See also: Cultural Aggression as the Salvation of Democracy
Throughout history, cultures with
radically different
world views, i.e. cultures for which it was practically
impossible to mix and merge fought each other to death. Such was the case with
Europe versus the
native Americans, such was the case with
Christianity versus
pagan religions, this was the origin of the expansionist origin of
Hellenism et
cetera et cetera.
The world today is not much
different. The extraordinary rise of
liberalism,
humanism and
democratic values
observed during the modern age simply didn’t happen for a large portion of the
world. Grossly asymmetric, the modern world contains people with a pool in
their backyard and two cars per family, and people that don’t have food for
their children. People who watch movies about people blowing each other up to
break the boredom, and people that live in the constant fear of being blown up
or shot at. People which live in comfortable modern houses and people that live
upon huge piles of trash. In short, the world is split upon extremes, and
extremes inevitably lead to
extremism.
Does cultural warfare happen
today? If one half of the world is
civilized and
democratic, and the other
barbaric, haunted by
violence and
fanaticism, ruled by
terror and
despotism,
can the two coexist in some form of a
status quo? I believe
not.
And is it always the
stronger of
the two opponents that wins in this kind of conflict? Well, tautologically it
is so for the correct definition of “
stronger”. But is it compatible with our
current view upon which nations (as representatives of
culture) are
stronger?
The
Roman empire fell to the barbarians even though it might have appeared much
“stronger” at the time, and there was definitely
a time it
was
stronger. However, did the Romans feel that subtle moment of
strength becoming
weakness? Or were they blinded by their former success and believed themselves
invincible?
There are two questions that need to be asked when
examining the modern cultural war. Those questions are who is
the enemy and
what is its “
plan of action”. Another question would be, of course, what are
its chances of winning, and I think the answer on this question is not much
cheerful.
So, who is the enemy? I think it’s the time to
call
the devil by its name, and I won’t hesitate to do so: the enemy is the teaching
of
Jihad, the
extremist Islam. No, I’m not saying
Islam in general is
inherently
evil any more than any other
religion. I’m simply saying this is the
flag
the destructive driving force of human history is marching its
armies under
today. This can be compared to the deeds of
Christianity during the middle ages
and somewhat beyond: many of them were horrible – the
crusades, the
witch-hunt,
the
slaughter of native Americans – but it doesn’t mean Christianity is evil.
Christianity was never
evil, but
evil "was" (a twisted offspring of) Christianity. In the same
way, evil today is (a twisted offspring of) Islam
possibly with some
minor allies.
What is the enemy’s “plan”? Well, first of all one
has to understand what is meant by “plan”. This plan is not the conscious plan
of all, and maybe not even the conscious plan of any of the individuals
carrying the “barbarian”, “destructive” culture (of course virtually no culture
is such in general, it can only be made that by a certain
historical context).
This plan is, loosely speaking, the product of the
collective consciousness of
the whole enemy society. I believe that society in many cases can be viewed as
a single
organism, an organism which is both much more and much less than the
sum of its parts. Much more because if the individuals comprising the society
are separated, the society disappears. Much less because the “
intelligence” of
this organism is not great at all, possibly its just as intelligent as an
amoeba. The “plan” thus, is nothing but the
defensive reaction of this “
tissue”
against the intrusion of the “
tissue” of
civilization. This defensive reaction,
though, is made ingenious by whatever mechanisms
nature uses to devise all of
its critters.
The plan, as I see it, is comprised of three stages:
1.
Immigration: the Immigration of many individuals
carrying the barbarian culture into the civilized society. Those individuals
infiltrate the civilized society, using any route or method the society
provides them, mingling in – but not mingling in too much. The key to the
success of the “plan” is that those individuals still carry within them the
barbarian culture, which, even if latent, will ignite at the proper conditions.
In reality this immigration is easily allowed by the
immigration policies of
many democratic countries.
2.
Generation of dependence: the civilized society must
become dependant on the foreigners. This is achieved in a natural way – the
foreigners take over all of the “
low-level” kinds of work, and the members of
the civilized society are glad to give up on those. The carriers of “native”
culture improve their life style using the immigrant workers which would work
for
smaller wage and in
poorer conditions, due to the even poorer conditions in
the countries they came from. Therefore, the democratic society perceives the
immigrants as somewhat of a benefit, even if a certain rise in
unemployment is
inevitable as a result. The democratic society sees the
education of the
unemployed “native” masses as the correct solution to the problem, or
alternatively, the use of
welfare to support them. However, neither is easy to
achieve,
at the least.
3.
From terrorism to war: finally, when everything is
ready the enemy will attack. It would do it under the flag of
Islam, the poor
lifestyle of the “infiltrators” being the
proper soil. It would present
civilization as
immoral and
corrupt, as due to the blame in their misfortunate
condition. Blaming the richer members of society for one’s own poverty is
always
easy, and the result would be, in effect, a world-wide proletarian
revolution – however, it is the
Muslim crescent rather than the communist
hammer and sickle which
would lead the revolution. Probably it would start as a rising wave of
terrorism, culminating at the point the democratic societies would be driven
mad and use all of their
military might against third-world countries, possibly
scorching half of the globe in the process. In return, the “infiltrators” will
go to outright war. By that time they will have comparable if not superior
numbers to the native population: due to their higher rate of reproduction, and
due to recruiting “native” low-class.
Another possibility which would be even worse is the
appearance of an Islamic country wielding weapons of mass destruction. If it
would have the capability to deploy these weapons against the democratic
nations, their military would be
paralyzed, and the Islamic country might
become a base for breeding terrorist organization and launching terrorist
attacks against civilization. Those attacks would not be paramount to a
declaration of war, as the government would take no responsibility for the
terrorists’ actions: in fact it would condemn them (outwardly).
The enemy’s struggle will be aided by using the
weakness of democracy itself and the
communist poison which still runs in the
veins of civilization. The enemy would disguise itself as the “
weak” and the
“deserving pity”, as a “
freedom fighter” or as “the oppressed”, and it has
already learnt to do so very well. The
socialists will be naturally driven to
identify with the enemy as it would identify itself with the lower/weaker
classes of society – even though in fact it is not a proper part of society at
all, not any more than a
parasite is a part of the host. The enemy’s struggle
will be aided by the pretense and hypocrisy resulting from the “cold war
syndrome”, and the indifferent and double-standard policy of Russia, directly
related to its communist past. Eventually it will be aided by the dependence of
democratic society on
cheap labor. The society would rather suffer than give up
on it, up to some point.
What will the world be like if the enemy succeeds?
Hard to tell, but probably chaos and mutual war, possibly war using
nuclear and
other unconventional weapons will result. Possibly all of humanity will be
destroyed, but I find it unlikely. Certainly a large part of humanity would
either perish or enter a new dark age.
So, is there a cultural war? I think there is, and I
think many of the readers would agree by comparing its description with the
actual
geopolitical reality. Is there a chance the enemy would win? Certainly
as its plan is effective and the “free world” is still dormant in its large
part and lacks unison. Unison which, by the way, is inessential to herds of
low-level life forms such as
bacteria, but which
is essential to high
level life forms, such as an organism defending against bacteria. A situation
very similar, in my view, to the
liberal civilized humanity defending itself
against the minions of insanity. Is there a chance
we - the
free, the
democratic, the
liberal, the
humane part of humanity - would win? I think yes,
but this would require a significant rise in
public awareness and
immediate
following actions. A change which is not seen on the horizon yet.
A horizon
lit red by the threat of oncoming havoc.