Terror and Tribe in the West

A 22 year-old “British man” named Salman Abedi has been named as the perpetrator of a suicide bombing in Manchester that killed 22 people and injured 57 as of writing. His parents are Libyans, and the attack may have been inspired or coordinated by the Islamic State. He has traveled to Syria previously, and his family has a history of involvement in political Islam and terrorism. So of course he was in Britain; why wouldn’t he be?

It is one in a long string of such terror attacks in recent memory committed in Europe and North America by foreign-born Muslims or their children. There have also been warnings for years now about how travel between Syria and Europe by jihadists (with the correct paperwork to reside in Europe) would lead to attacks.

The details don’t matter anymore to almost anyone, since they’re never applied towards implementing a solution. All of the facts, risk analysis, intelligence gathering, and heuristics can point to the threat and it is, in practice, ignored. The official response to terrorism is always one of “thoughts and prayers” and performing rites of anti-racism and integration. Perhaps in any other age, the populace would have finally lost their tolerance for this situation of waiting for the next blow, and repudiated the reigning elite and their system. But the demos of Britain, of France, of the United States, and many other Western countries, instead believes that such “isolated incidents” are “part of life in a city” and that to take corrective measures against their root causes would be grossly unethical. Governments are aware of who travels where and what their affiliations are and yet sit on their hands. The parents of one victim in particular are eerily unfazed by his death and feel no anger towards the man who blew up their own son. One can only wonder how many relatives of victims and survivors will go on without changing their opinions on immigration and state-sponsored multiculturalism.

As a de-nationalized people, the British profess that men like Abedi are just like they are, part of the same un-gated global community, and that he mysteriously became “radicalised” for reasons which remain hazy. And in any event, it is the fault of the Europeans for having not been accommodating enough of Abedi. You see, our dear Libyan is not just indistinguishable from any other “British” person, he also has no agency and requires special handling. Even though he is acknowledged as “British,” it is also the fault of “the British” that he became a “radical” Muslim instead of a casual, ecumenical Muslim. And here “British” does not include people of immigrant background, but refers to the British as an ethnos (or pan-ethnos rather, of the English, Scottish, etc.). “The British” only exist as a people when the managerial state decides it wants to blame them for something its invited settlers have done. Otherwise there is no such thing as “British people.” Like “whiteness,” it is only invoked in a negative sense. More importantly, since Europeans and Eurocolonials are viewed as aggressors rather than victims, we could never unilaterally blame a non-European (or the community which produced him) for engaging in violent terrorism.

The site of the attack, Manchester, has a Labour mayor and local government. They voted for people like the Abedi family to be settled in Britain. If enough cared they could vote to end this policy. But both the demos and the cosmopolitanist bureaucracy are staunch supporters of de-nationalizing Britain into a nation of immigrants and replaceable parts. And in the wake of the attack there will no doubt be demonstrations, marches, and triumphal processions in “solidarity” with Muslims in order to be “united against hate.” The true victims of any Islamic terror attack, we are told, are Muslims.

Obviously these identity-based paradigms are clouded with contradiction. But that doesn’t make them any less adhered to by Western liberals. The baizuo are literally  “bleeding hearts.”

It is in this context that the Fifth Political Theory (5PT) flexes its explanatory power and ability to reject the liberalism that produces immigrant-derived terrorism in European and Eurocolonial societies.

First we must understand the tribal components of the British state. A national-minded person would say Britain consists of the England, Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland, with its derived peoples being English, Scottish, Welsh, and Northern Irish. Then there are “immigrant communities,” of which realistically speaking some are assimilated and some are not, though determining this depends on one’s politics.

Let us discard this entirely, in remembering that in the aggregate Europeans are de-nationalized peoples, and liberals (whether they self-identify as such or not) form a commanding majority of their elected politicians. At most one finds expressions of civic nationalism, but not a politically sovereign and governing ethnos. Britain is now considered a “nation of immigrants” by its managers, and its demos have hardly voted otherwise. (The Brexit vote has been attributed to “New Nationalism,” not ethnic nationalism). While there are people who see themselves as English or Scottish (or even British) in an ethnic sense and act on this in their politics, metapolitics, and social networking, they are a tiny minority.

