America will be celebrating its quarter-millennial anniversary of its independence this coming year. The Revolutionary War fought to gain that independence was not fought to overturn the extant system, but prevent what had naturally and organically developed from being imposed upon by Europe. Unlike America’s war of independence, the French Revolution, with all its attendant ideas, was the beginning of the death of the Europe that begat the birth of a propositional way of governance that was prospective, only wearing what heritage remained as a skinsuit. Indeed, America may be the last bastion of Western Civilization. But even then, America embodied a tradition that had already began splitting off from continental Europe stemming back from the rejection of the Norman Yoke as evidenced by the Charter of the Forest and the Magna Carta. Yet today we see far too influential people declare that America is Blut und Boden with a shared “heritage” justifying control and power to tyrannically mutate America into something else. This is why America is denigrated as an idea: They want to gut America of its heritage and essence in order to replace it with a foreign idea from foreign people in a foreign land without substantive and ideologically relevant history.
And what types of ideas are being imported? Why, the ideas of one of 20th Century Europe’s most infamous jurists: Carl Schmitt.
The people embracing Schmitt’s ideas know very well that Schmitt wasn’t so much attacking the enemies of the state (e.g. Commies), but the wickedness of the structure of the state itself. He wanted a new state that was designed to implement his vision; similarly, the people pantomiming his thinking wish to do the same.
“What is one of Schmitt’s primary targets?
“Spoiler alert:
“It’s not Marxists or Communists.
“It’s ‘Constitutional norms’, ‘Democratic Liberalism’, and, ‘checks and balances’.
“For the bulk of the body of the essay is Schmitt attacking the underlying governing system of Germany, rather than the Communists.”
And in so doing, they at least try to be subtle enough for most people not not catch on. They seek not the Rule of Law. In fact, the Rule of Law is anathema to them, for it impedes the law of the “rightful” rulers. Take, for example, the Motte & Bailey use of the term “civil magistrate”. For most this just means “a judge, governor, or government official who keeps law and order”; but their real meaning is “he divinely ordained authority who defines virtue, maintains order for the ethnos, and can override liberal limits when necessary.”
