Tribal Praxis versus National Praxis

How does the Western diaspora become the Western diaspora? What does it mean to build a tribal network? What is all this Fifth Political Theory (5PT) stuff supposed to be in practice?

Offering the prescription is one matter, but filling it is another entirely. 5PT is about  studying, formulating, and applying this concept of the diaspora tribe in response to the challenges faced by European and Eurocolonial peoples. This will be a work in progress, permanently. There is no endgame to existence other than non-existence, which it ought to go without saying is something we would like to avoid.

Among identitarian and nationalist movements, especially in the United States, one of the foremost difficulties in developing the real-world institutions that would cement tribal identity and formation is the high degree of geographic dispersal. Too few people live too far away to interact regularly enough to constitute a “real” community, complete with all the social, economic, cultural, and spiritual benefits that arise from proximity and cooperation.

If everyone in our society is already “bowling alone,” why should we assume the situation is any different for those who believe in the perpetuity of their kind? The anomic problem cannot be solved with the ballot or the bullet. Nor can it be solved over a few beers.

There is too much focus on metapolitics (changing ideas) and politics (changing governments) and not nearly enough on changing one’s social environment to produce the outcomes sought. There are debates and “purity spirals” over orthodoxy, but a quiet indifference to orthopraxy. Being able to convince people to take an interest in your political program is all and well, but being unable to even produce a single geographic constituency at any level that would support it is a fatal flaw.

Now, 5PT dismisses nationalism as the vehicle of salvation for Europeans and Eurocolonials. Our agenda is not to create districts that would “vote nationalist,” but to create a network of diaspora communities which remain connected to one another through changes in our political environment. A nation-state, while perhaps desirable given a range of options between it and the status quo, is not made any more plausible by one’s ability to argue for it or theorize its utility and qualities. Europeans and Eurocolonials who want to perpetuate themselves into future generations form a very minuscule sub-national and trans-national demographic spread across dozens of countries, whose governments promote de-nationalized multiculturalism with the support of the demos. We can call this neo-liberalism, mangerial statism, cosmopolitanism, or any number of labels which partially describe it but fail to capture its totality—but the political (and metapolitical!) reality is that this system of memes has mostly eradicated the robust forms of ethnic nationalism and in time will likely trounce civic nationalism as well.

A handful of rural counties or lone city councilmen or minority parties are not going to revolutionize the politics of the entrenched demo-bureaucratic system. More likely would be the latter’s retaliation against them and the destruction of all their efforts with a few swift executive actions and unanimous legislative decisions.

That being said, even if 5PTs rejects political nationalism as a viable option, it recognizes that those initially drawn to it have the most potential for integration into a diaspora tribe. So now what? Here we must draw a distinction between national praxis, which hardly exists, and tribal praxis, which 5PT wants to create with or without the state.

The standard argument for nationalism—and its core component of self-determination for recognized peoples with defined territories—is that it provides a space for the flourishing of a politically united people (typically on the basis of shared historical and ethnic ties) where they are unmolested by other peoples, who would be deemed as foreign imperialists, occupiers, oppressors, etc.

But without nationalist parties in power implementing nationalist governance, there is no national praxis. There is only theorizing on the future state and criticism of the status quo, propagandizing for the ideology, and the occasional real-world demonstration in defense of it. None of these are inherently negative and that is not the perspective I wish to convey, but on the other hand they are also not terribly productive in actualizing nationalist agenda of creating a space for the flourishing of a people. Nationalist politics has an extremely shallow ceiling of support in a de-nationalized society, and metapolitics (which tends to be more “extreme” than the formal politics) has an even more shallow ceiling. 5PT sees metapolitics as closer to its goals than politics, but where we must innovate is in what we do and not merely what we think.

Tribal praxis does not require political parties or the control of a government administration. It requires proximity and a sense of solidarity and cohesion. Let us imagine for a moment what possibilities there might be for, say, twenty Western families living within twenty minutes of one another, as opposed to one hundred bloggers and activists living between California, Virginia, and New York.

  • Children could be homeschooled together.
  • Consumer goods could be bought in bulk at cheaper rates from big-box stores and redistributed more efficiently than twenty atomized households purchasing exactly what each needed.
  • Services could be provided to each other at cheaper rates and in such a way that economic activity is kept inside the community, such as home and auto repair, manual labor, tutoring, tech service, etc.
  • Depending on the location (rural, ex-urban, suburban), housing could be bought and rented at non-exploitative rates and without the use of outside brokers or realtors.
  • Public social events could be attended as a group with greater frequency.
  • Internal social events could be held with greater frequency.
  • Clubs, house churches, lodges, and other associations can be formed. Property can be bought or rented for them through the raising of “tithes.” There’s no temple without a congregation first.