5PT theorizes the tribal composition of Britain—like most countries in the Western European/North American/British Oceanian bloc—is broadly made up of the following three categories:

  1. De-nationalized Europeans. Loyal to the managerial state. Believe in liberal cosmopolitan paradigms about identity. Politically dominant in the demo-bureaucratic system but complacent.
  2. Ethnic minorities and immigrants. Loyal to the managerial state in most cases. Believe in their own identity and are not required to relinquish it in order to fully participate in the society. Well-represented in the demo-bureaucratic system and the most motivated to seek change.
  3. Ethnocentric Europeans. Skeptic of or opposed to the managerial state. Believe in their own identity but are viewed as heretical outcasts. Almost entirely locked out of the demo-bureaucratic system, and whatever politicians they may have seated are mostly ineffective or held at bay by a cordon sanitaire. (In Michel Houellebecq’s novel Submission, the inflexible continuation of this policy going forward leads to the election of an Islamist prime minister in France’s run-off elections since the remaining candidate is a nationalist and the other parties will always vote for one another over nationalists).

De-nationalized Europeans—the tribe which doesn’t identify as a tribe—and minorities/immigrants will not vote for the “xenophobic” policies necessary to stop imported terror. The former do not want to be “racist” and would rather face literal martyrdom for their tolerance. The latter have no real incentives to be anti-immigration as they are often an imported people themselves, and opposition to immigration is associated with “racism.” Ethnocentric Europeans will vote for counter-terrorist policies, but their votes won’t matter and their politicians cannot win. This latter group will become the future Western diaspora, as for all intents and purposes they are already living as a foreign minority in the countries which they inhabit.

Due to its deliberate obfuscation of and devotion to protected classes, the managerial state cannot (and will not) fight Islamic terrorism decisively or effectively. Treating every person of Muslim origin in its territory as a unique and equal individual (and refusing to repatriate them) renders counter-terrorism impossible, and without a concept of tribal identification there is no way to understand the “radicalisation” process as it happens domestically. Muslims view themselves as a group inherently, while cosmopolitans only view Muslims as a group conditionally (when they are being “oppressed” by Europeans). Adding to this lack of context, many European governments do not collect statistics on the race, ethnicity, or religion of their citizens and residents. They have no serious means of dealing with the consequences of a multi-ethnic society.

Muslims, especially those living outside of the Islamic world, possess a strong sense of sub-national and trans-national solidarity (an integral part of diaspora tribalism). This provides them with a unity of purpose and shared points of reference in navigating the world. Libyans in Britain, Algerians in France, Syrians in Germany, and Pakistanis in America are all capable of feeling connected to the Islamic State (or other salafist groups) as the most attractive expression of their faith and identity, and feeling more connected to one another than they are to their nation of origin or their state of residence.

Thus, what the managerial state calls a “British man” can become a radical Islamic terrorist within weeks. Abedi felt more like a Muslim than a Western liberal cosmopolitan, which leaves the latter scratching their heads. “Radicalisation” is just a kind of personal realization of one’s belonging to the ummah—the global community of the Muslim faithful—expressed through violent paramilitary struggle. (It does not have to be expressed this way, but  all too often it is).

If only there was some way to prevent endemic tribal conflict from destroying the social fabric of Western society. I regret to inform you that, realistically, there isn’t. All the theorizing in the world amounts to nothing if it cannot be implemented.

The nationalist solutions of either expelling the Muslim population or of making them into de facto second-class citizens (who are severely restricted from movement and heavily monitored) are non-starters because of the electoral impossibility of reforming a model of government which always drifts towards universalism and egalitarianism over time. Moreover, their countries of origin may not be interested in receiving them back, and attempts to force them to do so would undoubtedly lead to more of the problem the action was intended to solve (terrorism), as well as possible state-on-state violence. That the managerial state will not solve the problem either because it values the suppression of the ethnos more than counter-terrorism is also not a happy realization. London mayor Sadiq Khan is perhaps correct in saying that terrorism is a part of life.

Still, we do not have to morally or physically accept these paradigms. We do not have to endorse this reality and participate in its progression and normalization. There is a sort of zen of detachment that comes with realizing that you are part of a very specific group of people who think the slow boil of Europe into a cauldron of tribal conflict is a bad idea, and that we should not become distraught and outraged when racinated minorities attack a de-racinated majority. The sooner one comes to terms with how diseased Babylon is and that he cannot cure it because it is just such a distilled form of his antithesis, the sooner he can move on to more constructive issues. The sooner we realize that Babylon is just a historical stage we are living through, the sooner we are released from our obligation to identify with or “save” it.

