Those who are baffled by the failure of so many countries and governments to offer any meaningful resistance to the Jihad must begin looking at the root causes of the mindset that makes appeasement and concessions seem so much more appealing than resistance.
When the US first proposed action against Saddam, the unanimous condemnation was led by a single word, "Unilateral". That same word, "Unilateral" typically winds up in criticism of any Israeli action taken against terrorists. Reasonable people found themselves baffled as to how a relatively neutral word such as "Unilateral" had become a epithet. But for a bureaucracy there is no uglier word than "Unilateral". Bureaucracies pride themselves on achieving consensus through meetings and committees, nothing made Bush more hated than his willingness to take "Unilateral" action.
Let's examine another key epithet in the politically correct lexicon. "Extremist". Extremist literally means representing an extreme, not necessarily a good thing, yet seemingly undeserving of the kind of vitriol that has become attached to it. But in a bureaucratic culture, "Extremist" has the same meaning as "Unilateral", operating outside the consensus.
Why does this matter? Because as Orwell knew, words have meaning and words describe the mindset of a culture. Every political culture creates its own Newspeak and the Orwellian Newspeak of our bureaucratic culture values a comprehensive consensus and abhors individuality and individual thinking and action.
When 1984 came around, so many self-congratulatory articles were penned to point out that Orwell's future had not come to pass. They blindly were unable to see that not only had it come to pass, it had come around long before 1984 and by the year 1984 most of the nations representing industrialized human civilization were living under one form of a bureaucratic socialist state or another. The same journalists penning those same articles were paying out more of their taxes than ever to the state and subject to more regulations than ever. Like the proverbial lobster being slowly cooked in the pot, they were immersed in boiling water and didn't even know it, because like most change it had crept up slowly on them.
When bureaucracy became the new democracy, the first world substituted the rule of the bureaucrat for the rule of the people and democratic republics became bureaucratic republics and socialism was at the heart of it all. Where peoples had once rebelled against monarchs who had cast themselves as the protectors of the people only to exploit and oppress them, socialism invited the monarch back inside through a back door, gave him a desk and a rule book and then appointed 50,000 like him to serve as protectors of the people. The short name for this is socialism.
To idealists and activists, socialism was and is meant to be the ultimate political and social system, the monarch subdivided into a vast bureaucracy meant to protect the people as democratic elections cannot. When the Divine Right of Kings gave way to Form 180x-60C, the transition was made from one tyranny to another, but socialism is a tyranny based not around a single tyrant but around the tyranny of consensus. Democracy in its pure form preserves the right of the individual to dissent, to build and produce; while socialism treats the dissenting individual the way a hive treats a rogue bee. If the political debate is the anthem of democracy, the consensus hum of the hive is the hymn of socialism.
How does all this come around to the war on terror? True democracy encourages individual initiative, socialism discourages individual initiative. A single drone can't defend the hive and a drone who tries to do so is behaving "Unilaterally" and being an "Extremist."
After 9/11 the primary message broadcast by the government was not patriotic, it was "Go back to your normal lives. We know what we're doing." And people trained by an increasingly socialist system to do what they were told, went back to their lives and waited for the government to take care of things.
In Israel while rockets are falling on Sderot, the government reassures the public that it knows what it's doing and warns against any individuals taking unilateral action. No one believes the government, but no one can do anything either. Socialism breeds apathy in the public who feel helpless to do anything because they have been taught that only the government is potent and so emotionally disconnect from the situation and abandon hope to deal with the situation.
Across Europe the collision with growing Islamic populations is leaving behind a trail of the wounded, raped and the dead. Intimidation continues to creep through every sector of society, but the governments take some halfway measures and assure the public that they are in charge while the situation worsens and the bureaucratic socialist state reigns triumphant over its own dead.
Socialism breeds learned helplessness, its very fundamental premise is that people cannot care for themselves and their families. More so, socialism thrives on helplessness, on perpetuating the helplessness of the public and actually breeds through that helplessness. The worse a problem gets, the more the bureaucracy spreads like an infection spreading around a wound.