The general principle of tribal praxis is to go outside of one’s network only as necessary. Resources should be kept internal as much as possible. Opportunities should be afforded to the in-group first. And so forth. All of these build a sense of cohesion and loyalty, and thus a stronger identity. And they are all impossible through the model of purely focusing on politics or metapolitics. Policies and ideas are important. But so are groceries and your social life. So is the education of your children. So is having a sense of ritual to your daily life. So is treating your money like the precious asset it is and being shrewd with it.

In capitalist democracy, shopping and voting are almost inseparable acts. There are many products that both “liberals” and “conservatives” mutually consume, but there are also plenty which are selected or rejected for ideological reasons. The Western diaspora must be even more radical in how we vote with our money. Who do we buy from and how much do we pay for it? Who do we rent from? Who employs us? What do we put that money back into? If more money flows out of the tribe than into it, growth will be harder, and it will start to assimilate.

The other essential feature of tribal praxis, beyond creating a parallel society, is to reproduce that parallel society. We cannot rely only on conversion or on disaffected young men with a cause—for even the Männerbund, the most ancient of virtuous institutions, is only part of a society and not the society itself.

In a recent post entitled “Restoration: A Modest Proposal,” NRx blogger Quas Lacrimas writes how one might go about, well, breeding higher quality people. Mainly, one would want to identify families with high quality members—as he puts it, with “high[er than] average levels of the kind of traits you would want in a leader. (Or a king.)”—and try to bring them together and repeat the process generations over and over. The initial hurdle will be finding wives for the first generation:

“You want the wives to come from families with similar qualities. They do not need to be exceptionally bright stars among their siblings; even if they are only “average”, they may well be too smart for their own good. Hold back your misgivings about whether such wives as these will make these young men happy: probably not, but oh well. In TCY, a woman from a talented family probably does not aspire to be the wife of a talented man and mother to five talented children. She will probably have attended (or still be enrolled in) college, for example; it simply cannot be helped. So long as the girls are not human rights lawyers or “community organizers” everything will probably turn out all right, and if you catch them young enough you (or more accurately, your budding Männerbund) may be able convince them that pretty girls don’t need to go to med school or apply for internships at Goldman.”

And thereafter, grandchildren too must be guided towards good breeding, though this should be less difficult given their own quality and their parents’ generation.

While 5PT is not particularly interested in creating a new aristocracy per se, it would be wise of the members of the future diaspora tribe to look for certain traits in their spouses. Since political views are partially heritable, it may be possible to successively breed each generation to be more and more ethnocentric and clannish, that is to say more tribal. We are not Pashtuns yet, but if we do not become more like them, in the long run we will become even less like ourselves. Civilization, after all, boils down to memes and genes. Who will survive the managerial melting pot?

Titus Quintus

May 21, 2017



9 thoughts on “Tribal Praxis versus National Praxis

  1. Your last topic brings up an important point – women should be considered an important resource. Like with money, an net positive flow of women is essential to growing and prospering. Ensuring the availability of wives for men within the tribe is critical.

    When considered alongside the fact traditional women will be extremely appealing to outsider males, that poses a challenge. We don’t want men within the tribe to have to compete with the entire broader pool of males, or for new (unproven) male entries into the tribal identity to get a disproportionate share of the women. To remedy that, I think that in the future it should be encouraged for women born into the tribe to only marry men who were also born the tribe. Newcomer males must bring their own wife. This would ensure a steady inflow of women, and ward of a deluge of angsty young men by requiring them to first acquire a wife from the broader society.

    On the demographic scale, this secures our own birthrate, and also steals fertile women away from the liberal population – further lowering their already rock-bottom birthrate. Thus it would further accelerate the tribe’s growth as a share of the white population.

    It’s almost a shame (not really) that polygamy is so antithetical to Western family values – in hostile demographic situations like these, it is incredibly effective at fully utilizing every woman, maximizing the reproduction of successful males, and providing incentives for young men to go forth and conquer women and lands for the tribe. Mormons and the Islamic conquests are good examples of this. To work (in theory) I think men would have to be limited to only one wife born within the tribe – to avoid inter-tribe competition – while being allowed to marry any number of additional women inverted from the outside world.

