Existential Conflict
The West is at it again. Appeasement, I guess it’s sort of our thing. I mean, why not try it again? It worked so well for Chamberlain with Hitler. Just ask the Polish. Does the term “existential conflict” have any meaning to the various governments of the West? I’m beginning to think that it doesn’t.
The recent events at Fort Hood serve only to highlight the veracity of what I (and many others) have advocated all along: this is not a war against a small, fringe group of religious fundamentalists. Islam itself is an enemy of the West. Islam and Western culture are incompatible, there are no two ways about it. Muslims who blend into the West are irreligious or follow a perverted version of Islam. You want to know what a devout Muslim looks like? This:
I have no sympathy for Islam. It deserves none. From the ‘disaffected youths’ in France to the cowardly acts of Malik Nadal Hasan at Fort Hood, Islam has shown its true self: violent, blood-thirsty, remorseless, amoral, and craven. To allow this cancer to continue to spread is madness beyond words. It is civilization suicide. Perhaps the West’s hegemony has run its course and we have entered the final days of our civilization. However, that is a choice we will make, it will not be made for us. As Toynbee observed: “Civilizations are not murdered. They commit suicide.”
The West has taken a regrettably light approach to the War on Terror. We are not yet beyond redemption, but that point approaches. The proliferation of nuclear technology and demographics may yet doom the West. Of course, we can continue down the road of appeasement and see if Islam really is the ‘religion of peace’ that some claim it to be. I have my doubts as to the merits of appeasement:
loading...
Leave a Reply