Aside from being a manufactured moral system, Western Morality, in its current formulation, aspires to be "universal" in nature, and it is this feature which makes it unique as a moral system. The universality of Western Morality is why anti-racism and multiculturalism has taken root in the Western World, and why so many Western countries are mentally incapable of protecting their borders against mass immigration. This is because a universal morality prevents people from thinking in terms of what is good or bad for their group.
Furthermore, this universal feature of Western moral thought (particularly as it relates to progressivise and globalist concepts) also assumes a kind of teleological inevitability. It assumes that the world will eventually become more secular; that liberal democracy (or some variation thereof) will become the only valid political system; that multiculturalism will become a workable template that could be exported to the rest of the world; and that human rights will eventually take precedence over national sovereignty, as the world becomes more and more homogenized.
Basically, Current Yearism.
Unlike traditional moral systems, Western moral universalism has no reference to any particular group, tradition, or nation. Instead, it tries to cater to every culture, nation, religion, and ethnicity, by claiming an objectivity that is based on a combination of abstract humanism and egalitarian philosophy.
This objectivity arises from a kind of presumed equilibrium and negation of tribal self-interest. It assumes that in order for “right” to be right and “wrong” to be wrong, they must transcend group self-interest otherwise, morality becomes just another set of arbitrary social constructs which are open to self-interest and hypocrisy.
However, despite its many claims to objectivity, the kind of moral universalism that’s promoted in the West today is largely the product of the Western World, and a very recent one at that. Throughout most of human history, morality, ethics and all feelings of right and wrong had references to one’s family, tribe, or at the very least society or country. Morality was not completely about what is right or wrong. It was also about "what is good and bad for us."
This way of thinking is best expressed in the Bedouin proverb:
"I against my brother, my brother and I against my cousin, and my cousin and I against the stranger."For many Westerners and, I believe, most moderns, this way of thinking seems regressive and even backward, but nevertheless it was, and in many ways still is, the norm throughout most of world. A tribe’s morality usually ends where its borders begin, along with its laws, culture and religion, which leads to the ineluctable conclusion that morality – like all other cultural features – is a social construct. And, of course, when you treat universal moral assumptions as social constructs, and not as Imperatives of the Current Year, then you’re bound to trigger a few people, because it implies that these universal truths are not as truthful or as universal as they seem.
And yet that’s what they are. They are not universal.
The assumptions behind Individualism, Human Rights, Progressivism, Secularism, Egalitarianism and all other similar ideas were all developed in the Western World, and are based around the assumptions of Western thought. The only reason these moral precepts have gained universal status is because of Western power and influence.
In short, Western morality cannot exist without Western power.
Without the power, wealth or infrastructure to sustain these values, the rest of the world will revert back to their own particular moral systems and framework. Therefore, the important question to ask here is, how long can the Western World sustain its universal moral framework even while it suffers demographic decline and mass immigration from countries and regions whose moral systems are antithetical to the securlar post-modern West?
Not long probably, considering the recent Muslim riots.
We must remember, therefore, that any moral system, like anything else in the world, cannot exist without costs. Nor can it exist without a stable and functional society to enforce it. So when a society refuses to put borders around its morality, then its real borders will eventually cease to exist as well.
Recognizing this does not necessarily lead to moral nihilism or moral relativism, as some people think. It does, however, require us to put morality in the proper context, namely as a product of culture, history, and group interests, because a people’s tradition of right and wrong cannot exist without them. This is what I call moral nationalism, and it is the belief that morality, like culture and language, cannot be separated from the people who created it. They are all part of the same whole.
In contrast, the moral universalism that the West currently believes in, is a manufactured set of abstractions designed to stabilize an increasingly unstable Western Civilization. As the costs of sustaining such abstractions increase (thanks to the demographic pressures and economic uncertainties created by mass immigration), people in the West will be forced to abandon this morality and embrace a moral system which is more organic and rooted in reality.
More importantly, the West will have to start erecting moral boundaries, that is to say, create a set of moral rules for dealing with Westerners, and another set of rules for dealing with outsiders. This development will herald an important metapolitical turning point, as the creation of a moral nationalism is a prerequisite of actual nationalism.