    Personally I don’t want to live in a culture that would inevitably suffer the right of polygamy, and I cant even imagine what family life would be like… but on a strategic and demographic level, it is appealing.


    1. Women really enjoy social settings with other women. The problem of course is men are more interested in ethnic identity politics than women (who are conveniently funneled into the low fertility world of feminism).

      Once the initial bottleneck is overcome things will grow organically. So I suppose one way to be more appealing to women is to be less fringe-political and more community-based.

      These are all things that will have to be figured out.

      I do not think polygamy is an option in the 21st century. It also tends to produce a lot of social problems for men who cannot acquire wives, and we surely have enough of that!


  2. You are basically just re-branding communism in a way that might appeal to nationalists.

    Either deliberately in an attempt to subvert opposition or because you are a narcissistic fool who truly believes they have stumbled upon some new enlightened perspective.


  3. I’ve found myself thinking very similar things, and I love where you’re going with this. How do you think this political theory meshes with anarcho-capitalism? While the economics and basic theory seem pretty sound, it doesn’t really touch on a lot of what is important and inherent in human behavior. The 5pt seems like it takes care of a lot of the problems I’ve been having with it. For example, I’ve had to deal with the acceptance of multiculturalism, converts to Islam, and the gender nonsense even within Libertarianism. Granted, I am at a raging liberal University. But thankfully there are many who have chosen not to identify with them. Like you, it seems, I don’t think identitarianism necessarily has to lead to national socialism, communism, or disorder – it can also be a force for organizing like-minded people to lift each other up, and cooperate with other groups with similar values and goals. In my mind, it’s less about race and more about intelligence, ideology, and culture (which I guess all correlates with family values, history, environment, and therefore, race). In a society that has forgotten the importance of family values and genes, it’s also important that we have a social system where the rich and successful are encouraged to breed, while the poor are encouraged to have fewer children and focus on building themselves up. This is the opposite of today. The low birth-rate allows the poor to have comparatively higher living standards, while the high birth-rate of the rich distributes wealth among their young. I would argue the rich shouldn’t simply give money to their young, but rather invest in their young and their projects to encourage productivity and discourage decadence. With different diasporic groups competing to raise IQ and acquire resources in an open market, you end up spreading the most successful cultural values and gene sets. In the case of a diaspora within states, I feel as if there would be a lot of strife and accusations of collusion, just as Jews have seen throughout history. I think it’s probably a much better way to organize – especially in a multicultural society, but that just seems to be inevitable. If the demographics do change radically in the next few decades, these theoretical diasporic Europeans could become the mirror image of Jews in Germany, with Islamicists and the liberal borg pushing for more and more control, blaming conspiratorial organized “whiteness” and its “infiltrators” for their problems. However, it could also provide Europeans with a merit-based support system and identity that could help to reverse this self-destructive behavior. Sorry for the long post, I’ve been thinking a lot on this subject as well as the 4pt. I would love to have a conversation with you on this subject sometime if you’re down.


    1. The problem with anarcho-capitalism or any form of anarchism really is that the state (or persons claiming enough authority and privileges to constitute a de facto state) are the norm. There may be interregnum periods when this is not so, but to build one’s ideological, political, and economic preferences around the notion that the state is absent has never really held for me.
      Taking a page from Lind’s 4th Gen Warfare, I see it as a prominent actor which commands the loyalty of many and which possesses great power. What the diaspora tribes aims to become is one of those powerful non-state loyalties that are resurging all around the world, especially outside of the European and Eurocolonial world (where the nation-state has more shallow roots and lacks the homogeneity of the ideal form). As our world becomes more like the rest of the world I think we will see these kinds of “foreign” dynamics.
      As for rich and poor births, or any concern with the demographics of an entire state, these are problems whose solutions we could not implement anyway without control of the demo-bureaucracy.
      I think we already have competition between groups, but more importantly that our group is not self-aware of it and more importantly still that it views other groups as inherently more deserving or of greater moral authority. With a tribal mindset we would cease this indulgently self-sacrificial behavior and form a healthy ethnos. We wouldn’t feel aghast that Quechua peasants who’ve moved to the United States since the 1980s have lower household income than old stock European Americans. Because they aren’t ours.


Leave a Reply

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

You are commenting using your 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