A House In Ruins: Oppressive Openness and the Multicultural Malaise
"He that troubleth his own house shall inherit the wind" (Proverbs 11:29)
Foundations of a 21st Century Open House
On September 18th, 1990, as the Cold War was nearing its end, as the Soviet bloc of Eastern Europe was rapidly collapsing and many were discussing what a post-Cold War international order might look like, leaders and heads of state from around the world were gathered together in New York for the 45th session of the United Nations General Assembly. On October 1st, 1990, President George H. W. Bush addressed the assembly, painting an optimistic picture of what he and the other Western leaders hoped the new and emerging world would look like. This world, they promised, would be marked by the fading of ideological divisions, the expansion of economic globalization, and a growing sense of international cooperation.
Out of these troubled times,...a new world order can emerge: a new era, freer from the threat of terror, stronger in the pursuit of justice, and more secure in the quest for peace. An era in which the nations of the world, East and West, North and South, can prosper and live in harmony. I see a world of open borders, open trade, and most importantly, open minds. A world that celebrates the common heritage that belongs to all the world’s people, taking pride not just in hometown or homeland but in humanity itself.¹
Bush's sentiments about the desire to usher in a greater degree of global harmony through ever-increasing "openness", as politically expedient and timely as they then seemed, were not a sudden philosophical onset born of the current geopolitical circumstances of the 1990s. Rather, they reflected a deeper and more widespread ideological commitment made and embraced by Western leaders during the previous 45 years that had elapsed since the end of the Second World War.
As 1945 drew to a close and the dust finally began to settle all across a war-torn and ravaged Europe, and as the smoke from two atomic bombs began to clear from over the skies of Japan, the nations and their people, particularly those who had been directly affected by the war, were left wondering how the world found itself in a state of such destruction, and where to go moving forward. However, as Western leaders looked back over the first half of the 20th century, starting with the first gun shots that rang out along the Franco-German and Belgian borders in August of 1914, and ending with the blood of almost 80 million people soaking the soil of numerous Eurpoean and Asian countries, one thing was crystal clear: whatever forces, whether ideological, theological, philosophical, political—or combination of them all—had brought on the outbreak of two world wars, and brought many of the world's nations to the brink of destruction, the post-war world demanded that those who were left to pick up the pieces, do the opposite. However drastic and radical that "opposite" might be.
In his book Return of the Strong Gods: Nationalism, Populism, and the Future of the West, Rusty Reno argues:
The consensus that took hold after 1945 sought to dissolve the political passions that many deemed to be the underlying cause of those decades of violence...After 1945, our ruling class agreed that powerful loves and intense loyalties make us easily manipulated by demagogues. Our passions hurl us into disastrous conflicts and brutal ideological movements. Our only hope, the postwar consensus holds, is to tamp down our loves and loyalties, to weaken them with skepticism, nonjudgmentalism, and a political commitment to an open society.²
Reno continues:
These manifestations of political correctness are not epiphenomenal. They are the fruits of a singular historical judgment. In the second half of the twentieth century, we came to regard the first half as a world historical eruption of the evils inherent in the Western tradition, which can be corrected only by the relentless pursuit of openness, disenchantment, and weakening. That pursuit was already implicit in liberalism...But after 1945 it became paramount, with nuance at first, but over time with greater ideological rigidity. The anti imperatives are now flesh-eating dogmas masquerading as the fulfillment of the anti-dogmatic spirit...The death grip of the anti imperatives on the West is plain to see.³
So, the obvious question is, what were—or are—these "dogmatic" forces, these "passions" that so swayed the peoples of the world to march willingly, oftentimes joyfully, into the abyss? Over the past eight decades, we have been given numerous answers to this question. World leaders have decried things such as imperialism, colonialism, and various other influences that make up, to use Reno's language, "the evils inherent in the Western tradition". However, I would argue that over the past 15-20 years, the campaign against these perceived society-destroying dogmas has centered upon one ideal that we are told, particularly (though not exclusively) by liberal, progressive elites, is among the most dangerous and destructive forces at work, both in the first half of the 20th century as well as today, namely, Nationalism. And this attack has been narrowed even further over the past decade or so to specifically mean Christian Nationalism.
Welcome to the Cultural Estate Sale
I should state upfront that it is not my intention in this article to put forth a defense of Nationalism more broadly, or Christian Nationalism specifically (that will get an article all to itself). However, as I have said before elsewhere, I am an unapologetic Christian nationalist, and I would contend that it is self-defeating to argue against the belief that it is good to order one's love for nation according to one's love for God. To claim that either Christianity or Nationalism individually, or together as a full-orbed ideology, is somehow cancerous to a free and prosperous society, is to completely ignore the reality that love for God and love for one's people—both on a familial level and communal level—are, and always have been, the bedrock of human civilization, and this is especially true of Western civilization. A brief survey of the last thousand years of Western history demonstrates this reality with stark clarity. From towering cathedrals of stone and stained glass to the awe-inspiring works of the Renaissance; from the birth of the world's greatest universities and the codification of common law to the affirmation of ordered liberty, human dignity, and the abolition of slavery, the West stands as an embodiment of God's glory—reflecting the beauty and goodness of Christianity, through a relentless outworking of love for God and love for one's people.
