The De-Nationalization of the Global European Diaspora

When the Alt Right speaks about a rise in “white identity politics” or increasing racial tensions, they are observing phenomena which could lead to nationalist politics and the reorientation of Western society towards ethnocentrism and cultural preservation. Conversely, they may also be observing the dying gasps of an older model of existence for Western peoples. Outside of a few Eastern European countries, nationalism is largely civic, not ethnic or racial, for Europeans and Eurocolonials. Anyone can be or become an American. Anyone can be or become British. Anyone can be or become French. Anyone can be or become German. And so forth. Expressions of nationality are almost purely based on location and [sometimes] language rather than, say, a shared biological, cultural, historical, political and geographic heritage. Most Americans agree that an American can be of any race, ethnicity, or religion. Increasing numbers of Europeans feel that way about Europeans as well. With that attitude, how can one speak of a European or Eurocolonial nation as anything other than an administrative unit of the Atlanticist social and economic order (which is founded upon anti-nationalism in the first place)?

Despite nationalist politics being mostly civic rather than ethnic or “identitarian”—those are more metapolitical and largely lacking in formal representation— nationalist parties and movements are treated as if they were ethnic or identitarian by their opponents. And that’s only when slightly exaggerating. When they really want to throw a punch, they label these parties, movements, and ideologies as fascist or nazi.

It is hard to say which has done more to undo the national sentiments created in the 19th and 20th centuries: globalization and the erosion of local identity, or deliberate social and political initiatives to suppress and morally deconstruct national sentiments. The poisoning of the nationalist “brand” is potent, but so too are the effects of global mass media in homogenizing and leveling the interests and tastes of their consumers across the Western world. Just as media was instrumental in creating a sense of national unity, it may have become instrumental in undermining it. Even civic nationalist outbursts like 2016’s Brexit or the election of Donald Trump as President of the United States are still taking place within a firmly integrated Atlanticist context (which is a form of liberal globalism). Britain will remain economically and ideologically tied to continental Europe, even if it has its own currency and trade regulations. The United States will remain the engine of NATO and heavily involved in the geopolitics of Europe.

Regardless of what has greater explanatory power in determining why nationalism is dying on the long arc of history,  nationalism is evidently dying. If most members of the ethnic French nation or the ethnic [white] American nation saw themselves as members of ethnic nations, there would be ethnic nationalist politicians in power. Labeling them as “nazi” would fall flat. Most people would not view themselves as the political personification of evil for sharing views with ethnic nationalists, if most people were ethnic nationalists. The fascist/nazi accusation works precisely because an audience of people who are either civic nationalists or liberals are already primed to oppose nazism and fascism, as such ideologies are popularly conceived of as forms of evil.

Narratives of these nations being oppressed by “globalists” fall flat when one realizes that most Westerners outside of Eastern Europe see themselves not as members of an ethnic nation, but as colorblind communities of people whose ethnic or racial similarities are politically irrelevant to them. The most agency rests in the ethnic nation itself in suppressing its ethnic nationalism. Otherwise there would simply be too large of a politically nationalist majority for it to be discarded.

What this means is that we should not be terribly surprised when Westerners have little or no reaction to the projection that they are going to become minorities in their historical geographic ranges of Europe, North America, and British Oceania due to mass migration and declining fertility.  (The Southern Cone as well may become less European over time due to migration from the rest of South America and intermarriage, though the racial and political contexts are different in Latin America).

These are powerful currents. We should not assume that the attempt to form a global order built upon the free movement of capital, goods, and people will fail any time soon. Capitalism generates lots of profits. Entertainment technologies give idle minds something to be engrossed in. And diversity and multiculturalism are popular enough to remain the elected state ideology of much of the Western world. These are all things that the masses permit, out of choice or inaction. As long as they can still go shopping, what does it matter? Also if you care about the ethnic composition of a country you are a bad person.

The reality is that Europeans and Eurocolonials in the aggregate do not believe their own nations matter enough to be perpetuated as demographic majorities inside what were once their nation-states. While an extremely grim picture for people who believe in celebrating and continuing our Western heritage and legacy for generations to come, the problem is ultimately one of attachment to a form of social organization, that of the nation-state. The notion that “we” will become minorities in “our own countries” is not appealing to us, but it is of no negative political consequence to everyone else. A minority of Westerners care about this (and of that minority, some actually celebrate becoming a minority as atonement for racism or colonialism, etc.). As the minority that cares about this from a self-interested perspective and not one of masochism, we need to ask ourselves different questions about how to continue our traditions, our cultures, and our lines. We need to think in the terms of the world we are living in, a de-nationalized world.