Muslim terrorists are going to continue to attack European and Eurocolonial countries because they believe they are “Crusader states” that persecute Muslims. And these states are going to tolerate it because they are more committed to cosmopolitan piety than they are to their own self-preservation. This is indeed just the way things are: two systems of false perception in conflict with one another. You will not save these people. You must rid yourself of this attachment. They do not want you to save them. They think you are an immoral sociopath whom they would not want to have as a neighbor, friend, co-worker, or employee. Muslims are at war with such liberal cosmopolitans. These people are not the Western diaspora and we should not become emotionally invested in their conflict.

5PT recognizes that this is a tragedy. But if no one is willing to really do anything to decisively put a stop to it, our response cannot be to lose our minds with rage and spout improbable policy prescriptions ad infinitum. And our response must never be violence in return either, because it would be both ineffective and bring us further misery at the hands of the state. It really is time to detach ourselves from countries like Britain, France, and the United States. These are not attacks on “our people” or “our nation,” and anything we have to say about it is not going to change this. Our fellow citizens are just not interested in preventing this anymore than they are interested in preventing their transition into a demographic minority.

Now, by all means, call out their hypocrisy and fatalism. For our own sake we have to tell someone the truth, don’t we? But do not confuse such temporary psychological release with one’s true purpose and alignment.

We know we’re living in a clown world. We know this isn’t a serious civilization but a decadent and materialistic one that deals with existential questions by shrugging them off. It is kali yuga—the dark age—and partially a product of the confusion of castes. It is hard to imagine that if we had a proper warrior aristocracy and spiritual elite we would tolerate the migration of violent foreigners into “our” countries. This is only possible through the rule of the masses, or “slaves” in the traditional sense, whose response to being attacked is to die. Warrior rule would never allow this, but the demos will not allow them. Livestock do not fight to protect themselves, and they govern even worse.

So let us stop trying to treat the terminally-ill patient. He won’t even let us make him comfortable in his last days. You won’t make Britain great again, or France great again, or America great again. There is more important work to be done than convince cattle to flee from the slaughterhouse. You must find what vital, vigorous elements remain among the European and Eurocolonial people and build them into the Western diaspora. 

Titus Quintus

May 27, 2017


19 thoughts on “Terror and Tribe in the West

  1. Yes – at the very least as a fall back – a diasporic philosophy is required, but one of multiple peoples over vast expanses with a myriad of ethnic (not racial) backgrounds, or an ingathering of select people in a localised group closer to their point of origin?


      1. You’re assuming that they’re even going to let us have a diaspora. The anti-white hysteria of the mainstream will only increase in pitch and ferocity from here. When we’re 40% of the population, nothing is off the table. Property confiscation, forced inter-breeding, it’s all possible. You think you’re going to be able to home school your kids? Nope, once they find out that there’s a correlation between home schoolers and whites that grow up to be ethnocentric, boom, home schooling is now illegal and you’re in prison if you don’t let the state teach little Rosie “whiteness studies” in your local 80% black school.

        Think you can just move away and live in a white area? Nope. Forced integration, and if you’re upset by the huge increases in crime and disorder (aimed specifically at you and your family, due to the anti-white genocidal cultural zeitgeist), you’ll still have to deal with the anti-white police who won’t give a shit.

        Think you’re going to be able to have a nice white wife and raise some white kids? Guess again, because the Black-Muslim-Jewish party just voted in a new radical “anti-racist” agenda which requires that “whiteness” must be abolished and whites not allowed to breed. Your wife will be jailed and forcibly impregnated with non-white cells. Think you can appeal to the UN and their genocide convention? Well guess what, they took that “make it impossible for a group to reproduce” out of the law in 2040, you tried to protest at the time but it was too abstract for anyone to care. And even if they hadn’t change the laws, without some sort of objective justice system to enforce them, what are we left with?

        You’ll be left with idiocracy-style kangaroo courts that will just flagrantly ignore the laws, making up new ones, applying third world justice totally irregularly and incoherently, and non-white juries that will go along with it and even endorse it.

