The Declaration of Independence and Constitution contrasted. – The decline of the United States compared to the decline of Rome. – The natural constitutions of ethnic nations. – Liberalism as a traditional ideology of the British people. – The positive and negative aspects of the British spirit. – Locke critiqued, and the downfall of the medieval order. – Liberalism in the American and French Revolutions. – Liberalism in the history of the United States. – Liberalism in the present. – Dugin’s theory of a new order revisited.
The American Republic and its guiding ideals have been torn from the beginning: torn between the universalist, egalitarian sentiments of the Declaration of Independence, which promises equality and natural rights as birthrights for all humanity; and the guided, rational, and virtuous principles of the Constitution, based firmly upon English Common Law, and meant for the posterity of the Founders only.
We see this battle between the differing sentiments of these documents played out through the relatively brief history of our Republic. When George Washington requested in his famous Farewell Address that we bear good faith towards all and avoid “entangling alliances,” he spoke as a Constitutionalist. On the other hand, when Woodrow Wilson dragged the country into the disastrous First World War one hundred years ago, he spoke as a progenitor of the Declaration. So did George Bush the Second, when he inaugurated the ‘War on Terror’ with the occult elite, to ‘liberate’ the rest of the world with this strange mixture of Common Law and the worst of Enlightenment philosophy.
The Leftist, egalitarian sentiment has ultimately proven to be triumphant, and will likely mean the doom of our Republic, regardless of how well President Trump does within potentially eight years of office. This egalitarian trend has paralleled mankind’s trend towards collectivization and socialization, as well as the extraordinarily degenerate individualism that accompanies it.
Previously witnessed in ancient Rome as it degenerated from a republic, to an imperialistic Empire, to finally a depraved, socialistic ‘civilization’ overcome by barbarians, this trend has likewise been witnessed in the United States since the Progressive Era, and has only increased since the 1960s. Today it has reached its fulfillment: the immigrant invasion, accompanied by perpetual war and economic distress, as well as the loss of religion and the most perverse depravity, testify to this fact.
If, as many on the alternative Right believe, the United States is destined for inevitable dissolution based upon ethnic conflict, the white faction (at least in this author’s opinion, though monarchists would disagree) would likely do well to preserve the Constitution – purged from any progressive amendments, of course – but reject the Declaration as nothing more than a historical curiosity, and not maintain it as an ideological guiding light.
Regardless of the future of the United States, the past several decades especially have seen the implosion of the guiding ideology of America – that is, liberalism. Alexander Dugin, the increasingly popular Russian philosophe, has written on this in his work The Fourth Political Theory. I have yet to read it, but I will attempt to offer some thoughts on this implosion, as follows:
Every ethnic nation possesses a unique sociopolitical system, and a guiding Spirit (in the Hegelian sense). Some are more suited for monarchy; others for republicanism; still others for simple forms of chieftainship. With these varieties of government follow necessary economic systems: some societies are naturally more drawn to socialism; others to the free market.
Ethnic nations have their virtues and vices on the societal scale, just as human beings have their individual virtues and vices, each in differing proportions. The ideal system of government and system of economy for each nation is thus a delicate balancing act between what is best for it as it has naturally developed, and the inevitable corruption that will result from that nation’s vices. Within the triumph of each system lies its seed of downfall.
Liberalism, as it is classically understood, is a societal system based upon the rule of law, not men; equality under the law to its citizens; certain privileges granted to citizens in the form of ‘rights’ or liberties; and a representative system of government. Accompanying liberalism, especially in the present age, are an embrace of capitalism and the individual. While normally associated with ‘classical’, Right-wing liberalism (conservatism), left-liberalism embraces these values as well.
Liberalism may be considered to be a ‘Leftist’ ideology by those on the more ‘hard-core’ faction of the alternative Right, but if we examine the history of liberalism and its precepts, it dates far, far back in time to the German tribes in the age of ancient Rome. So in some sense, it is difficult to describe liberalism as anything but conservative or traditionalist – but conservative or traditionalist only to those by whom it organically developed.