Europeans and Eurocolonials are de-nationalized peoples. Most became political nations, centered around a shared biological, cultural, historical, political and geographic heritage in the 19th and 20th centuries, but they have since lost this feeling. The national sentiment, the concept of a folk-based unity and shared ethno-cultural identity, is clearly gone to anyone observing our politics from a mental state of non-hysteria, no matter what the paranoid style of political journalism churns out. America, Britain, France and the like have still refused to ban immigration knowing full well it will make Americans, the British, the French, and so forth, into minorities. For them, there is no fundamental distinction between current Americans and to-become Americans, current Britons and to-become Britons. They are separated by paperwork, perhaps an ocean or two.

Once a civilizational feeling of that magnitude is lost, it is very difficult to resurrect. It may remain in our memories like the Roman Empire has—who could ever forget the centuries of splendor of Britain, France, and the United States for that matter—but in the political lives of Westerners it will be a corpse.

You cannot bring a corpse back to life. That’s the premise of the Fifth Political Theory (5PT) with regard to ethnic nationalism. The way forward is not to cling to the nation-state or to try to carve one out of a multi-ethnic imperial state. It is to reorient ourselves towards a diaspora model. The West is becoming de-nationalized. Years from now, all these national identities that existed are going to be gone and the people inside the former nation states will look and behave quite differently. If we are to become a minority in what is becoming someone else’s country, and we want to continue our Western heritage, we will need to embrace the ur-identity, that of the tribe. Because we are a tribe inside a vast, multi-ethnic superstate that is increasingly foreign to us (and us foreign to it), we are also a diaspora.

The nation was, in many respects, just a large tribe. But with it came increasing social complexity and geographic dispersal that resulted in regionalism and political splintering. We who embrace our identity and heritage as sons and daughters of Europe are a minority among people who share “our” heritage in all its forms (cultural, genetic, ethnic, political, religious, etc.), and we can only convert so many people to our way of thinking in what is frankly a race against time at the national level. As our tribe scales down, it will fortunately become more cohesive and resilient. And if we reject the national model, we do not need to burden ourselves with that pursuing fruitless objectives at that level. We can focus on the tribal level.

Ultimately 5PT sees nationalist politics and building a mass movement to “take our country back” or “save our nation” as a futile waste of resources that we need to build our tribe. 5PT is about Westerners with a future, not Westerners with a death wish. You cannot save those who do not want to be saved. What you can do is find those who want to save themselves, and build them into the network. If those of us alive today fail to link together the remnants of our atomized people who still feel the vague stirrings of self-preservation and civilizational perpetuation, it will not happen. We will fold into the new kind of race and materialistic philosophy that is being created, and all that came before it will be obliterated to make room for more shopping malls and immigrant communities. We shall lose our noble virtues, our Promethean fire, and the legacy of thousands of years to the successors of managerial liberalism and their precious “end of history.”

5PT says our choices are as such: We become that immigrant community living in a strange land, or we go to the mall and never come back. There are forces which cannot be fought, but only ridden. The Atlanticist order will not allow itself to be voted out of existence, and if we are to be pushed from the world stage as nations we will simply have to find another abode as a people.

Titus Quintus

May 5, 2017

24 thoughts on “The De-Nationalization of the Global European Diaspora

  1. When you say you want to embrace the “Tribe”, does this mean a society in which the (currently non-existent) “Tribe” is the central and dominant social institution?

    If not, what does it mean exactly?

    Like

    1. It would be the “central and dominant social institution” for its own members. Other entities or institutions would of course have to be interfaced with such as the government or the external market or other identity groups in its vicinity.

      Metapolitically the tribe is something very important for people interested in the perpetuation of Western civilization’s peoples, Europeans and Eurocolonials, to be thinking about and start developing in the real world. All this criticism that rightist, identitarian and/or reactionary thinkers generally lob at the society we’re in tends to focus on the political level or on the organization of the society itself or what sort of policies they’d like to use state power to enforce. Other topics preferred for analysis are often the creation of imperial states, or ethno-states, or monarchies or what have you. All of these things leapfrog the problem of those politics not having a constituency that would support (or enforce) them.

      5PT shouldn’t necessarily be seen as creating the conditions to allow for those politics to happen. Even if a country’s self-selected Western diaspora grew to be 10% of the population, it would not be enough to control a government. The goal of 5PT’s metapolitics is to create a tribe that reproduces itself across generations and is capable of enduring the changes we have no control over in the broader society. A state would be nice, but the diaspora perspective is to be agnostic on that question. A better use of resources is in furthering our interests, not vain and unviable attempts at state formation or state control.

