This is the second of a series of essays on liberalism’s reification of the unfettering will and nationalism’s exposition on the human reality.  By liberalism I mean the ideational system derived from three and half centuries of western thought, which constitutes the organising Idea of the modern epoch and arrays politically as left and right.  I do not use the term in the narrow American sense of progressive opinion.  By nationalism I mean an ethnic and/or racial nationalism of our peoples’ truth, life and natural interests.

THE LAST LIBERALS

What happens when a regnant political culture of centuries standing simply loses its inner motive force?  No revolution takes place.  No viable replacement philosophy is to hand.  Nothing on a systemic scale occurs to force the change.  Yet the historical agency of this culture, which still today imbues the life experience of hundreds of millions, quite suddenly fails.

Well, we westerners are about to find out.  It has taken the over-reach that is trans extremism and the humiliation of the Democrat Party at the hands of Donald Trump.  But it is surely now clear that the constant leftward migration of western politics is at an end.  Ideologically, the tyranny of the same which is absolute human plasticity and self-authoriality, and which has worked away at western socio-economic life at least since the publishing of the first volume of Das Kapital, and possibly since the French revolution, is exhausted.

The consequences are, of course, epochal.  Liberalism, the system under which we westerners all live, can never deliver the “fully-human” estate of limitless freedom which its radical intellectuals and activists promised (or threatened).  There will be no breaking of all the bounds.  They have withstood the ravages of liberal ideology and emerged inviolable.  Nature is regnant, and the tabula rasa has been falsified.  Accordingly, the existential equalities which rest on it, and on total nurture, must now wither and die, for they have no surviving foundational claim.  The liberal “individual”, the great raison-d’etre of the system which works through our very person, has been found out.  Its never entirely reconciled twin ideologies of right and left, and therefore of libertarianism and equalitarianism, have both … both ... lost their compass.  Likewise, Nature’s political revival robs universalism (after liberty and equality the third of liberalism’s four interlocking and defining principles) of its justification.  In Nature’s realm there can be no brotherhood of all men because human relation is not flat and featureless, and cannot be dispatched by a faked sodality, be it liberal, be it Christian (ie, Judaic).  The human reality of race and ethnicity, kinship, discrimination and belonging, and everything that flows exclusively therefrom, cannot be put away.  The pharisaical attempt to turn it, in the European case alone, into “racism” is destined for a very public repudiation.

The final philosophical blow is to the fourth defining principle: progress.  After the trans reversal there is no other ideological space into which liberalism can penetrate and expand.  This, too, is telling.  When there is no novel and exotic identity it can propose, no theoretical oppression it can confect, the whole of liberalism – essentially a conflict philosophy - loses its motive historical force.  It is become like a supertanker which has put to sea with insufficient fuel for the voyage.  Now the great engines are rattling to a stop.  One hundred thousand horsepower is reducing to nothing.  Already, the vast rudder cannot be turned.  The ship is dead.  The crew remain at their stations because, for now at least, there is inertia in the system.  Given its weight and size, the vessel will continue to cleave the waves for quite some distance.  Every European life in the west will continue to be structured by the old desiderata, perhaps even for a generation – likely longer in the case of white Americans, because race gives a weaker signal than ethnicity.

Politics pro-tempore

In any case we in the west are entering a philosophical interregnum while the surviving political right, thinking itself victorious rather than just second-in-line for history’s axe, comes to terms with the awful truth that it, too, has lost its intellectual foundation and is unsustainable.  Inertia, after all, manifests under the sign of death, not life.  Perhaps only the individual and equal American Man will linger, convinced that he is the very antithesis of Liberal Man while expressing the fullness of the liberal project which America is.  He will communicate his Americanism to the Old World, just as he always has, more revanchist no doubt, but as liberalistic and economistic as ever.

If our race is to be saved it is first in the blood-lands of the Old World that systemic change will have to come, and it have to do so over the dying politics of what we see today as the reactionary, populist right.  As nationalists we welcome the advance of populist politics on the basis that they are insurgent, attacking existing power structures, and one day they might just open the door for us.  The current generation of populists, be they modernisers or traditionalists (they amount to the same thing), have developed a clutch of nationalisms in name only.  They uniformly eschew the essential principle of real nationalism: the people’s blood.  Perhaps one or two remain privately true to it and only advance their current arguments as the cost of making advances in a relentlessly liberal dispensation.  However, others are plainly simple products of that dispensation.  They accept liberalism’s model of Man because it is who they are, and they cannot imagine anything different.  But whether crypto-nationalist or foundational liberal, they all practise a politics accepting of the modernist reductions to the human condition … the economism, the materialism and consumption … and they all respect the multiracial “facts on the ground”.  In every case, their position is to oppose the Establishment’s mass immigration project, but only because it is “uncontrolled”.  Such opposition is, of course, for the purpose of making “the facts” work better.  Natives who don’t want their replacement and dissolution to work better are as likely to be deemed racist by populists as they are by the hating left.

Likewise populists and leftist will be similarly troubled by the bounded and unchosen nature of the descent group – especially the miscegenators among them.  Since they do not register their own people they do not register their people’s existential crisis.  Instead, they will insist that said people are now an elective corpus.  “It’s about culture” they will say, and “values”, “integration”, “contributing to society”, “paying taxes”, and so on.  Accordingly, they will fret over nationalists’ desire to repatriate the entire immigrant population.  Children born to immigrants are duly pronounced as English, as German, as French as any true son or daughter of the soil, whose forefathers shed their blood for it in time immemorial.  Choice is, after all, a defining liberal value.  Choice is a leveller, empowering everyone equally.  It is a more subtle equality than the left’s genocidal lumpen-ness.  But a being differentiating only by choices is a being which begins in amorphousness, unmarked by Nature.  Right or left, it is always the same deceit.

The vital nationalist cause of preserving the existence of our ethnic and racial kind flies straight past them.  Typically, they will resort to labelling our nativism (always respected, of course, with non-white native groups) as “blut und boden”.  Inside their lazy heads our natural concern for and love of kind is mechanically associated with some imagined nazistic hatred of everybody else.  It’s not that they adopt this position to avoid harsh treatment by the media or attack by anti-racists.  They believe.  They are liberals.  They are liberals by default because, as the formative Idea of our age, liberalism quite literally stamps itself on our life and personhood, and so manufactures us as agents of its own continuity- even at this End Time for liberalism.  To check its baleful “progress” even momentarily is a formidable task because it is also a check on the form and understanding of the social man.  One cannot, therefore, blame populists for their liberalism.  It is inevitable.  But it will not always be so,  The populists will be the last liberals.  Either globalism or nationalism is coming, and globalism is not doing too well at the moment (true of both the neo-feudalism of the western elites and the imperial despotism of their eastern counterparts).