Sunday, 9 March 2014


by Daniel Barge

It's often said that war brings out the best and worst in people. But just supposing there's more worst than best, what can we expect to happen?

Now, as the Crimean crisis moves through its second week, there is tough talk aplenty and with the talk come the gestures – troops moved around like pieces on a Risk board, ships sailing nearer.

Can any of this mean anything?

We also have a lot of people saying that "jaw-jaw is better than war-war," combined with the idea that talk is cheap, especially when it could be used to filibuster Western efforts to diplomatically persuade Russia to retreat from what is clearly Russian territory.

But if there seems to be any consensus it is that war is a bad idea, and you won't win any points on social media saying the opposite, but – BIG PICTURE – is war really the worst option here?

What most of us on the alternative right want is the collapse of the West – the globalist, materialist, usurious, atheistic, multiculturist, anti-genderist, anti-Whitist West. We definitely want it to collapse before it has a chance to infect every part of the globe with its vile bacillus.

Again – BIG PICTURE – the West is ascendant everywhere. Radical Islam has become its tool, while Islamic countries are swarmed by its porn and materialism – and very soon its other vices. China too is hardly immune to its lowest common denominator acid, and, with its heavily gendercided, male-slanted population of the future, it may well be an ideal candidate for the West's vile experiments in gender deconstruction.

The unimaginative think that Western and in particular American power – the black cancerous heart of the West – stems from Uncle Sam's mighty military, but the fact is that the mould and metastasizing of the West grows through soft power, by incremental creeping, the same way that rot works, the same way a frog is boiled.

Such corruption requires peace and the allaying of all heroic and spiritual values.

This is also the reason why, when you strip away the smoke and mirrors of the controlled narrative, the West is militarily weak. Sure, with enough money you can put on a nice fireworks display occasionally, but with one cruise missile costing X million dollars, you might actually want to use professional firework artists to get more flash – if not bang – for your buck.

Look at the record. The West is Mars's bitch. Since 1945, America has been involved in the following five major conflagrations. It has not done very well:

  • KOREA (1950 - 1953) – A tough draw against a recently installed Chinese Communist regime with some Russian help
  • VIETNAM (1961 -1972) – A clear defeat through loss of will
  • GULF WAR (1990-91) – Victory against a weak opponent in an exposed position
  • IRAQ WAR (2003-2011) – Pyrrhic victory at great cost
  • AFGHANISTAN (2001 – present) – Looming defeat

At best, America has a 50% record in major conflicts, and, given the ambiguity of the Iraq result, less than 50%. Clearly this is an abysmal record for a global hegemon. Other great empires at the height of their power tended to have win rates closer to a 100%. In addition to these major wars, the US has also been kicked out of places like the Lebanon (1983) and Somalia (1992) by rag-tag outfits. Toys R Us, but Wars clearly R not Us.

If America knows what's good for it, it will avoid war like the plague. But, conversely, for those of us who wish to see the downfall of American power, American involvement in war has its undoubted attractions.

Last year when it looked like America would attack Syria and Iran, I secretly hoped that it would and in the process get bogged down in a real meatgrinder with escalating costs and – yes – a rising death toll. Perhaps deterring the West from this move was Putin's great mistake.

Of course I abhor the costs of war, especially the sacrifice of the innocent and the bravest, but considering the state of our civilization we also have to abhor the costs of peace.

The 18th-century churchman Beilby Porteus expressed much the same thoughts in Death: a Poetical Essay:

"Yet say, should Tyrants learn at last to feel,
And the loud din of battle cease to bray;
Should dove-ey'd Peace o'er all the earth extend
Her olive branch, and give the world repose,
Would Death be foil'd? Would health, and strength, and youth
Defy his power? Has he no arts in store,
No other shafts save those of war? — Alas!
Ev'n in the smile of Peace, that smile which sheds
A heavenly sunshine o'er the soul, there basks
That serpent Luxury: War its thousands slays,
Peace its ten thousands..."

Yes, its ten thousands and indeed millions and billions. Because of the sickness of our present day society, war by comparison becomes almost healthy.

If some kind of war were to erupt between the West and Russia – perhaps America sucked in to back up its defeated Ukrainian proxy – not only would it break the spell of soulless materialistic hedonism that is the siren song of our civilization, and call forth higher values on both sides, but it would also expose the contradictions in the West and our civilization's inherent incompatibility with heroism and self-sacrifice.

It would of course bring out the best and worst, and the West would have more of the worst, so a war between the West and Russia would also most likely result in Russian victory. This would then resonate around the World and sound the death knell of the unimperial empire that is America, a true victory for the World, so, in the immortal words of Shakespeare’s Mark Anthony:

"Cry ‘Havoc,’ and let slip the dogs of war;
That this foul deed shall smell above the earth
With carrion men, groaning for burial."

No comments:

Post a Comment