The Uniqueness of Western Law: A Reactionary Manifesto, by Richard Storey
The next section of Storey’s book is entitled “Politics.” He touches on several relevant topics – relevant to today’s political environment and relevant to the issue of universalism. For example, Storey notes that for all of the complaining by modern liberals about the dominant civilizations of Europe, they sure have no problem with forcing on all a universal dominant civilization – one that is hyper-individualistic, one that strives to eliminate (superficially and legalistically, of course) any differences between any two people.
Niall Ferguson will offer that radical demographic changes in the ethnic composition of a society change nothing, as long as democracy and the modern trappings of society are upheld; Storey notes that this logic is applied to all four corners of the world…except one unique promised land.
The thing is people like their story. What one sees as freedom another sees as slavery. Describe thin libertarianism to many in this world and they will shriek with horror, as if you are willingly choosing to release the dogs of hell onto the earth.
Storey cites Kuehnelt-Leddihn, regarding the right – the true right, not the neocons (who, now it seems, have returned to the political left and the hell from which they came):
“The right has to be identified with personal freedom, with the absence of utopian visions whose realization – even if it were possible – would need tremendous collective efforts; it stands for free, organically grown forms of life. And this in turn implies a respect for tradition.”
Chapter four of this section is entitled “Europeans Want Hungary, not Sweden.” Storey notes polls that show that Europeans want a ban on Muslim immigration – and the results of these polls are ignored by the mainstream. Europeans want what is left of their civilization before it is entirely destroyed; the accumulated surplus of more than 2000 years is running dry.
We see this in the divided electorate throughout Europe and America. The progressive universalists on one hand, the traditional deplorables on the other.
In the West, we have no common conscience, nothing to tie together a civilization other than consumerism. If economic progress and material well-being were enough to keep a society together, Western countries should have the most cohesive societies ever on the face of the earth – what with the people representing the top one-tenth-of-one-percent in such measures of all those who ever existed.
There is no transcendent value system; instead, we have fantasy football. In Eastern Europe, having finally escaped the black hole of the valueless socialist regimes, one finds a revival of community, foremost in respect for the Christian church.
Those in the West have no one to blame but themselves; we are spiritually bankrupt. Western governments bomb the Middle East and then accept those who choose to flee from the hell that is the result. Storey cites the Christmas 2017 message of Viktor Orbán, Prime Minister of Hungary, who notes that we are called to love our neighbor as ourselves. This calling has two parts, the second of which is to love ourselves. If “ourselves” does not include our ancestors and descendants, what a shallow calling this is.
The Afterword to the book is written by Ricardo Duchesne:
…libertarian freedoms are not incompatible with a strong commitment to in-group white identity politics.
A scary sentence…but is it? After all, is it contrary to libertarianism to live with and amongst people of our choosing? Is it contrary to libertarianism to ensure that the community is made up of individuals who hold to similar values? Is it contrary to libertarianism for those who hold to different values to want to live in a different community?
Europeans can preserve their freedoms only by living inside nations with a strong sense of ethnic, religious, and historical identity.
Another scary statement…but should it be? I am quite certain that almost all non-Europeans feel freer in a society that upholds their unique sense of historical identity. People weren’t fleeing the Middle East by the millions prior to being bombed out of their homes, after all.
I do take exception, however, to Duchesne’s call for a state. He compares the Anglo-American version of Western Liberalism to the German – the former emphasizing negative liberty, the latter emphasizing positive liberty. This is fair enough, as I have long explored the issue of libertarianism as being insufficient for liberty.
He looks back to the Germanic history – one that I also look to as a model; he describes these systems of rulership as “non-coercive,” as have I. Yet he sees as the state as having the role to encourage the realization of one’s highest potentialities. Yet the Germanic system offered us no state. I am sure this is all well-understood by Duchesne, so I am not sure I follow his argument here.
The positive liberties must be emphasized by non-state institutions, beginning with Christian churches. It will not be through force that man is made free.
From Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn:
“Untouched by the breath of God, unrestricted by human conscience, both capitalism and socialism are repulsive.”
And neither, in such a condition, has a long shelf life.