I thought about your question. The answer is: What did they win?

The reality of the muslim world is that their violence is based around an ideological center that we do not have. Their violence is destructive to us, but, it is also destructive to them.

If the muslim world did not collapse in 1000ad into abject religious dogma and instead managed to combine religious structure with scientific and economic openness it wouldn't be the shithole that it is.

We are currently on the same precipice as islam was in 1000ad. We have 50%of the population entirely under the control of our enemies propaganda and utterly degenerate, much like the conquered muslim civilizations were then. The difference this time is that we don't have a religious center to collapse into.

The downside is that we cannot offer a religious option to collapse into, but that isn't necessarily a bad situation. Instead, what we are discovering is that everyone in our civilization is biased to one side or the other by default and the pressures we are under now are only showing the division more clearly. That means, the question isn't just "did they lose", the question is also "what can we do to win?"

This is the same ancient problem that our people have faced. We have to build alliances, we have to educate our people, we have to train our people and we have to work with our people to define the future that we want to achieve together before we can ask them for sacrifice.

Violence is the quickest answer. Just like animals, we respond to pain, and the possibility of more pain. For example, we gave up our rights simply on a threat of "more violence is coming!".

Bad news is discomfort, violence is discomfort. Our instincts tell us to do what is needed to prevent or limit it. These facts have been used to pass every single anti-drug, anti-terror, anti-anything law in recent history. Most of us are stupid enough to believe it so long as our lives stay comfortable.

So be it. If it must be done it must be done.

Ostensibly, you are correct.

If we wanted to do an analysis, we could write down all of our offensive and defensive strategies and options. We could do the same for all of our enemies as well. Out of that you can start to do some analytics, categorize and assign values such as effectiveness.

Indeed, threatening peoples jobs and well being is one such strategy. They have many and on top of that our governments have hired behavioral psychologists that know how to manipulate us and then use metrics to track their progress.

Where these conversations get boring and glownigger is when people suggest there is only one option. A military commander doesn't have a strategy book with one page on it. Wars are fought in multiple dimensions and physical altercation is ALWAYS a last resort or a first resort if you have an opening to utterly remove your enemy from existence. Everything in between is completely uncertain.

To add to that point, we really have not achieved any level of sophistication in terms of analysis here. For example, if we are looking to start analysis of the problem, you really need to start considering all possible categories in which wars are fought, not just physical:

• economics
• evolutionary psychology
• history
• law
• power
• mythology
• religion
• media
• social structures

... and on and on. Those are all separate war fronts with their own special skills and tactical requirements.

Anyone with even the tiniest bit of knowledge and perspective knows that you avoid phsyical options at all costs, because the price is too high and reward is very low. For example, the yellow vests in France put up a damn good fight. A bunch of them lost eyes, lost hands, ended up in jail, and so forth. But, they did not win because a physical protest in France is an all or nothing situation as they don't have support in the bureaucracy. In Portland and NYC however, pantifa faggots are allowed (even encouraged) to put on their little soy shows of protest not because they have any power at all but because the bureaucracies in those regions use them as their brown shirts to exert soft extrajudicial power.

The amount of low hanging fruit and amount of options available to us is vast. Because the discussion here is basically garbage tier low level nonsense, we talk our selves in circles about war this and war that when the reality is that we can just start taking over political institutions to get some big wins.

And this is why we keep on losing. People here are mostly stuck thinking that we are going to win when that one might saviour comes and leads us to victory. This is pure idiocy. Most wars are fought through an attrition of a thousand tiny scars with occasional opportunities for a big break move. We just watched this with the left. They have been veeeeeeeery slowly maneuvering into place everywhere and now they control everything. We found out too late, voted Trump in and they just said no and placed their guy in illegally.

Anyone that talks about violence as the only option really has no fucking clue. This is why we got outmaneuvered by communists and a tiny group of jews.

I encourage everyone to start thinking strategically.