These tribes elected their kings and allotted great freedom to the individual, and their descendants created the world’s first parliaments; gave rights to the baron nobility in the Magna Carta; and developed a system of government accountability to the people throughout the Middle Ages in the form of Common Law.
This system, of course, was uniquely British, for Britain is where these tribes settled; and the relative isolation of Britain allowed for the ideals of these tribes to be carried out on a grander and more sophisticated scale than elsewhere in Europe. In even more isolated British America, these ideals reached their logical fulfillment: here they have reached their glorious triumph, and here they have reached their miserable downfall.
Combined with the sociopolitical aspect of liberalism, we also witness the ‘other’ meaning of the word liberal – that is, generous. The British (and by extension Americans) are in many ways liberal of spirit, and this spiritual liberality has combined naturally with the liberality of our political system. Tolerance and good will, and belief in the decency of the individual, are all practiced by our peoples; and these traits have been utilized in developing a system which has guaranteed many comforts and freedoms to those who live under its auspices.
Religious freedom (at least for Christians) and freedom of speech (within limits) and right to a jury trial all predate the Enlightenment. (Do we really desire to become a society where these things do not exist?) With rights having been extended to so many non-British, few (if any) are willing to surrender them.
Yet herein lies the ‘flip side’ of the British personality: its quest for dominance and Empire. Dugin and the Russian Orthodox think tank Katehon reference this when they speak of the ‘globalist-Atlanticist’ empire: the aggressive and militaristic spread of British/American liberality throughout the nations of the world, and the Empire’s quest to create a ‘New World Order’ based upon these values.
The British are perhaps the most individualistic race of people on Earth, and this is both a strength and a failure. With the abandonment of Christianity and embrace of the Enlightenment, the individualism has come to the fore of liberalism has proven to be terribly destructive.
The seeds of this present-day realization of liberalism were planted, of course, by John Locke. The author personally commends Locke for his defense of “life, liberty, and property” – after all, is these not which the alternative Right fights for?
But other than that, most of his philosophy should be discarded. It is Locke who infused radical egalitarianism and individualism into liberalism – negatively amplifying its previous tendency towards the same – and in doing so inaugurated the spread of liberal ‘globalist Atlanticism’ worldwide.
Perhaps the development of liberalism in this way was inevitable. Medieval traditionalism, especially as practiced on the Continent (the geographical-spiritual opposite of Dugin’s Atlanticist empire, it should be added) was sublime, and had a sense of the divine order about it that liberalism lacked. Yet it was overly focused on the spiritual at the expense of the physical, and the Christian mysticism of the time was interspersed with strange notions of the ancient philosophers that passed for ‘science.’
Thus medievalism failed because, for all its glory, the individual was reduced to a one-dimensional role: that of a king, a cobbler, or a pauper. One’s station was inevitable, and therefore the full extent of the human personality could not be reached. When the individual decided to break free of this mold in the sixteenth century, and increasingly so during the Enlightenment, humanity went in the far opposite direction of permanent stasis, and overturned the social order entirely. Scientific discoveries, which were able to be proven beyond doubt, were especially damaging to the medieval mind, shaking its faith in God beyond repair.
Liberalism stepped in to fill this gap, spreading from beyond its native British shores in the age of Enlightenment. The ideas of liberty and (relative) equality only intensified due to the Zeitgeist of that era, and matriculated in the Kingdom of France, then under the failing grip of a degenerate monarchy. Some of the initial liberal reforms promoted in France – such as giving more voice to the Third Estate – appear to have been both beneficial and popular.
But the French temperament lacks the restraint and moderation of the British, and it was in France that the ideas of liberty and equality were taken to their natural conclusion, resulting in the world’s first Communist revolution. The bloodbath that accompanied this was to be repeated in Bolshevik Russia exactly one hundred years ago.
The differences of the French and American Revolutions have been pondered at length by historians, but it seems the case for their divergence is fairly simple: one invoked God (at least in some form) and the other was atheistic and Satanic. (Some of the American Founders were Freemasons as were the Jacobins in France; but Masonry had not yet been infiltrated by Illuminists at the time of the American Revolution.)
