There is something off about them. Those people who seem to never vote their actual ethnic interests when offered the chance, who tend to be extremely bourgeois while advocating for socialism, Islamophile in the face of jihad, and found in all sizable cities while being too transitory to have strong roots in any. They don’t see color but it is all they think about, and how they can bring other tribes up to their own standard of consumption (i.e. equality).
If you pressed them on their “whiteness,” they would laugh uncomfortably or become righteously angry. If you explained that their virtue signaling and clinging to tolerance were largely the value set of post-industrial urban white (and Jewish) middle classes looking to socially distance themselves from those “other,” bad white people in order to appear morally superior, they’d deny it.
In an ethnographic sense it is almost unfair and inaccurate to call this millions-strong, trans-national group of people “white.” They don’t really believe in their “whiteness” unless engaging in self-deprecation or deflection. The Western liberal is really not “white” beyond her biology. She escapes it to posit a status of global citizenship and working towards the eternally shifting goal of social justice.
Though interestingly, in Chinese language circles there is a now a slur, baizuo, for these kinds of liberals which translates to “white left.” Chenchen Zhang, a liberal Chinese professor in the European university system writes:
“The stigmatization of the ‘white left’ is driven first and foremost by Chinese netizens’ understanding of ‘western’ problems. It is a symptom and weakness of the Other. The term first became influential amidst the European refugee crisis, and Angela Merkel was the first western politician to be labelled as a baizuo for her open-door refugee policy. Hungary, on the other hand, was praised by Chinese netizens for its hard line on refugees, if not for its authoritarian leader.”
So to China’s politically-active circles on the Internet, “white left” is a slur for someone as de-nationalized as a European, that is to say someone whose liberalism will end the society they live in as they know it. It is considered a clever insult to call someone a white liberal in China. Perhaps it is their form of the Alt Right’s “cuck” meme.
The same liberal Chinese professor also condemns the author of what sounds like an extremely NRx take on Western civilization, except that it was coming out of China:
“In an academic-style essay that was retweeted more than 7000 times on Weibo, a user named ‘fantasy lover Mr. Liu’ ‘reviewed’ European philosophy from Voltaire and Marx to Adorno and Foucault, concluding that the ‘white left’ as a ‘spiritual epidemic’ is on its way to self-destruction. He then stated that Trump’s win was only ‘a small victory over this spiritual epidemic of humankind,’ but ‘western civilization is still far from its self-redemption.’ However ridiculous it may appear, the post is illustrative of how a demonized Other is projected onto seemingly objective or academic criticisms of the ‘white left’… The grassroots campaign against the ‘white left’ thus echoes the officially-sanctioned campaign against ‘universal values’, providing a negative evidence for the superiority of the Chinese self.”
Let us move on from the powerful Chinese sense of ethnos that liberal Chinese living abroad are so eager to deconstruct and which motivates nationalistic Chinese people to scoff at Europeans and Eurocolonials, and return to our focus on the progenitor of that self-destructive behavior, the Western liberal.
For many Europeans and Eurocolonials, liberalism is the common mental archetype. What we’ll call “liberalism” for short-hand is a rejection of one’s own nation and ethnos in lieu of a vast, global orientation towards humanity as a whole rather than its subdivisions. It’s an impossible vision, but that does not make it any less appealing. To exist without roots or without belonging to an ethnic tribe or community is a state contrary to the history of the human condition, but that creates part of its mystique. It is a kind of transcendence. Feeling enlightened by their own sense of cosmopolitanism and moral correctness, they spurn the human norm of tribal feeling that has existed for millennia.
As such, the Fifth Political Theory (5PT) sees fit to acknowledge that these people do not wish to be identified with “whiteness” or as part of the Western heritage in any traditional sense. They have opted out of the Western diaspora that we hope to achieve. We have no problem with “letting go” of the baizuo, but since they will be part of the same societies we are for a long time to come, we would do well to understand how they function (or malfunction) as a group, and what their implicit identity is even if they do not provide one for themselves.
The de-nationalized Western liberal who believes in the integration of all communities, the absence of inherited (or acquired) meaningful human differences, and that she exists as a generic human being animated only by the ideological pursuit of material equality and cosmopolitanism for cosmopolitanism’s sake, is the prototype of the transhuman. This new kind of human has shed all of its organic identity in place of the ability to consume at will, whenever and wherever without any sort of communitarian barriers, except against the more “retrograde” identity-conscious people who must be vigorously excluded from participation. In that sense the liberal or “progressive” state of being is a conflict between what we might call Man 1.0 and Man 2.0, in which the “newer” iteration sets itself upon eradicating those living fossils of the older model through pure impulse.
Let us turn to Dugin here who puts liberalism’s relation to ethnic identities quite well:
“Liberalism as an ideology, calling for the liberation from all forms of collective identity in general, is entirely incompatible with the ethnos and ethnocentrism, and is an expression of a systemic theoretical and technological ethnocide” (47).
Those who’ve completely integrated liberalism into themselves and supplanted their own ethnos now turn on the ethnos of other peoples. The meme of liberalism behaves more like a parasite than an ordinary organism, by infecting the host and then using it to attack non-carriers. That’s not a bug of Man 2.0, but a feature it has over Man 1.0.
