Ricardo Duchesne on the Limits of Liberalism, By James Reed
The UK immigration "riots" and brutal shutdown of free speech, including legal threats against even people in other jurisdictions to the UK, such as US citizen Elon Musk, show, Canadian philosopher Ricardo Duchesne argues, the limits of liberalism in a pluralistic, ethno-racially, diverse society. Classic liberalism was based upon the ideals of impartiality, and reason-rules based moral judgments, over ethnically-centred values, in short ethnocentric tribalism. It was a philosophy that Whites, especially Nordics (northern Europeans) embraced because of their genetically based universalism. Equal rights and a rejection of the local and nationalism, let alone racial loyalty, was at its core.
Hence, non-discriminatory mass immigration, and all the trappings of woke, such as the laws being used in the UK against protesters. Globalist capitalism saw the openness of liberalism to its advantage and continues to push its own agenda regardless of impending social breakdown. Get profits today, even if the world burns tomorrow.
"Liberalism is an ideology uniquely rooted in the "weird" psychology of Whites. Only whites have a very strong predisposition for impartiality, equal rules and rights for everyone regardless of nationality, reason-based values, rather than ethnocentric/religiously mandated values, fairness and high trust towards members outside one's kinship and race.
The basic political principle of liberalism is pluralism. This principle says the government has no right to mandate any way of life, philosophical, and moral doctrines. First, humans are naturally free and reasonable enough beings to decide for themselves their religious beliefs and what constitutes the "good life".
Second, since humans have different personalities and cultural backgrounds, they will always be divided about what constitutes the best way of life; and so, if a state is to avoid violent conflict over these divisions, it should create a political setting in which everyone has an equal right to express their views in a state of mutual tolerance on fair terms.
Liberal pluralism worked quite well among diverse ethnic Europeans up until recent times. It would have continued to work on an Earth populated only by whites, notwithstanding its erosion of traditions and its democratic hedonism. The theory of pluralism in a white world would have allowed for a debate about these issues. But this ideology is leading to multiracial divisions and a climate of betrayal against the heritage and ethnicity of whites.
Whites are only 10% of the world's population, millions of nonwhites have come to the West, and millions more wish to come. They are coming to the West because the progressive logic of liberalism — extension of equality of rights to all regardless of nationality — combined with the nature of capitalism for global markets, labor mobility, and rejection of localism and nationalities, has led to immigrant multiculturalism.
The idea of pluralism was first articulated in the 17th century in the wake of the incredibly violent civil war between Catholics and Protestants. Although this principle was already implied in the early Christian belief that religion cannot be forced but is a matter of personal conscience, prior to the 17th century religious intolerance was commonplace among Christians, seen as a prerequisite of social order and maintenance of the "true" orthodoxy.
Only after the 17th century, did a growing number of Europeans reach the view that "intolerance" of different religious beliefs, or the imposition of one world view, was the source of violence. It came to be agreed that citizens nurtured in a liberal setting, where they are free to choose their own values, in a state of mutual tolerance and fairness, will not mind living in a society that is divided by "reasonable" (= mutually tolerant) religious and philosophical doctrines. Except for a few, most citizens would become "reasonable" with a tolerant moral character capable of cooperating with others holding different views on fair terms.
In other words, however divided humans may be about the meaning of life, they can come to the universal agreement that pluralism is the best political order for the coexistence of citizens with different worldviews.
John Rawls, the central theorist of liberal pluralism, has often been criticized for underestimating the degree to which intense passions generated by divisions over moral beliefs (for and against abortion) may make it difficult for citizens to remain tolerant. Today, indeed, conservatives and dissidents are arguing that Western societies are now dominated by a woke ideology that is very intolerant and hardly pluralistic.
But if we examine what are the factors that are really dividing the West, they are racial integration and immigrant multiculturalism. And these divisions, I would argue, are intensifying because we are no longer dealing with typical white Christian conservatives who object to progressive gender policies, but with millions of immigrants and blacks in the US, who are not psychologically weird, that is, who don't have an inclination towards reasonableness, impartiality, rule of law, fairness and tolerance. And we are also dealing with a ruling liberal class that is determined to actualize the liberal logic of race mixing the West, and will use coercion to force this upon whites.
John Rawls knew that not all people on Earth have liberal inclinations. He knew the world is mostly populated by non-liberal people, and that most inhabitants on Earth are not reasonable (willing to coexist with others who hold different views on fair terms). But Rawls refused to identify Europeans on ethnic terms as the only people who became reasonable. Like a typically weird white, he wrote in terms of "human reasonableness". His ideas, rather, have been used as part of the liberal package to promote immigrant multiculturalism on the grounds that no government has a right to impose European cultural standards on a population and discriminate against nonwhite immigration.
The result is that Western liberal states are now facing a breakdown in the ability of different races to coexist on fair terms, and governments can't accept this reality except to identify the opponents of diversity as extremists who are not reasonable and should not be allowed on the public sphere. They are coaxing and coercing whites to accept the demise of their heritage.
This is an emergency that requires dissident whites to conduct a serious debate about the nature of pluralism in a Western world dead set on racial and cultural diversity.
Comments