This Dark Age

A manual for life in the modern world.

By Daniel Schwindt

NOTICE:
This Dark Age is now available in paperback on Amazon. The print version is MUCH cleaner than this online version, which is largely unedited and has fallen by the wayside as the project has grown. If you’ve appreciated my writing, please consider leaving a review on the relevant paperback volumes. The print edition also includes new sections (Military History, War Psychology, Dogmatic Theology).

Volume 1 | Volume 2 | Volume 3| Volume 4 | Volume 5 | Volume 6

National security by any means necessary

Napoleon once said: “He who saves his country does not violate any law.” In other words, if ‘national security’ is on the line, there is no such thing as a moral law, or at least there is no such thing as a moral law that is not subordinate to the safety of the nation. Survival by any means necessary is the order of the day. The problem is that it only concerns itself with the survival in a vague sense, and usually a materialistic one. It denies the possibility that certain actions can kill the soul even while saving the body. Christ said that if the flesh causes you to sin, you should cut it off and discard it, because the soul is what matters most. In other words, sometimes the flesh must perish so that the soul may live. One can naturally suppose that sometimes the political unit must dissolve so that the spiritual integrity of the people can remain intact. The attitude of modern patriotic nationalists is the reverse: if it is a choice between state and society, society must sacrifice itself for the state and its ideals. In a capitalist regime, where capitalists run the state and where there is little difference between the economic and the political order, this amounts to a situation where the people are asked to sacrifice themselves, physically and spiritually, for the economy, or for the economic well-being of the nation.

It is common for the media and the state to stir up panic with this talk of ‘survival’ but again it is not always clear what is in question, and there is a serious difference between biological survival, economic survival, political survival, and cultural survival. While it might be understandable to react with extreme force against threat of biological destruction, it is not equally justifiable to react in the same way and to the same extreme when it is merely a question of the survival of a certain economic regime or policy. And yet, hearing people talk, the one is equivalent to the other, or at least the distinctions are not important.

As it was put by one of the characters in Frank Herbert’s Dune novels, “What good is survival if you do not survive whole?” How can you sacrifice the most important parts of yourself in order to merely ‘stay alive’? And what kind of a life would that be?

Share This