Cambridge Dictionary states:
- someone who has beliefs that most people think are unreasonable and unacceptable:
The Collins Dictionary States:
- If you describe someone as an extremist, you disapprove of them because they try to bring about political change by using violent or extreme methods.
And Google, the world’s biggest search engine defines an extremist as:
- a person who holds extreme political or religious views, especially one who advocates illegal, violent, or other extreme action.
Four different definitions, all of which overlap in some way.
But whilst there are some differences in those dictionary definitions, one thing that is undeniable, is that over time, specifically since the beginning of the 20th century, the use of the word extremist within the English language has increased dramatically. And something else that seems apparent, is that the original use of the word ‘extremist’ was simply someone whose beliefs or interests were seen as extreme – whatever those beliefs or interests were. An extremist was simply someone, who as ‘Dictionary.com’ stated, went to extremes, these people were merely curious social outliers or people who liked to push boundaries.
However, over the last decade or so there has been a number of changes to the definition of the term ‘extremist’ intended to both alter the meaning of the word and position it as a powerful pejorative term, and these changes have coincided with an increase in the term’s use by both the media and Western governments; so, let’s have a look at these changes.
Firstly, and most notably, there has been a drive to conflate ‘extremism’ more heavily or even solely with politics, which seems rather odd when you consider that almost any belief or interest can be taken to an extreme. What’s more the focus on ‘politics’ seems even more odd when many people would initially make a link between extremism and some form religious expression – I mean I’ve seen crowds of people whipping themselves and cutting themselves open in public places or even beating animals to death, all in an attempt to prove their devotion to their chosen religion, but no Western politician or media pundit would describe those people as ‘extremists’ – no, their actions would be classed as freedom of religious expression. In fact, only one of the dictionary definitions I cited earlier even mentioned religion, which is strange considering that for the best part of the 21st Century both the UK and America, the centres of the English-speaking world, were engaged in a supposed ‘war on terror’ with people who were branded as religious extremists. This focus on ‘politics’ as the overwhelming source of ‘extremism’ seems like an attempt to deny that really any belief system will have adherents who take their beliefs further than others, it also seems like an attempt to erase recent world events and deny a central plank of recent Western government foreign policy.
Secondly there is the issue of violence. There has been a notable shift in the definition of extremism that is intended to tie so-called ‘extremists’ with acts of violence – and two of the definitions I cited do in fact introduce the term ‘violence’. This is again completely erroneous, as people may indeed hold political, religious or social beliefs, or have interests for that matter, that are seen as ‘extreme’, yet those people will never express violent tendencies or seek to push their practices upon others. Many Buddhists fast for 18 hours a day, which is pretty extreme, but not in any way violent. Other religious groups pray many times a day, which again, may seem ‘extreme’ to those who simply go to church once a month, but those actions are not in any way violent. In fact, the concerted effort to create a correlation between something that is ‘extreme’ and acts of violence seems odd; as in today’s world there are an ever-growing number of bizarre lifestyle choices, beliefs and interests – that to many would seem ‘extreme’, but at the same time are completely non-violent. What’s more, let’s not forget how much violence and death the so-called ‘political mainstream’ deals out on an annual basis – one could easily argue that since the turn of the 21st century mainstream politicians have forced their will on far more people through acts of violence than any so-called ‘extremist’ has.
Thirdly, something that was classed as ‘extreme’ always used to be something that fell at a polar end of a scale. So, in numerical terms, if one was to hold up a scale from one to one hundred, an extremely low score maybe one to ten, an extremely high score ninety to one hundred, and a middling score would fall somewhere between forty and sixty, with a range of results lying outside of the centre but not within the extremes at either end. However, over the last decade, we have seen the term ‘extremist’ be applied to ANY THING outside of what is classed as the ‘centre’, so back to that numerical example – anything that isn’t within that forty to sixty bracket, is now an ‘extreme’. This is what is known as ‘widening the net’, and Western governments and the media have done this on a widespread social scale. The establishment and the media have regularly labelled anyone who supports political groups outside of the mainstream parties as ‘extreme’. What’s more the mainstream media have widened the net further, with many outlets branding people as ‘extremists’ for questioning their narrative or for daring to watch alternative media sources that again exist outside of the ‘mainstream’.
So, let’s just recap and put all this together – there has been a concerted effort to alter the definition of the term extremist and to a lesser degree the definition of ‘extreme’, this change in the definition of these words also correlates with a large increase in use of these words. This new politically charged definition of the term ‘extremist’ is now being used more and more and in a way that means something new, which according to the powers that be is the following:
EXTREMIST: Someone that holds political beliefs that fall outside of the mainstream and due to holding those beliefs, that person is therefore a violent threat to others.
And there we have it. The term is no longer in any way objective, it no longer takes into account a scale of beliefs, it states that everyone who is an ‘extremist’ is tied to violence or violent acts and finally the term is increasingly linked with political views rather than religious beliefs, social views or personal interests.
In short: the word extremist had been tailored specifically to apply to a certain group of people, and those people are mainly white folk who wish to live a traditional lifestyle and now seek political representation outside of the mainstream and who wish to view media produced by alternative sources. And most notably and more specifically, the term extremist is centred on white folk who speak out in any way against their own replacement.