The claim that many of the world's elites believe that it is precisely this love for God and love for nation (one's own people) that is poisoning our otherwise harmonious, globalist utopia may seem like something of a dramatic overstatement, but these sentiments have been repeated ad nauseam by voices of varying importance all throughout the West. For example, U.S. Congressman Maxwell Frost called Christian Nationalism a form of "extremism" that "threatens" and "undermines" our democracy.⁴ Journalist and author Katherine Stewart argues in her book Money, Lies and God that Christian Nationalism is a movement working to undermine democratic governance.⁵ U.S. Congressman Jared Huffman claimed before Congress that "White Christian nationalism" (Bonus points to Mr. Huffman for throwing in "White") is a "dangerous ideology threatening our democracy."⁶ Not to be outdone in the spirit of political correctness, President and Founder of the Public Religion Research Institute (PRRI), Robert P. Jones, warning of the "rise" of "white Christian nationalism" claims that it "constitutes the largest threat to democracy I have experienced in my lifetime."⁷ These are only a small sample of the wave of anti-nationalistic sentiments—particularly as they relate to Christian Nationalism—that have been expressed from all levels of society, even by world leaders such as French President Emmanuel Macron, German Chancellor Angela Merkel, and United Nations Secretary-General António Guterres.⁸
Why is it that so many today, particularly among our ruling class, view something like love for one's people (which is the essence of Nationalism) as so destructive and dangerous? As I mentioned in the previous section, nationalism specifically is seen as the driving force behind the First and Second World Wars, underpinning imperial expansionism and later ideological movements such as Fascism. Historically speaking, there is a degree of truth to this. For example, prior to the outbreak of the First World War, there was what historian John Keegan calls a climate of "naked nationalism"⁹ that was prevalent in Europe that only exacerbated the political and military tensions of the time. And one need take but a cursory glance at Germany during the 1930s and 1940s to see the degree to which this—to use Keegan's phraseology—"naked nationalism" influenced Nazi ideology. However, I would argue that the issue wasn't (and isn't) Nationalism per se, but rather with a Nationalism unfettered from and void of any higher allegiance and authority than that of the nation itself (but more on that in a different article). But historical facts aside, the disdain for Nationalism from our elites—both conservative and liberal alike—exists for a far more practical and expedient reason. It simply doesn’t comport with the new world of "openness" that the postwar consensus promised to build, and that people like Bush so eloquently advocated for. In his book Christianity and Social Justice: Religions in Conflict, Jon Harris (@jonharris) makes this point succinctly:
This preference for one’s own family, neighbor, and nation contradicts the premium modern social justice places on preferring those who are different. Influential institutions increasingly celebrate "diversity" while condemning patriarchy and nationalism. If advocates for social justice desire Christianity at all, it is a man-centered version that weakens natural relationships and flattens personal affections into caring for all humans across the globe equally. In a sense, social justice reasoning can replace a love for one's relatives and neighbors with a love for abstractions and fantasies. The current hostility toward "nationalism illustrates this.¹⁰
So, if Nationalism—Christian or otherwise—is so great an evil, what is the proposed solution by those who oppose it? The "opposite" that is so demanded by the "new" and "open" world that our progressive elites have sought to create this side of V-J Day? The answer has almost universally been to unashamedly and unequivocally promote, encourage, and endorse a policy of massive, unvetted and undocumented immigration into the West from various third-world countries, particularly Muslim countries.
