Deck Chairs on the Titanic?
“Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are ruined.”- Patrick Henry, Speech to the Virginia Ratifying Convention, June 5, 1778
“People are people so why should it be you and I should get along so awfully?”-Depeche Mode, “People Are People”
The idea that we can be in control of our own individual destinies apart from the collective is an extremely radical notion, one which is unique to European peoples, and even more so, the Anglosphere, and yet still more so, the United States of America (at least traditionally). There is a deep and rich intellectual and philosophical tradition from which the Constitution springs, and it’s rarely if ever engaged with in our present era. In fact, the idea that the Constitution is a “living document” subjects our founding document to ceaseless, unintended (and unfounded) revision; barring a “discovery” of the desired interpretation, then the Constitution can be said to apply to everyone on the globe, meaning that it applies to no one. It is negation by expansion, and effectively that’s what globalism hath wrought.
I want to live in a high-trust society, where I can live peacefully and interact peaceably. This is not possible with people who don’t share your values, and outside of the narrow Eurowestern tradition outlined in the previous paragraph, there is support for these values is conspicuously absent in the majority. As commenter Riker posted on PoliSci Rumors (and this is worth quoting at length):
The American founders believed—consistent with the entire preceding philosophic tradition and the evidence of history—that some peoples are more fit for liberty, or republican government, than others. Indeed, some are positively unfit for such government—if not inherently and permanently, at least at certain times. We may note that this thought is consistent with the cycle of regimes, which holds that (in Leo Strauss’s words summarizing a thought of Machiavelli) “republics are not always possible. They are not possible at the beginning and they are not possible if the people is corrupt.” In other words, the same people can be incapable of self-government at one time, gain that capability later, and lose it later still.
Our founders therefore argued for strict controls on which foreigners the American government would admit to citizenship and in what numbers. The success and survival of the whole project seemed to them to depend in no small part on prudence in this area. Welcoming millions from countries with no tradition of liberty—e.g., Russians—would have been, to the founders, absolute folly that would cause the end of America as a self-governing republic.
Moreover, the founders believed in and argued for a certain degree of commonality in the citizenry as a blessing. Here is John Jay in Federalist 2, expressing a sentiment well-nigh universal among the founders:
With equal pleasure I have as often taken notice that Providence has been pleased to give this one connected country to one united people—a people descended from the same ancestors, speaking the same language, professing the same religion, attached to the same principles of government, very similar in their manners and customs, and who, by their joint counsels, arms, and efforts, fighting side by side throughout a long and bloody war, have nobly established general liberty and independence.
Our immigration policy—official and tacit—has for more than fifty years been directly contrary to these two ideas. Strauss said that a principal cause of Rome’s fall was that “many men who never knew republican life and did not care for it . . . became Roman citizens.” We Americans have allowed into our country millions upon millions who have never known republican life and do not care for it. Is it any wonder, then, that as the composition of the American nation changes, our government drifts further and further from liberty?
Addressing the first paragraph of the above quote, as Seneca, Spengler, and Yockey, among other luminaries, have postulated, a civilization can be conceived of as a biological organism with a biological life cycle. In this view, all civilizations eventually die. Yockey also advanced the idea that, must as the Greeks conceived of Fate, each civilization has a unique destiny that it is to fulfill. Revilo P. Oliver put forth “the real intellectual issue that divides Americans today: we are either Ciceronians or Caesarians.” If you share Spengler’s sense of fatalism and you are a staunch supporter of the Republic, the future looks grim indeed. The alternative, advanced by Yockey and described by Oliver, is to throw our weight behind “a Caesar who will represent America and the West”:
Opposition to centralized government is an attempt to attain the impossible…Americans must strive by any and all means (for the end will justify them) to capture the highly centralized government that the “liberals” and Communists have built up—capture it and then use it ruthlessly for the benefit of Americans.
As Oliver stated, it was “the Greco-Roman conception of the mixed constitution (Cicero, Polybius, Aristotle) that ultimately produced the American Constitution,” and in the ceaseless “de-colonizing” of our curriculum, we are producing individuals who have become increasingly estranged from the foundations of their civilization and their nation’s founding document. This is of vital importance for the Left as rootless individuals (minus, of course, the cosmopolitans to their ethno-religious group) are generally far easier to corral and control, and they won’t get any funny ideas like Cicero in standing up for, and eventually dying for, the Republic. Obviously the more localized the government, the better. Globalism is the antithesis of America’s foundational republicanism. The vital question becomes can America only be saved by a Caesarian figure, and if so, is it really America anymore? Or has the foundational essence of America already been lost, so the question is purely academic?