      Like

  2. It is important to disaggregate between two different meanings of Tribe.

    If your project aims merely at intensifying a sense of white cultural identity, that is a very different project from trying to resurrect the real Tribe and return it to the center of society. In such a project you are asking people to enter into a new (and completely foreign) kind of super-intense family relationship.

    Usually when we talk about tribalism in the west we speak of the blue tribe, the football tribe, the Irish tribe, etcetera. In this sense we mean merely an intense sense of common identity. As a political project you would be merely asking people engage in identity politics. Telling white nationalists they should become Jews is a good troll, but my hunch is that the Alt-Right identity politics consumer is looking for something else.

    The real Tribe is not a political program or a cultural identity. The old Tribe functions as an extended family and is based off of relationships of absolute loyalty and absolute authority. Normally you don’t join a tribe, you are born into it. Such Tribes still thrive all over the world, from Rwanda to Afghanistan, and yes we could go back, but do you understand what such a dread alchemy requires? Do you want to be a Pashtun? Because the closest thing we have to living wild Tribes among mainstream American white people are motorcycle clubs and convict gangs, and their proximity to homicidal violence is not accidental.

    Truly resurrecting the Tribe is a project is so radical that it may be impossible, but it literally “strikes at the root” of the whole of western modernity. As such I fully support such a project. The good news is that there is a way back; the bad news is what it will take to turn neurotic middle class white people into Pashtuns again. As we don’t have any Tribals or a functioning Tribe to go back to, we essentially have to hit the reset button and wipe the whole operating system. So understand that this will require extreme measures.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. I agree that it is quite radical. If you want to run with the computer science analogy, our registry is so corrupted that we can’t start up our system normally anymore. None of the previous restore states work either. The paleoconservatives, nationalists, constitutionalists, and even monarchists want to go back to a specific model of social organization that they’ve idealized when the one with the best track record has been there the entire time, neglected by the complexities of the large, overscaled societies we’ve created.

      I should clarify I am thinking more of the Pashtuns and less of trying to convince the demos about the implicit whiteness of their daily lives so they vote to preserve it. We have multiple case studies now in the 72nd year since the violent destruction of European/Eurocolonial nationalism by capitalism and communism showing that they are never going to do this en masse, and even if they do that the people elected will become co-opted into the Atlanticist status quo. 5PT has no interest in mass political movements or their tactics because we are past the point of no return on that front.

      Which is truly impossible then, to have say a Western diaspora population in the United States of 10,000-25,000 by 2100, or to convince most of the 200,000,000 Eurocolonials to feel like their society is worth saving for the children they aren’t having anyway? And our ambition would be similar in the other European and Eurocolonial countries as well.

      Like

  3. I think your analysis of people’s political standing is flawed. Nationalism is actually extremely popular among all these populations. People aren’t fully conscious of it as “nationalism” and definitely not “ethnic nationalism”, but Trump and Brexit and nationalism in Europe are making huge waves for a reason. There’s nothing inevitable about liberal globalism, despite its efficiency. It’s a fragile system that goes against human nature and has only remained unchallenged because of a tyrannical suppression of the language needed to critique it.

    Trump gave us a winning playbook, I don’t see a reason to throw it away because you think liberal globalism is somehow inevitable. Even if the tide were somehow inevitable, we could swim with it via clever language and ideological gymnastics. Napoleon became Emperor of France in the name of the Revolution. There’s a lot of room for us to advocate for our interests within this framework, assuming it remains in place.

    Like

    1. Trump only won because of anti-democratic (with a lowercase d) bias in the structure of the election system. Most Americans did not vote for him just as most French did not vote for Le Pen. The “new nationalism” we are seeing has some potential to be sure, but its window of opportunity is very narrow. We’re talking perhaps 20 years. One generation. One more generation of business as usual (something we’ve done since the sixties) and nationalism based upon a European or Eurocolonial majority is toast. It will become a fringe regional movement. Trump is already squandering his gains, or being extremely thwarted by the legacy regime, or perhaps both.

      Recall that Napoleon lost and did irreparable damage to France. What the West needs is perhaps an Ataturk more than anything else as far as nationalism is concerned.