Come On In, The Door's Unlocked
According to Eurostat, in 2023 1.3 million non‑EU citizens were found to be illegally present in the European Union—which is an increase of 13% from 2022¹¹—where the largest numbers were recorded in Germany (264,000), Italy (195,000), and Hungary (160,000).¹² Among those identified, the most common nationalities were Syrians (253,000), Afghans (113,000), and Turks (84,000).¹³ All countries with majority Muslim populations. These numbers have only grown exponentially since 2023. For example, estimates from the French Interior Ministry suggest that the number of undocumented migrants living in France is estimated at between 600,000–700,000 and may even be closer to 900,000.¹⁴ Again, predominantly of Muslim origin. Other countries, such as Ireland, have experienced similar trends of growing illegal immigration from many of the same countries.¹⁵
It is not (as some claim) "Islamophobic" to acknowledge the fact that, historically speaking, Islamic cultures and Western—predominantly Christian—cultures have rarely ever been able to coexist peacefully for extended periods of time. This is almost entirely because the Islamic worldview is simply too diametrically and violently opposed to anything outside itself to be able to do so. Raymond Ibrahim (@raymondibrahim) has documented this reality thoroughly in his excellent book Sword and Scimitar: Fourteen Centuries of War between Islam and the West:
Muhammad upheld the dichotomy of tribalism, but by prioritizing fellow Muslims over blood relatives. Thus the umma—the Islamic “Super-Tribe” that transcends racial, national, and linguistic barriers—was born; and its natural enemy remained everyone outside it.¹⁶
When cultures are forced—or left—to coexist that are radically and ideologically opposed to one another, as is the case with the West and Islam, it is absolutely no surprise that in light of these immigration numbers, violent crime (especially in places like the UK) has risen dramatically. For example, from January–October 2024, there were 131,000 arrests of foreign nationals—roughly 16.1% of all arrests—versus only (at that time) accounting for just 9% of the total population.¹⁷ That’s roughly 24 arrests per 1,000 migrants, nearly double the rate for British-born individuals (roughly 12 per 1,000).¹⁸ Of course, this is not to say that this increase is exclusively the result of Islamic immigrants—though, based on the numbers, they certainly make up a significant portion—but regardless, it reinforces the inherent problem of trying to mix cultures that are so foundationally opposed to one another. Oil and water simply don't mix.
The story is similar in the United States, only on a much larger scale. As of 2023, roughly 13.7–14 million undocumented immigrants were living in the United States, the highest level ever recorded.¹⁹ That said, the major difference between the U.S. and Europe is that the overwhelming majority of illegal immigrants flooding the U.S. are from Latin America, not Muslim-majority countries.²⁰
Ultimately, however, regardless of where the immigrants come from, the issue isn't immigration per se. Immigration—even when individuals come from nations and cultures that are ideologically hostile to Western values and culture—can (and often does) become healthy, stable, and productive members of the nation to which they have migrated. In reality, the issue is assimilation. Our 26th President, Theodore Roosevelt, understood this distinction acutely:
In the first place, we should insist that if the immigrant who comes here in good faith becomes an American and assimilates himself to us, he shall be treated on an exact equality with everyone else, for it is an outrage to discriminate against any such man because of creed, or birthplace, or origin. But this is predicated upon the person's becoming in every facet an American, and nothing but an American...There can be no divided allegiance here. Any man who says he is an American, but something else also, isn't an American at all.²¹
Roosevelt also understood that to ignore the crucial aspect of assimilation regarding immigration was incredibly dangerous, warning that "The one absolutely certain way of bringing this nation to ruin, of preventing all possibility of its continuing as a nation at all, would be to permit it to become a tangle of squabbling nationalities."²² Again, Jon Harris (@jonharris) in his book Christianity and Social Justice, explains succinctly why this issue of assimilation is so critical for a nation to not only survive, but thrive, explaining "Without a general investment in a mutually shared homeland, history, posterity, religion, and legal system, there is no basis for the trust necessary to form and preserve a society."²³ This "general investment" is one of the main reasons why, historically speaking, the West has experienced the levels of overall prosperity and growth that it has; because, by and large, the nations of the West were built on the same foundation of strong nationalistic love for their people, born out of their general Christian convictions and love for God.
The House is in Ruin, And a Renovation is in Order
This tidal wave of illegal immigration is one of the biggest issues facing the West today, with far greater, long-term, and far-reaching consequences than almost any other domestic or geopolitical challenge we are currently facing. Thankfully, a growing number of people are waking up to the dangerous position our ruling elites—particularly on the progressive left—have led us into. Proverbs 11:29 warns, "He that troubleth his own house shall inherit the wind". Our Western leaders, in pursuit of imagined dreams of multicultural bliss and an insatiable desire for diversity and openness, have ignored Wisdom's warning and burst open the floodgates to allow in a massive influx of people with no desire or intention to become "one of us". This cannot continue. If we continue on with this collective ideology of oppressive openness, then the chaos that we are seeing in so many countries, including the United States, is all that we can continue to expect.
What then is the solution moving forward? In his book The Unprotected Class: How Anti-White Racism is Tearing America Apart, Jeremy Carl (@realjeremycarl) argues:
To critique our current immigration policies is not to suggest that some sort of naïve and doomed racial purity standard is the way forward for America. It's to suggest that a dramatic slowdown of immigration followed by aggressive assimilation is the best way for a variety of groups to come together into a unified majority culture. This is the only realistic pathway for America to become "one people" again, as our Founders intended us to be.²⁴
I concur. Though I would argue that a total moratorium on immigration for the foreseeable future is an even better alternative if we ever hope to repair the damage that has been done. As Roosevelt, Reno, Harris, Carl, and a growing number of others have correctly pointed out, the only hope moving forward for the West—whether in Europe or in America—is for us to again recognize that only when a body shares the same culture, built around shared values, morals, beliefs, and principles, can it prosper and function as a nation was intended to; as a people with a shared love for their history, their heritage, their home, their countrymen, and above all, their God.
