Friday, April 22, 2016

Close Enough for Jihadi Work

The long struggle between Christian Europe and Islam is over because Europe is no longer really Christian. But that's okay for the jihadis, because being secular is just one more way of thinking on the list of impermissible "not Islamist" ways of life that must be made to submit. It is close enough for government work, as the saying goes.

This is interesting if not particularly relevant to the issue of Europe being targeted by jihadis:

This seems to be a rather minor phase of conflict in an ongoing war. But this chapter is different in a fundamental way. All prior conflicts have been between Christians and Muslims. This one is not. Since World War II, Europe has redefined itself. It was once Christian. It is now officially secular, and this is therefore a conflict between Muslim religiosity and European secularism. And that makes the dynamics of the conflict different.

Sadly, as far as I can see, the change in dynamic seems to be that the Europeans (and those here who think like Europeans) are basically ashamed of their society and shrink from defending it against Islamist murderers and censors who are more willing than ever to kill and intimidate their European opponent into submission. COEXIST, they say. As if it is everyone's fault for this, ah, unpleasantness.

Just what have we done to make them hate us, eh?

So, yeah, back to that interesting article:

Secularism is a young religion in a way, and has not yet learned to carry political power gracefully. This places it on the intellectual defensive against Islam in a way that Christianity wasn’t. Christianity understood Islam in a way that secularism can’t. Christians and Muslims were enemies over the centuries. Secularism is both respectful of Islam and outraged at its values. In fighting a complex enemy, it is best to have elegantly consistent beliefs.

This is the relevant part. Do read it all.

If we had that confidence in our society--if the secularists had that confidence and the willingness to defend it against all threats and not just against the supposed threat of middle aged white men--I believe the war on terror would be nothing to sweat:

Honestly, if we were a unified society proud of our achievements and what we represent, I really wouldn't worry about a bunch of pathetic cave dwellers who fantasize about destroying the West. We'd butcher them before lunch and be on with our lives.

But the sad fact is, many in the West would kneel before their beheaders and feel privileged to be killed by the jihadis.

France seemed to go to war against the jihad after the November 2015 Paris Slaughter, but nuance has reasserted itself.

Jes suis nuance.

Que sera, sera, eh?

In one way, anyway, the old leftist bumper-sticker condemnation of fighting that held "it takes two sides to make war" has a point. If only one side fights, that's not war--that's conquest.

Conquerors always appreciate that kind of cooperation. Not that it does the conquered any good, of course.

When you submit, you submit. Just lie back and think of secularism. For all the good it will do you.