See also: Cultural Aggression as the Salvation of Democracy

The Fall of Modern Civilization

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.