We're in deep dookey... continued

Via what has become one of my favorite blogs (Cartago Delenda Est) comes words of wisdom from one  John C. Wright:

The Muslim Jihad are an existential threat in the same way the German barbarians were a threat to the Roman empire. The German tribes simply did not have the manpower or military might to defeat the Empire, until the years came when the Empire, split in two, economically crippled, overtaxed and overregulated, was dying of myriad internal causes. The difference is that the Germans were willing to adopt the laws and religion of Rome, and to be civilized. The Jihad does not want that, they want the opposite.

The fellow-travelers and collaborators among the West who favor the Jihad, also want the downfall, not of civilization, but of the traditions, virtues, philosophies and values that are necessary preconditions to civilization, but which the they, for some odd reason, regard as optional, or even dismiss as a barrier to progress. 

So, your question is a red herring. The survival of the West is not in jeopardy, if by that we mean the Jihadists will wipe out the White Races as sailors wiped out the dodo. The survival of the West as an institution, as  a culture, as a people, is very much in question, particularly if we examine, not what is likely to happen within a decade, but what is likely to happen in a century.

We do not have the will to fight. The dominant social philosophy of the West is no longer Christianity, which can serve, if need be, as a fine warrior's religion, but is hedonism, which can never serve, by its very nature, as anything but a peacetime philosophy forever operating toward the disunion and disintegration of society.

Three hundred epicureans and playboys cannot face three hundred Spartans, because the epicureans are only individuals, atoms without bonds, whereas the Spartans are a machine.

The war is a spiritual one, fought by ideas. Islam is an ancient religion with a backbone of strength to it. Modern secular humanism is a threadbare philosophy, a hulk of exhausted promises and lies, that inspires neither loyalty nor zeal.

Do you think three hundred men who think that they are no better than monkeys or meat-robots, men loyal to no ideal nobler than self-interest rightly understood, can face three hundred Holy Warriors animated by an unearthly hope of paradise? Their eyes are set on nothing of this world; therefore nothing in the world can deter them. 

He nailed it didn't he?  The war is a spiritual one and too many have surrendered.

Comments

[Ricky Barnes]

You are quite right, this war is a spiritual one, and by that I mean the "spirit of life" as opposed to a religious one. What any conquering culture, despot or dictator forgets is that the spirit of the individual and its need to be free can never be broken. Empire, after empire after empire has forgotten this and fallen to it. Ultimately, the "spirit of brotherhood" inherent in the Spartans is simply another form of conformity. It works as long as the individual members agree almost completely with one another. It is inevitable that it will falter because, as individuals are want to do, individuals get individual ideas about how to live their own lives.

Any social structure, any culture one can name is temporary. The primary drive in any form of life is to be liberated from interference in its growth and development. That is no more true than among complex and dynamic human beings. Structure wears down by the continual friction of individualism. It always will. In the long run, Islam, Christianity, Judaism and other so-called "perfect" institutions cannot win a "spiritual war" against individuality.

[Matteo]

Ricky Barnes--Some empirical data seem to tell against your thesis. Judaism: 3000 years and going strong. The Catholic Church: 2000 years and going strong. Just how long is this "long run" you're talking about?

[Mommynator]

Mr. Ricky Barnes mistakes the commonalities true for every last single human being with losing one's individuality.

Thus he probably believes the 10 commandments are oppressive of individuality, even though it has been shown throughout history that societies and individuals that most closely adhere to these are the most successful.

And where does individuality end and the good of the community, whether a village, family, town, city or country end? Are we all supposed to live in some zombie-like individual existence just so we can claim freedom without being "oppressed" by social structures?

Your post made no sense at all, Mr. Ricky Barnes. Methinks you need a course in basic logic before you ever write about these matters ever again.