As such, our prototype transhuman has moribund fertility and relies heavily on conversion to reproduce, making the liberal project into a constant battle with human nature, though one it has hitherto managed to precariously succeed in. “Religious conservatives” meanwhile have no trouble breeding; just ask the mostly-Eurocolonial Mormons, or the Arab Muslims of the Middle East and North Africa.
Just as neo-liberalism adopts mass immigration to ensure permanent “national” growth, our de-nationalized transhumans rely on converting what are in essence nationalized humans to their paradigms rather than indigenous or internal reproduction. The immigration that they support after all brings in foreign ethnocentric peoples as raw material for their ideology, not people who are automatically ready to be upgraded. One wonders how liberal Western Europe will remain as its Arab population increases—and if the managerial states there fail to atheize these migrants and convince them of the wonders of materialism. This is the heart of the baizuo meme mentioned earlier—Mohammed is not Merkel.
Liberals are actually quite good at converting Europeans and Eurocolonials, though success with non-Europeans may prove to be superficial. As the European and Eurocolonial population dwindles as a share of the Western whole, politically liberalism will primarily become a coalition of non-European ethnic blocs which supplement European liberals. And those non-European ethnic blocs are as such, ethnic rather than truly “liberal” in most cases. They are not as deracinated as the baizuo by any stretch, and the deracination of the latter could be said to embolden the former.
Our prototype transhumans of the “white” variety are thus lacking in what Julius Evola describes as the “demon” element in their individual. This is not the same as the evil entity that Christianity conceives of but instead “the deep force that originally produced consciousness in the finite form that is the body in which it lives during its residence in the visible world” (47). Without any spiritual depth beyond a crude materialism that focuses purely on achieving comfortable consumption levels for all races, the prototype transhuman has nothing it belongs to or emanates from, and so naturally cannot reproduce itself effectively. Evola adds that:
“In many traditions the demon corresponds to the so-called double, which is perhaps a reference to the soul of the soul or the body itself; this ‘double’ has also often been closely associated with the primordial ancestor or with the totem conceived as the soul and the unitary life that generated a stock, a family, a gens, or a tribe, and therefore it has a broader sense than the one given to it by some schools of contemporary ethnology. The single individuals of a group appear as various incarnations or emanations of this demon or totem, which is the “spirit” pulsating in their blood; they live it and it lives in them, through transcending them, just as the matrix transcends the particular forms it produces out of its own substance” (48).
Our prototype transhumans are people without history and ancestry, or rather they reject their history and ancestry as evil. From a presentist point of view, the very act of being born to European or Eurocolonial heritage is an original sin within the context of achieving Progress. The response is as we have seen to become nothing in terms of having an organic identity; they identify as an ideologue and not as a member of a tribe, saying “I am a liberal,” or “I am a progressive,” or something of that nature. Rather than being expressions of a “demon” element in the flesh, they are corruptions from a traditionalist point of view. We must wonder if this subconsciously dissuades them from having higher fertility, believing that they spreading an evil ancestral line into the world which they will spend the rest of their lives attempting to corral into becoming a fellow transhuman.
Incidentally, our prototype transhumans are sub-national and trans-national in a similar sense to the Western diaspora. Just as there is a Western diaspora in Germany and Canada, one could also speak of liberals in Germany and Canada. In both cases we feel more affinity with these networked groups than with our neighbors. The key difference is that the liberal breaks with her heritage in order to form her identity.
The purpose of this esoteric discourse is to highlight an important truth about the concept of the Western diaspora—it does not include the totality of all Europeans and Eurocolonials. Prototype transhumans reject us as an ethnos that must be done away with, and we reject them as an outgroup who we share some lineage with but no values. We who comprise the Western diaspora are in possession of this second part of the self—the generative “demon” element that allows us to carry forth our ancestral stock without guilt. We want to perpetuate ourselves and to honor our heritage and traditions as our anchor in the world, not to decouple ourselves from the foundations of the human experience so that we might leap towards an impossible future of total equality at the expense of subsuming all identities to the scale of pecuniary measurement and perverse moral self-satisfaction. The maladaptive meme of Progress before perpetuity may have taken root among most Europeans and Eurocolonials, but in doing so it has also forged them into a not-tribe, the tribe that doesn’t think of itself as a tribe. And a tribe which does not think of itself as a tribe will not persist.
What separates the Western diaspora from the prototype transhumans of the Western liberal majority is that we do conceive of ourselves as a coherent tribe with a past, present, and future. 5PT is about the formation of that tribe within our contemporary diasporic context and embracing that generative element. Among the societies created by our prototype transhumans, the only people with a sense of ethnos will ultimately be ourselves and the other immigrant communities, which possess that element as well. It’s a peculiar future, but the liberal ideology that shaped it may not survive to enjoy its results.
Dugin, Alexander. The Fourth Political Theory. 2009. Translated by Mark Sleboda & Michael Millerman, 2012. London: Arktos.
Evola, Julius. Revolt Against the Modern World. 1934. Translated by Guido Stucco, 1995. Vermont: Inner Traditions International.
Author’s note: I should very much like to return to these works more in depth at a later date, but for this topic it shall suffice to quote them briefly.