And this isn’t hyperbole or scaremongering; just this week, declassified FBI documents showed exactly this. The FBI, one of the world’s leading alphabet agencies, widened the definition of ‘extremist’ to include those who use terms like ‘red-pilled’, ‘based’, ‘chad’, ‘stacey’ and ‘normie’. And of course, that list wouldn’t be complete if it didn’t feature terms such as ‘great replacement’ and ‘white genocide’.
Because if you are white and you in any way push back against mass immigration or demographic change you are now an ‘extremist’ – and the FBI defines this in full as, and I quote: “Racially or Ethnically Motivated Violent Extremism”. And of course, this definition is applied to all those who use certain words without taking into account whether the person or people using those words have ever advocated for or taken part in acts of violence.
And I can assure you: if the FBI classifies ‘extremism’ and ‘extremists’ in that way and brands all those who use certain rather innocuous words as violent, then there’s a very good chance that every Western nation’s home-grown alphabet agency and police force also classifies ‘extremism’ and ‘extremists’ in the same way.
So, what’s the upshot of this? Well in short, this new definition of extremism will be used in two ways:
Firstly, it will be wielded as a propaganda tool to instil fear in the public. People will fear using certain words, voting for certain parties, expressing certain opinions, watching certain media or even thinking certain thoughts for fear of being branded an extremist. This will lead to a new level of self-censorship intended to curtail any political discussion that the state deems ‘unhealthy’.
Secondly, the rise in so-called ‘extremism’ will be used as a justification by both the media and those who wield political power to begin ushering in a police state based around thought and speech crimes. The establishment will simply justify any draconian action as an important step in the battle to combat ‘extremism’, which of course will be sold to the public as being in the interests of their security and part of the battle against the ‘threat of violence’. The media will then attempt to frame all this in such a way as to ensure that large sections of the public will end up cheering on legislation that erodes their civil rights and destroys freedom of speech – all in the name of ‘safety’.
In effect, this new definition of extremism is a naked attempt to outlaw and criminalise those outside of the mainstream and specifically to crack down on any movement which advocates for the rights of white people. And this won’t simply be carried out via the police and judiciary. The establishment will also deputise their friends in the corporate sector who will increase their control over the lives of the population by denying services to people who play a leading role in objecting to or campaigning against, white replacement.
Being branded as an extremist will now be a red flag, that erroneously links people with violence – but that’s not the only worrying component to this. There will also be a glaring hypocrisy in the application of this term. Make no mistake the term ‘extremist’ will not be applied evenly across the board. Nearly all attempts by the establishment to ‘combat extremism’ will focus on so-called right-wing activity – whilst ignoring other political, social or religious groups that would otherwise be classed as extreme. The establishment will not be focusing on black militias, left wing groups calling for violent revolution, trans-groups calling for days of vengeance or religious groups that are mainly composed of ethnic minorities or migrants. The corporate sector will behave even more appallingly; denying services for those who simply use terms such as ‘white genocide’, whilst totally ignoring left wing or anti-white groups that openly call for violence.
It is clear that at the heart of this drive to redefine the word ‘extremist’ is a politicised move to stamp out any form of resistance to the ‘great replacement’. Which raises another important issue, neither the media nor Western governments are taking facts or evidence into account when dealing with the application of the term ‘extremist’. There are now words and phrases that are placed on the FBI’s list of ‘extremist terms’ that relate to absolutely real, verifiable and statistically proven events that are visually observed to be happening all over the Western world. And that’s part of the problem with the term ‘extremist’, its new definition and its application: the truth is no defence, even if you have never advocated for violence, and even if the facts show that what you are saying is 100 per cent verifiable and correct, that’s doesn’t mean you are NOT an extremist, you are just an extremist who backs up their ‘extremism’ with statistical evidence and the fact you have haven’t advocated for or committed acts of violence just means that you are yet to strike…
What we are witnessing here is a concerted effort to redefine ‘extremism’ in order to brand those who hold certain views as criminals and automatically conflate certain views with acts of violence. And to make it all so much worse, the term ‘extremist’ is now being applied on a much wider level than ever before in an attempt by the establishment and the media to widen the net in order to brand people as violent for simply questioning the mainstream narrative on a range of topics.
It is clear that ‘extremist’ is becoming one of the most dangerous pejorative terms in use by the establishment. Once a person is labelled as an ‘extremist’ it can have profound effects not only on their legal freedoms, but also on their ability to carry out a range of normal activities. And the most insane aspect of all this, is that all you have to do today in order to be classed as an ‘extremist’, is express an opinion, based on a verifiable fact, that 30 years ago not a single person would have batted an eye lid at, because today what is extremism, was just a few decades ago classed as both healthy and as a social norm.
The establishment and the media have not only attacked and undermined every single central pillar of Western civilisation – the nuclear family, the loving mother, a love for one’s nation, the strong masculine male, traditional values and an affinity for one’s own people – but now the establishment and the media intend to brand all those who defend those pillars of our civilisation as extremists, even going as far as to term the very structures that were central to the West’s growth and success as dangerous ‘extremism’. This is not just an attack on our civil rights and freedom of speech, but an attack on us as people and an attack upon our civilisation as a whole.
From Patriotic Alternative.