      I am not opposed to nationalism succeeding or sustaining itself where it currently governs (such as in Intermarium Europe), but I can’t see it having a robust electoral future elsewhere in the West. If the perpetuity of Western peoples is tied to the nation-state it is at grave risk.

      Like

      1. “Trump only won because of anti-democratic (with a lowercase d) bias in the structure of the election system. Most Americans did not vote for him just as most French did not vote for Le Pen.”
        I’m not sure whether this assessment is correct if you only consider ethnic French below the age of 40 and only White Americans or even just U.S. citizens. It might well be that Trump actually had won the popular vote if there hadn’t been any voter fraud. And Le Pen has strong support from young ethnic French.
        “One more generation of business as usual (something we’ve done since the sixties) and nationalism based upon a European or Eurocolonial majority is toast.”
        I would say: One more generation of business as usual and we will have civil war in France, Belgium, Sweden, Germany etc. Liberalism and “Civic Nationalism” are not viable systems when there are open borders for Muslims and Sub-Saharan Africans.
        “I am not opposed to nationalism succeeding or sustaining itself where it currently governs (such as in Intermarium Europe), but I can’t see it having a robust electoral future elsewhere in the West.”
        I share your pessimism in this regard only for Western Germany, Sweden and maybe Belgium.
        And I think it would be best to consider your approach the fifth part of an over-arching strategy essential for White survival:
        1. Political action to stop or at least slow down mass immigration, especially from Muslim and Sub-Saharan African countries
        2. Political action to prevent a military confrontation of the West with Russia and its allies, which would lead to the destruction of our original homelands and the deaths of millions of Whites
        3. Shifting the Overton window in a favorable direction towards nationalism and White self-preservation
        4. Preparing for the coming European Civil War wherever “shit hits the fan” first (Sweden, Germany, Belgium, Paris…?)
        5. Building up White tribes and strong networks between them
        #5 alone without political change will not help much, as a hostile government can always find a pretet to destroy your tribal structure and take away your children.

        Like

      2. If only young ethnic French or white Americans voted in their respective countries, then civic nationalist or conservative parties would likely win national elections with ease. The coalition of liberal cosmopolitan Europeans and non-Europeans outnumbers them in reality, and the franchise is univeral. In our democracies, what Moldbug refers to as institutionalists and (minority) tribalists are thus allied against populists by design. It must also be stressed that the American Republicans and the French National Front are not ethnic nationalist parties but civic nationalist, which means “values” take priority over all. They represent a moderation of globalism, liberalism trying to save itself by adopting a nationalist veneer. Neither party is going to reverse the European demographic decline but merely slow it down, which would go a long way to prevent your predicted civil war actually.

        Liberalism is indeed “viable,” just look at how many states it governs. Africans and Muslims can be transformed into client populations to strengthen the electoral lock, minority tribalists serving institutionalists. Civic nationalism meanwhile is surrogate identity politics for Europeans, a stress release for liberalism against the specters of populism and “fascism” (the politics of ultranationalist palingenesis among other illiberal things).

        I agree of course that immigration should be opposed as should wars in the interest of the liberal Atlanticist order. But without control of any of the government the most we can hope for is to be a subversive influence. Again we return to the problem that west of Poland and Humgary ethnic nationalists do not really exist as a power bloc or community with people and territory. So their role in politics is marginal and politics goes on without them.

        This is of course why we need a tribal, diaspora orientation and an emphasis on acquiring genuine power as an interest group, not simply trying to win votes for an ideology. As an ideology, ethnic nationalism has been around for the entire postwar period; it has just been marginal and accomplished nothing. It has left us no networks or communities to speak of, only thinkers and publishers and failed political parties.

        Like

      3. “and an emphasis on acquiring genuine power as an interest group, not simply trying to win votes for an ideology”
        I wholeheartedly agree with this (as important part of a broader strategical concept as outlined above). Tribal organization needs to have the goal of acquiring genuine power as an interest group. Therefore we should model our strategy (not our ideology) after Jews, Pashtuns and pre-colonial Brahmin and Kshatrya, or expanding religious groups like the Mormons, rather than the Amish, the Kalasha or the Yezidis. And that’s where I see the problem with Folkish Asatru or Christian Identity, They appear to be designed for stagnation and withdrawal rather than propagation, expansion and power acquisition.
        Still, I think this is important as a long-term strategy only within a Civic Nationalist context. I don’t believe that open-borders liberalism is viable, that Sub-Saharan Africans can maintain a functioning economy or Muslims can be converted to gay-loving consumerism. The higher the percentage of these population groups, the higher the chance of system breakdown and civil war.