The West was built upon a foundational belief in the Christian worldview; that God became man in the person of Christ, in order to save us from sin and death, redeem us to God, and make us a people who live and love to God's glory. Certainly that love extends to foreigners—even those who hate us, our beliefs, and our culture—but it must never be extended at the expense of loving and protecting those neighbors nearest to us. We must order our loves rightly. Biblically, this Ordo Amoris (or right ordering of loves) demands that we are to love all people, but not equally. This Ordo Amoris means that we should love our families, our communities, and our fellow countrymen primarily and more intensively, not because foreigners are less human or have less value, but because we have a greater duty before God toward those in our immediate community or nation.
Our leaders have confused and distorted this order of loves. They have supplanted love for their people, their communities, and their nation, for a vague "love" directed "out there". However, when these loves are reordered—or disordered—you are left with something that ceases to resemble love at all, and instead resembles hate and contempt for one’s own people. As a society, we must reject this. We must reorder our loves properly, refocus and renew our efforts to preserve our shared cultural heritage if the West is to continue to survive. T.S. Eliot rightly warned:
“A people that ceases to care for its heritage is lost.” ²⁵
Lord, save the West.
Author: Jon Faughn is a husband, father of 3 wonderful children, and most importantly, a Christian. Jon writes on topics related to history, theology, literature, politics/Christian political theory, and various cultural issues. All from a Reformed Christian perspective, all to the glory of God. You can find his work at https://substack.com/@handlebarhistorian93.
Sources
1. George H. W. Bush, “Address Before the 45th Session of the United Nations General Assembly in New York,” October 1, 1990, in the American Presidency Project, University of California, Santa Barbara.
2. Rusty Reno, 2021. "Return of the Strong Gods: Nationalism, Populism, and the Future of the West" ppg. x-xi
3. Ibid., pg. xx
4. U.S. Congress. Text of House Event, 118th Congress, House Event 116508. Congress.gov. October 10, 2023.
https://www.congress.gov/event/118th-congress/house-event/116508/text
5. Adam Gabbatt, "Reactionary nihilism: how a rightwing movement strives to end US democracy", The Guardian, January 9, 2025.
6. U.S. Congressional Record, Vol. 168, No. 57, March 31, 2022.
https://www.congress.gov/congressional-record/volume-168/issue-57/house-section/article/H4055-4
7. The Big Picture, “The Big Q&A With Robert P. Jones,” Substack, January 24, 2024.
8. News Agencies, "UN chief sees ‘parallels’ with 1930s amid nationalism warnings", Aljazeera, November 11, 2018.
9. John Keegan, 1999. "The First World War" pg. 17
10. Jon Harris, 2021. "Christianity and Social Justice: Religions In Conflict" pg. 110
11. Eurostat, "Migration and Asylum in Europe", 2024 Edition, Irregular Migration,
https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/web/interactive-publications/migration-2024
12. Ibid.
13. Ibid.
14. Laurent Nuñez, French Interior Minister, estimate reported in “France Estimates 700,000 Undocumented Migrants,” Morocco World News, October 22, 2025.
15. Eurostat, "Migration and Asylum in Europe", 2024 Edition, Irregular Migration,
https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/web/interactive-publications/migration-2024
16. Raymond Ibrahim, 2018. "Sword and Scimitar: Fourteen Centuries of War between Islam and the West" pg. 13
17. DD Staff, "Albanians Lead in UK Arrests Per Capita, Foreign Arrests Double Britons", Dazzling Dawn, January 7, 2025.
18. Ibid.
19. Mike Schneider, "Illegal immigration hit a record-high of 14 million in the US in 2023, Pew report finds", AP News, August 21, 2025.
https://apnews.com/article/immigration-pew-homeland-security-a2cf8f2f908c98ca17d383b57fd65daa
20. Ibid.
21. Theodore Roosevelt, "Address to the Knights of Columbus", The Works of Theodore Roosevelt, Memorial Edition (New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1925), vol. 20, October 12, 1915. ppg. 357-358
22. Ibid.
23. Jon Harris, 2021. "Christianity and Social Justice: Religions In Conflict" pg. 114
24. Jeremy Carl, 2024. "The Unprotected Class: How Anti-White Racism is Tearing America Apart" pg. 133
25. T. S. Eliot, 1948. “Notes Toward the Definition of Culture” pg. 51
