One Day, Everyone Will Have Always Been Against This

In these chapters, El Akkad examines how fear functions as a form of political currency. He observes that his own fear, “on account of who [he is] and what place [he] occup[ies] in the West, buys [him] nothing. Less than nothing” (132). This economic metaphor illuminates how fear is valued differently depending on who experiences it, with some fears treated as legitimate grounds for violence while others are dismissed as irrational. The author shows how the fears of dominant groups become the basis for policy decisions, military actions, and social control. Fear operates as a self-justifying emotion that requires no external validation, allowing actions taken in its name to escape critical scrutiny. The disparate valuation of fear depends on racial and religious hierarchies that determine whose emotions matter. El Akkad connects this unequal exchange to broader patterns of dehumanization that make violence possible, showing how the designation of certain populations as inherently threatening becomes self-fulfilling. This analysis reveals fear not as a natural response to danger but as a constructed political tool that reinforces existing power structures.

Throughout these chapters, El Akkad uses personal experiences to illuminate broader political realities. His recollections of reporting on terrorism cases in Canada, attending political events in the United States, and navigating the citizenship process provide concrete entry points into abstract discussions of political violence and belonging. These anecdotes establish El Akkad as capable of observing American political culture with both intimacy and distance. The author’s position as an immigrant journalist creates a unique perspective from which he analyzes the contradictions of Western liberalism. His professional experiences of covering terrorism trials and political campaigns grant him insight into how narratives about violence are constructed and disseminated. This approach challenges the sanitized language of policy discussions by insisting on the reality of embodied experience.

These chapters also highlight the theme of The Moral Vacancy of Western Liberalism as El Akkad develops his argument about how liberal institutions perpetuate systems of violence while maintaining a veneer of moral righteousness. He observes the contradictions in a political system that claims to value human rights while enabling genocide: “It is a source of great confusion first, then growing rage among establishment Democrats that there might exist a sizable group of people in this country who quite simply cannot condone a real, ongoing genocide. No matter how much worse an alternative ruling party may be or do” (114). El Akkad extends this critique beyond partisan lines to indict an entire political philosophy predicated on “lesser-evil” arguments rather than moral imperatives. The author interrogates how Western liberals position themselves as defenders of human rights while simultaneously supporting or enabling violence against marginalized populations. The fundamental problem, as El Akkad frames it, is not merely hypocrisy but a structural inability to recognize the humanity of those deemed outside the circle of moral concern. This framework, he argues, allows liberals to express outrage at minor transgressions at home while remaining unmoved by mass suffering abroad.

El Akkad also explores the theme of Sanitized Language as a Shield for Empire through his analysis of media coverage and political rhetoric surrounding Gaza. He says that the language used to describe the conflict becomes a crucial tool for distancing audiences from the reality of violence. For instance, he writes that “[i]n mid-January 2024, with Gaza’s health system essentially collapsed, and no one left to count the dead, the New York Times publishes an article detailing a drop in the number of Palestinian casualties—marking a change in Israel’s approach, it is said” (114). He says that euphemisms like these and technical language transform mass death into a policy discussion, stripping violence of its moral weight. This clinical framing, El Akkad argues, serves to normalize atrocity by recasting it as a complex geopolitical situation rather than a humanitarian crisis. According to him, the media’s focus on process over human impact reflects a broader imperial strategy of making violence palatable to domestic audiences. El Akkad connects this rhetorical strategy to historical patterns of colonial discourse that rationalize violence against those designated as “others.” The sanitization of language thus becomes not merely a stylistic choice but an essential mechanism for maintaining public support for imperial projects.