By accepting you will be accessing a service provided by a third-party external to https://blog.alor.org/
Liberalism and Open Borders: Dissolving the Body Politic By Paul Walker
Why has it all happened? Multiculturalism, Asianisation, open borders? In an informative article from last year, Ricardo Duchesne argues that all of these horrors have occurred because liberal nations lack a concept of the political:
Up until the early 1960s western nations operated in an ethno-nationalist way, accepting the right to refuse entry to various ethnic groups. Except for small, but soon to be powerful groups from the Left, this was accepted as normal. But then, this all changed, arguably for the worst. Here is Duchesne’s explanation, derived from philosopher Carl Schmitt:
“Was there something within the racialist liberalism of the pre-WW II era that made it susceptible to the promulgation of these norms and their rapid radicalization thereafter? Why did Western leaders succumbed to the radicalization of these norms so easily? The answer may be found in Carl Schmitt’s argument that liberal states lack a strong concept of the political. I take this to mean that liberals leaders have an inherent weakness as political beings due to their inability to think of their nation states as a collectivity of people laying sovereignty claim over a territory that distinguishes between friends and enemies, who can belong and who cannot belong in the territory.
Liberals believe that their nation states are associations formed by individuals for the purpose of ensuring their natural right to life, liberty, and happiness. They have an imaginary view of their liberal states as associations created by isolated individuals reaching a covenant, a contract or agreement, amongst themselves in abstraction from any prior community. They have a predilection to whitewash the fact that their liberal states, like all states, were forcibly created by a people with a common language, heritage, racial characteristics, religious traditions, and a sense of territorial acquisition involving the derogation of out-groups.
For this reason, in the words of Carl Schmitt, liberals have an undeveloped sense of the political, an inability to think of themselves as members of a political entity that was created with a clear sense of who can belong and who cannot belong in the community. Having a concept of the political presupposes a people with a strong sense of who can be part of their political community, who can be friends of the community and who cannot be because they pose a threat to the existence and the norms of the community.”
In short, the liberal philosophy of human nature would ultimately have run us to ground, and the ruling elites knew this well; it was all just a matter of time. Liberalism ignores the bulk of human tribal history, and sees man as the capitalist see him, as an atomised consumer and bundle of rights. The liberal man thus has no real human existence or sense of history, let alone heroic qualities. He is a creature of the market, pure and simple.
We see this with Australia’s constitution, which as much as we love it, is thin on protections, being essentially an enabling document. Presumably the common law was to protect traditions such as free speech, but it has done the opposite, and indeed has not even protected basic things like the federal structure, working away to undermine the rights and powers of the states.
As far as immigration goes, liberalism ultimately cannot defend ethnic integrity and community:
“In our time of mass multicultural immigration we can see clearly how enemy groups can be formed inside a national collectivity, groups seeking to undermine the values and the ethnic character of the national group. Therefore, to have a concept of the political is to be aware, in our multicultural age, of the possibility that enemy outgroups can emerge within our liberal nations states; it is to be aware that not all humans are equally individualistic, but far more ethnocentric than Europeans, and that a polity which welcomes millions of individuals from collectivist cultures, with a human nature driven by the passions for power and for recognition, constitute a very dangerous situation. …
Non-White ethnic groupings stand as “the other,” “the stranger,” to use Schmitt’s words, in relation to nations where Europeans still constitute the majority. The friend-enemy distinction, certainly “the Us versus Them” distinction, can be applied to the relation between non-White ethnic groupings and European national groupings in the degree to which the collective actions of non-European groups negates the heritage and overall way of life of the majority European population. Ethnic groupings that negate the way of life of European liberal nations must be repulsed if European nations are to preserve their “own form of existence.” To be cognizant of this reality is what it means to have a concept of the political in our current age of mass immigration. It does not mean that alien groupings are posing an immediate physical threat. Enemy groupings may also emerge as a major force through sheer demographic growth in a seemingly peaceful atmosphere, leading to all sorts of differences over voting patterns, accumulation of wealth and resources, ethnic hierarchies, divergent customs and religious practices, that become so pervasive that they come to threaten the way of life of the founding peoples, polarizing the nation into US versus Them.”
It was inevitable then, that liberalism would let the West down and turn rotten. Its heart was flawed from the beginning, so now we experience its legacy: