This is a field manual to achieve victory in the struggle between Islamist Nationalism and the American Incumbency. The conclusion submits that victory for both sides is the only outcome which will avert a disastrous degeneration of the global political status quo into a considerably lower level of civil affairs.
In beginning, I must qualify my self as a Mayflower descendant whom is also a Muslim. I am proud of both aspects of my heritage, although naturally i did not choose to be born with this poignant backgound. Suffice it to say that as a native of both worlds, I can see the righteousness implicit in each doctrine and likewise the failure of each to recognize in eachother the common human drive to be dignified, which gave rise to many groupings over the course of history. Declaring independence can take place in many ways, but in all there lies a message of equality.
As is the case often in nature, symmetrical balance suggests the possiblity that the self evident truth that all men are created equal comes with its commensurate mirror truth: the denial of human equality has dire implications. The rightful assertion of one’s equality can either triumph, or be temporarily defeated. The latter leads social illness akin to inferiority complex. Thus the vanquished society may be said to suffer from condition of mass inferiority complex, which leave its culture subject to the appeal of demagogues. These opportunists capitalize on an unspoken but widespead sense of patriotism gone bad, and rise to power on the promise of restoring some romanticized ultra orthodox golden era, which existed in a past more likely to be imaginary than not. The promise of lifting the chins of a downtrodden people, usurping the deep need for leadership, and commonly transferring responsability for the prevailing unhappiness upon some scapegoat, the demagogue wears the trappings of true leadership but offers no real means to restore the dignity of his people, because this cannot be achieved without the recognition of the universal equality of all men. Overcompensation does not reverse the unfairly subjugated populace; it leads to the inevitable destabilization of the larger geopolitical environment and to further encroachment and disequilibirum.
The Islamist radical must thus be seen in light of the other instances in which history has casued injustice to be followed by overcompensation, and further injustice. The Nazi’s, the KKK, etc. are all borne of the defeated nations of previous wars where hatred was incubated in the neglected slums of once proud cities.
I submit that had the Continental Army been roundly defeated by King Georges Men in 1776, the thriteen colonies would have remained divided, and the Yankee drum would not have been silenced but would rather have turned into an instrument to hold the tar and feathers awaiting loyalists and redcoats. Such was the case with the young German nation whose outraged defiance after Napoleonic incursions, and assertion of equality in the face of Empire’s surrounding it, led to a furious re emergence of its identity time and again. Still, the lesson should be clear that even defeated by two wars, the great nations will be inexorably manifest in the course of time. Perhaps we could further infer that under shared hardship the social cohesiveness of a group is enhanced, and by establishing the dynamic of a rebel society or culture of insurrection, the ardent pursuit of retribution merely promotes the legitimacy of the most extreme factions in a group defined by its resistance to a stronger force.
Given that a stronger foe is dominating the conflict in which one is engaged, the inspired leader must take strategy to a new level of creative innovation. The use of violence against a stronger foe would by iself be useless, making the competition be purely on terms which favor the incumbent. Instead, subterfuge dictates that misdirection characterise the rebel strategy.