        Like

      4. Britain and France are the countries to watch regarding the integration of “western” Islam as a generic secularized Christian sect. Is tolerance for homosexuality and genderfluidity one of our shared Judeo-Christian-Islamic values? Not impossible. But I think Houellebecq’s satire comes closer than anything the cosmopolitans have in store for Islam. Muslim Brotherhood style political parties once they hit 20-30% of the pop.

        Like

      5. “Britain and France are the countries to watch regarding the integration of “western” Islam as a generic secularized Christian sect.”
        A “Western” Islam as just another “oppressed” identity group is a projection of “liberal” wishful thinking on Muslims and attractive only to a few ex-Muslimas who can’t admit being apostates for fear of reprisal by their communities and/or want to enjoy the privileges which come along with belonging to such a “victim” group. Most of the Muslim men will not be attracted to such an emasculated version of Islam lacking any scriptural basis.

        “Is tolerance for homosexuality and genderfluidity one of our shared Judeo-Christian-Islamic values? Not impossible.”
        I doubt it. At least I’m not aware of any passages in the Old Testament or the Quran justifying homosexuality and/or gender fluidity. In contrast, it might be part of our Indo-European heritage or even more ancient “matriarchal” Pagan traditions?

        “But I think Houellebecq’s satire comes closer than anything the cosmopolitans have in store for Islam. Muslim Brotherhood style political parties once they hit 20-30% of the pop.”
        I agree that this is the most likely scenario. Muslim immigration will lead to a strengthening of Political Islam. Both, Muslim and Sub-Saharan African immigration will lead to an increase in crime and a decrease in economic productivity. “Liberalism” in its current form is not viable. It will lead to its own collapse, if it doesn’t evolve to become more nationalist. So, in some countries we will have a Civic Nationalist system (allowing the immigration of educated Chinese, Hindus, Sikhs, Parsees etc.) in which ethnocentric Whites can work together as a “diaspora” until we regain a demographic majority, in other countries, which decide to continue mass immigration from Africa and the Islamic world, we need to be prepared for the inevitable civil war, to protect our communities there, and to be able to seize power once both enemies are sufficiently weakened. In fact, cross-border cooperation and networking between ethnocentric Whites in these two groups of countries with those in Central-Eastern European ethnostates will be essential for our survival in Europe. Our fighters in those countries affected by civil war will need to have the opportunity of tactical retreat and regrouping, and they will need to have the possibility of bringing their families to friendly communities in neighboring countries.

        Like

      6. The power structure can retcon whatever it wants as “real Islam.” At this stage it rings hollow. But given the growing presence of Islam relative to Judaism in Western countries, someone is bound to attempt to amalgamate it into the “Judeo-Christian” meme, if not in the name of inclusion then of equality. This is the ideal outcome for liberal cosmopolitans, to create a secular-protestant Islam. Again, as of the present it is not guaranteed this will succeed, and failure seems more likely.

        As for scenario B, political Islam will damage the cohesion of non-Muslim societies which allow it. Liberalism will wear thin until all realize it is just non-European ethnic groups weaponizing egalitarian principles no one sincerely believes anymore in order to advance themselves. That could lead to civil war between mutually alienated tribes. But it will certainly lead to foreign meddling which aims to exploit the fissures in a given country to the meddler’s advantage. Western Europe especially may become a proxy warzone for other powers. The best hope for our Western diaspora may be to become one of these external powers. And it will have the strongest and most motivated interest in pursuing victory, an important structural and moral advantage.

        Civic nationalists could try to rescue the situation before it gets that bad. But if their only interest is to preserve the state it will lead to Brazilianization.

        Like

  4. Working my way up, just got this one done as well. Once again, masterful… I especially enjoyed your replies to the comments.
    Looking forward to the more recent posts, keep up the good work

    Like

  5. This reminds me in a way of the cyberpunk novel “The Diamond Age” in which groups lost national identities and became tribes or phyles. There is also an element of “Fitzpatricks War”. The obvious implications here are that since most institutions are gone, we can dispense with them and create our own. Like a if the name of the tribe was Alt-lander or whatever you could have the “Alt-lander Unified Church” and have that as a High Church. Then grow your educational needs from that.
    Imagine a tribal church, that focused on the tribal community and was focused on that? We all be Kurds now! Just kidding great idea!

    Liked by 1 person

    1. Kurds in the Middle East have been around for a thousand years, and it’s reasonable to think they may be around for another thousand. Can we say the same for the English or the French in Europe?

      Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s