I continue to be persuaded that the root of our problem is a heresy; an erroneous set of doctrines which draws its strength from the fact that some of the doctrines are true, and others are plausible if fatal innovations. This is a heresy that has resisted all attempts at suppression or defeat, whether by force or conversion. It is the oldest threat to Christendom, and some have argued (Belloc) that its rise to power was prepared by the Arian heresy, with its collapsing of the Trinity and the tension and mystery embodied in that tremendous doctrine.

Anyway, until we can start thinking about religion is a serious way: about our own even more than that of our enemies; until we can recognize cultures and civilizations as flowing from religions — until this historical awareness dawns on us, we will be forever disarmed intellectual in this struggle.

A comment I just posted in a parallel thread is also relevant here:

Mr. Young writes:

“When Allenby took the Holy City from the Turks, he was moved by the sight of the first *Christian* Army entering Jerusalem in 700 years. Not Judeo-Christian, not Western, not Liberal-Democratic-Capitalist, or for that matter, not English, British, or Allied.”

We can’t fight our enemy successfully unless we name him. And we can’t name him correctly unless we name ourselves. This is not a battle between “freedom” and “terror” but between Christendom and Mohammedanism. Now of course it will be said that Christendom doesn’t exist any more, that it’s been largely replaced by secular pluralist liberalism. But that is precisely the problem, isn’t it? Having lost our true selves, we’re helpless to defend ourselves effectively. The enemy, by contrast, knows who he is and who we are. He knows this is a battle between two substances. We imagine it’s a battle between two procedures. Unless we rediscover and restore our own substance, we will not be able to prevail against him.

http://www.counterrevolution.net/vfr/archives/001850.html#9971

It is unfortunate that the method of warfare of our enemies does not require an empire. There is no one who can surrender for the rest. We will still be fighting them fifty years from now, and a hundred years from now.

For the moment Rumsfeld’s question is a good one. He recognizes that it is radical Islam that is training these people through “madrassas and the radical clerics,” and he recognizes that our practical efforts must be aimed at “capturing, killing or deterring and dissuading” the terrorists.

The other option on the table is transforming Islamic society into one that is not constantly producing the terrorist threat. Is it doable? Maybe. There are a few options that have been floated: A) Peaceful economic development aid and diplomatic pressure on regimes to modernize – the Left’s plan B) Invasion and democratization – the neocon plan C) Demoralize them – Mr. Auster’s plan D) Withdraw in order to limit engagement and let the other side cool off – The paleocon plan.

Plan D is my own natural preference. But I don’t think it’s possible without a measure of Plan C.

Mr. Cella says the heresy that is the permanent threat to Christianity was prepared by Arianism, but he doesn’t say what the heresy itself is.

Also, where does Belloc discuss Arianism in these terms, as a denial of the tension and mystery of the Trinity? Also, I wonder if it is Arianism that’s the problem (Arianism was defeated, after all), or rather a recurrent rebellion from Christian orthodoxy that takes a variety of forms.

When I go to desroy an anthill I don’t pay much attention to the workers, not even big ugly ones like bin Laden. If the “madrasses and radical clerics” are breeding the terrorists then why don’t they have smart bomb telemetry with their names on it? Just because some of the coordinates would be in Seattle and London?

Mr. Auster is right that you can’t fight the enemy unless you name him. But apparently in the postmodern world you can name the enemy and still refuse to fight him.

Mr. Auster asks:
“Mr. Cella says the heresy that is the permanent threat to Christianity was prepared by Arianism, but he doesn’t say what the heresy itself is.”

I nominate logocentrism and its later cousin nominalism.

“But apparently in the postmodern world you can name the enemy and still refuse to fight him.”

Right. It’s no longer enough to get people’s agreement on right and wrong, on friends and enemies, because nowadays they’re likely to say, “I believe in right and wrong, I just don’t believe in imposing my standards on others,” or, “I agree that so and so is dangerous, but we’re not exactly guiltless ourselves,” etc. etc. Thus it’s quite possible for people to see the good (or the bad), and still not desire it (or want to oppose it).

Attack, attack, attack is the answer to defeating an enemy. Ask the U.S. Marines. There really is no other solution in a war. The problem is what do we do when no one wants to die in a war where there is absolutely no assurance that what one is dying for will be conserved. Traditional values that are not explicit (as opposed to the relatively vague values embodied in the U.S. Constitution) and are not institutionally protected are not going to prevail, and educated adults know it. People are not complete fools. Who wants to die for diversity, set asides for so-called minorities, illegal aliens, multiculturalism, confiscation of wealth, and anti-racism; these are the explicit values of at least half of the country. In my view, only innocents and fools die for such nonsense. If anyone has any doubts about the county’s poor morale and level of patriotism, just look at the poor state of military recruiting where unfit men and women must be accepted because FIT MEN WON’T JOIN.

Mr. Auster wrote: “Arianism was defeated, after all.”

But I wouldn’t pronounce it dead. The so-called Jehovah’s Witnesses are in effect modern day Arians, denying the Deity of Christ and his bodily Resurrection, as well as the Personhood of the Holy Spirit. There are about 5 million Watchtower adherents worldwide.

Mormons, though not Arians in the strict, historic sense, nevertheless deny the Trinity, believing the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit to be 3 entirely separate entities and denying the eternal preexistence of all three. There are about 12 million adherents worldwide.

Other, smaller groups would include the orthodox Russelites, (‘Bible Students,’) who split from the Watchtower, as well as the Christadelphians.

The first 2 groups mentioned maintain bizarre prophetic interpretations that are implicitly hostile to present-day Israel — which is also true of the Seventh Day Adventists. This doesn’t help the situation either.

I am surprised to see P Murgos suggest that the values embodied in the Constitution are vague ones. They were not, until liberal constitutional lawyers and justices got ahold of the Constitution’s interpretation!