Will vs. Way Explains Islam vs. West; Islam Has the Former But Not the Latter, the West, Vice Versa

In the ongoing struggle between Islam and the West, one important fact is regularly overlooked: one civilization has the will to triumph, but not the way; the other has the way to triumph, but not the will.

Some who fear Islam do not seem to understand this. They think that Islam is an irresistible force to be reckoned with; they see Muslim migrants as hordes of violent men invading Europe; they call on Western men to make a stand, resist the onslaught, save their women and children.

To be sure, this portrayal is historically valid: for one thousand years, Muslims repeatedly invaded and conquered portions of Europe -- terrorizing, massacring, raping and enslaving in the name of Allah -- and were only repulsed by force of arms.

Today’s situation is far less dramatic and epic; it’s actually quite pathetic. Muslim terrorists, rapists, and ISIS-sympathizers are not entering the West against its will but because of it. In other words, the West is 100% responsible for this “invasion.”

Consider it by analogy. What if zoos began to maintain that it’s a slanderous stereotype to say that lions by nature prey on zebras? Zoos start introducing lions into zebra enclosures. The inevitable happens: although well fed, some lions continue chasing and mauling zebras. Surely only a great fool would blame the ensuing carnage on lions -- who, after all, are merely being lions -- while ignoring those who insist on placing lions with zebras in the first place.

Similarly, those Western policy makers who continue insisting that Islam is peaceful (despite the overwhelming evidence otherwise), and that Muslim immigration is fine (despite the overwhelming evidence otherwise), are 100% to blame when Muslims terrorize, rape, and kill non-Muslims in the West -- that is, when they do what comes natural back home.

The writer misses something important: the reasons why the West might be said to lack the will to triumph are not all the same, not all equal, and not all equally important or timely.

At this time there is a cancer in western culture that has gone well beyond the loss of faith and hope for innocence that was the earlier form of the disease, and which now responds to the world from a guilty or even defiled conscience, trying to be nice and tolerant and unsure that there is any reason to ever be mean or intolerant — save for when confronting those who have yet to loose faith and of those especially if the try to cling to or hope for innocence.

This is not the only root of political correctness but it is the dominant cause that has pushed PC into deep the realm of madness.

This politically correct madness is not just a cause for the West lacking the will to confront Islam but actually provides as much of the means for Islam to confront the West.

Consider Sun Tzu: “If you know your enemies and know yourself, you will not be imperiled in a hundred battles.”

But what is the effect of political correctness?

Rather than labor to write a wall’o’text I will instead direct you to a video series given by a man concerned with forming a valid threat doctrine about militant Islam, or the effort to know your enemy as Sun Tzu put it.

But I want you to do more than just listen to what he says about the formation of such a threat doctrine ... I want you to really pay attention when he brings up the inability to frame that threat doctrine when ... why?

I’m going to spoil the suspense: it’s because it would be politically incorrect to do so.

As you listen to the presentation, and it is worthy in itself, and you pay attention to the fact that our own government just can’t seem to want to define the threat accurately, ask yourself how that provides opportunity and means to militant Islam that would not otherwise exist.

part one of the video series: http://youtu.be/nhZe7eZK4dw

But there is more, for Sun Tzu spoke of more than just knowing your enemy: if this insane political correctness is feasting upon the subjective poisons of cultural-self-condemnation then how do such people help a people, the nation, to “know themselves”?

There are apparently three stages for Jihad: each more aggressive than the last. It is arguably the case that it becomes appropriate to be more aggressive when Muslims are relatively strong or else non-Muslims are relatively weak. Or both, of course.

As was discussed in the video, the militant Muslims know us quite well, they know our legal system and some cases even our military. It is obvious that a significant element of those leading the charge, albeit far from front lines, also do a pretty good job of knowing themselves, why they fight. That makes them from the ideological standpoint, which relates to the having the “will”, rather strong.

Or at least as strong as they expect themselves to be.

But just as political correctness cannot help but erode our aggregate “will” it also cannot help but make us seem weaker than we should.

Why is it appropriate to be more aggressive waging Jihad? Not just because you are strong but because your opponent is weakened.

Political correctness in the West strengthens the arguments for militant Islam. It isn’t that we might be militarily toppled but that this is a better chance for us to be defeated than if PC goes on the wane. And as those outside, and even those inside, demand that ALL Muslims get with the program and step up to the second Meccan phase of Jihad does anyone think no currently peaceful Muslims will heed their call?

Maybe over at the DU ... I’m guessing not so much at the Free Republic....

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.