Furthermore, the American Revolution was a rebellion, not an overthrow, under which lay nationalistic tendencies. There is nothing of the sort in the French Revolution: any nationalism therein was primarily a cover for class envy and hatred. ‘Equality’ is a term associated with both revolutions; but in the American, there was little talk of equality except for in the Declaration, as previously discussed. Equality in the American colonies was a natural byproduct of frontier culture, not an Ideal imposed from above, as it was in France.
Ultimately, however, liberalism succeeded in America because of America’s British ethnic heritage. Liberalism morphed, and has been sustained in some form throughout our history. Nonetheless, there has always been an uneasy alliance between the Left-wing, Enlightenment ideals of the Declaration, and the nationalistic, conservative ideals of the Constitution, as has been previously discussed. American history has seen the pull of either one or the other at various times. Indeed, the very premise of a nation being founded on ideals, whether from the Left or the Right, is now crumbling before our eyes.
Yet this was not always the case. Both the Confederacy and Union functioned as liberal democracies, but the victorious North imposed a statist version of the same upon the nation at the conclusion of the war: it is this statism, not naturally found in the constitution of the British, that birthed the American Empire and the ‘New World Order.’
Even in a more conservative era, voices of the American far Left always sought to push the boundaries of liberalism. They existed as radical abolitionists in the nineteenth century, and as the progressives of the twentieth. These progressives, calling themselves ‘liberals,’ actively shilled for the forces of Communism under the guise of peace and freedom. (Strangely enough, though Communism might be Left-liberalism taken to its natural conclusion, it guarantees no liberality whatsoever.)
Today liberalism has disintegrated, brought about by the importation of migrants who do not share British values, as well as the decline in religion in American public life. On the Left, we see liberals who no longer promote Communism in its political/economic form, but rather Communism in its cultural form – an extreme form of Trotskyism, where the deviant is normal and the holy is profane.
On the Right, liberalism has split into two factions. Cuckservatives and their cohort of Right-libertarians now actively side with the Left. Libertarians especially have promoted the cult of Mammon, and the odious consumption of produced goods that this entails. Both the Left and ‘Right’ sides of liberalism tie neatly into the globalist agenda of the elite.
The other faction of liberalism – the alternative Right – has ‘woken up,’ and has either supported a return to ‘traditionalist’ liberalism for Americans only, or have abandoned liberalism altogether, and now veer towards Fascism (though few actually consider themselves Fascists).
I myself am in favor of the former option – but is my dream realistic? Is liberalism doomed forever? Or is to be the final, best tool of the globalists – better than Communism, or Fascism, or any other ideology – to bring about the reign of the Antichrist? What ideology for the new Age could possibly provide resistance to this menace?
Monarchism has failed; Communism has failed; Fascism has fallen. Liberalism remains, but is actively sliding towards destruction. Yet liberalism and its world order that exist today are merciless towards those that oppose it. Most countries have adopted some form of liberalism in their constitutions; rights now belong to everyone, not just Englishmen; and ‘human rights’ are actively promoted by globalist institutions. Communism is unworkable and repressive; Fascism is genocidal and personality-driven; and the few monarchies that remain today are completely cucked.
Since the inauguration of Donald Trump, humanity has entered a new Age that will see the downfall of Western civilization as we know it. Pockets will remain, and will flourish greatly. But it seems likely much of Europe will be conquered by Islam, and the degenerate in our societies will become only filthier. The world is becoming ‘multipolar’ and tribal, and only the strongest will survive. Even if the nationalists successfully conquer the globalists this time, the latter’s plans will still continue in some form. The moderate and temperate ideals of British liberalism may not be practicable in such an environment.
The aforementioned Dugin has promoted a ‘Fourth Political Theory’ that supposedly can help us navigate this new world. As I said, I have yet to read his book on the matter; but his theory will seek to incorporate the best aspects from liberalism, from Communism, from Fascism into a new order that can sustain us through this Age. Like all man-made theories, its very strengths will likely turn out to be the source of its inevitable downfall. Yet we cannot help but try to understand it, and pray it offer some type of political clarity into this ‘Brave New World’ in which we now live.