At the heart of socialism is the bureaucracy and at the heart of the bureaucracy is consensus. Bureaucracy treats the individual as a peg meant to fill a slot. One person means nothing. A hundred people mean nothing. But a million people mean everything. That is one major reason that bureaucracies continue to defer to Muslims, because Islam appears to represent a vast consensus and while bureaucracies ignore individuals, they integrate consensi.
When faced with a problem, bureaucracy either suppresses it or accommodates it. If the problem cannot be browbeaten out of existence with a handful of forms and quoted regulations, bureaucrats adapt to it. And so across the West, bureaucrats have adapted to Islam and are creating new regulations to accommodate it.
By their very nature bureaucracies are incapable of successfully resisting a sizable threat without strong leadership at the top. That is because bureaucracies cannot actually solve problems. A bureaucracy would rather have an unworkable consensus than a unilateral solution and so across Europe, the EU has created an unworkable consensus. It does not matter that it is unworkable, its very broadmindedness is what makes it more appealing than individual nations and individual solutions.
Meanwhile for the citizens living under a socialist bureaucracy, long before they have been turned into strangers in their own neighborhoods and a strange religion is imposing its arcane rules on them, they have already lives their lives as strangers in their own country, browbeaten into submission by the arcane rules of a vast soulcrushing bureaucracy. Even before Dhimmification turned them into second class citizens in their own country, socialism had already begun the job. The transition from socialism to sharia is merely a passage from one incomprehensible tyranny to another.
The bureaucracy recognizes no nation, pledges allegiance to no flag and holds no loyalty to any law but its own myriad rules and regulations. Bureaucracy represents its own god and its own kingdom, one that swallows the rights and lives of the citizens who live under it. Socialism is the ultimate expression of bureaucracy, one that absorbs individual initiative and breeds learned helplessness as a way of life. The queue, the form, the surrender of income and individuality, the constant inability to comprehend your obligations joined with the constant fear of having somehow stepped on the wrong side of one is our Sharia.
Serfs cannot defeat the barbarians at the gate, only citizens can. Socialism reduces citizens to serfs forever waiting on line with their paychecks held out in one hand for the bureaucracy and their own empty hands held out in hopes of receiving their benefits. Serfs pass quickly from one lord to another, even if the new lord's name is something foreign like Mohammed or Ahmed, it matters little in the end. After all lords come and go and why fight for what isn't yours anyway?
The greatest crime of socialism, of the myth of a global consensus filled out by international treaties and dreams of a single world government, is the dispossession of the individual, the deprivation of his natural feelings of patriotism for a land and a people drawn from a sense of ownership over it.
Socialism has exchanged that feeling of ownership for membership in commonwealths, alliances and treaty groups and the citizen becomes a smaller and smaller mote within a global consensus that has no room for owners, only for serfs. He learns helplessness, he learns to take orders, to give up what is his for the greater good, to feel endlessly guilty and unworthy and when his freedom vanishes, he no longer even realizes that he is no longer free.
Socialism is the death blow to nationalism and patriotism, something that had been intended all along by the progressive "idealists" who pioneered it, envisioning the erasure of borders and nationalities blurring into one single colorless globe. Yet this is not human destiny and socialism has left civilization broken into nations filled with bureaucrats who are as courageous as lions when confronting taxpayers and as cowardly as mice when confronting terrorists and prosperous serfs equipped with all the latest gadgets yet devoid of the will to break the consensus, to take that most unilateral and extremist of steps and rise up to speak in defense of their countries as free men and women.
There can be no victory against the Jihad except by individuals, by free men and women speaking and fighting for the defense of the nations, their national identities and their cultures. Socialism and the Jihad represent a common enemy, the first an enemy of the spirit and the second an enemy of the flesh. To defend the flesh, the spirit must first be free.