        They will inflict such humiliation and torment upon us that we’ll eventually be forced to fight, at which point they’ll use their Jewish/Muslim run surveillance state to track our every move and kill us with drones. The idea that they’re even going to allow a racially conscious diaspora to exist is underestimating the evil of our enemy.

        Sam Hyde said it best; “These people want you broke, dead, your kids raped and brainwashed, and they think its funny”.


  2. You can always learn one of the slavic languages and move to eastern Europe. They’re not that difficult to learn, all of them have a grammar derived from classical Latin, but a bit simplified.

    The only way that place is getting Muslims would be if EU, put them there by force, and then prevented them from leaving. All against the wishes of the majority that lives there.

    Somehow, I don’t see that as a likely outcome.


    1. A) Lots of Caucasian Muslims in Russian cities
      B) Slavic languages are not “derived from Latin

      But overall, eastern Europe is the last redoubt.


  3. “So do nothing right?”

    No; prepare to take power. It’s the only option.

    5pt is a fantasy: if only we could just live out our lives in a nice white enclave, wouldn’t it be nice? Wouldn’t it be nice to have jobs and opportunities and security and white children but without having to deal with the reality of politics- the reality of power?

    Clark is right. They’re not going to let us do it. It’s different when you are a hated majority which slips into minority status. The hating won’t stop. In fact, we’ll be resented and victimized even more. Think we’re perceived as weak now? just wait.

    We need a plan to take power if we want to survive. It’s a scary prospect. But it’s far from impossible.

    Every group is led by it’s militant minority. We need to become that sort of minority. We can do it by advocating for our race, by providing leadership for our race, and by standing up for our race. It’s a hard task and it’ll be a long struggle, but it it’s the only option.


    1. You are almost there. That minority you are talking about is the future of the Western diaspora, whether you want it to be or not. We cannot afford to just be the intellectual vanguard of people who’d rather go extinct than be called racists. They’ll pick the path of least resistance.

      Put another way, let’s look at the United States. In twenty years it will be less than 50% Eurocolonial and you will have to essentially convince every White American voter to be a “ethno-nationalist” in order to be competitive in an election. And do you think then that the demo-bureaucratic state, which is managed by multiculturalist liberals and certain ethnic minorities, will simply turn everything over?

      Now, you can certainly try to do this. But at the same time, it is far more important to create communities for which identity politics make sense. White nationalists have no constituencies in the United States (and if they did they would be bombarded with compliance issues and legal obstructions, and vilified by the “national” media). I am not convinced of the electoral politics strategy. The end of race-based electoral politics in favor of Europeans has been enacted twice, first in the 1860s and again in the 1960s.

      So then there is the “take power” idea. I am not sure what this means. If it means waiting for a collapse then ethnocentric Europeans will not be the only ones looking to take power. They will also be among the worst prepared and have no friendly territory to operate out of.


      1. Look, I’m not only talking about our movement being the “intellectual vanguard,” I’m talking about taking leadership- that means militant activism which raises conciousness and builds confidence; that means networking with and building infrastructure with white elites and potential white elites: doctors, lawyers, entrepreneurs, clergy etc. That’s where political power starts.

        But let’s back up; you didn’t address my main ciritque: we can’t survive as a insular minority (like the Jews before Israel) without taking political power. You might think it’s an impossibility for us to change politics, but that doesn’t mean it isn’t necessary to save our race.

        I’m only interested in realistic solutions to end white genocide and, unfortunately, an “apolitical” minority, which “dwells alone” just isn’t going to work in our case.

        Look at the Afrikaners; they keep to themselves, they don’t assert themselves on South Africa like they once did. Are they being left alone? Do they have a future? Is this insular minority model working for them? Did the anti-white agenda stop once they gave up power?

        If you really cared about the white race then you’d be advocating for building the power and confidence of a movement which seeks to replace the current, decadent white elite. The “please leave us white people alone, we mean no harm” strategy has proven only to accelerate white genocide, not end it. To abandon the strategy of changing minds, and therefore politics, now, before we’ve even reached minority status, is completely asinine- it’s self defeating.

        Liked by 1 person

      2. So you are saying political power starts with ethnic networking? I do not see how we would disagree on that. Where I diverge is in saying there is a fixed amount of political power we could get through such a method as ethnocentric Europeans and Eurocolonials are already a minority.

        We would not, in theory, be an insular minority either. We would be part of a global network of Western diaspora communities in regular correspondence with one another. If there were a genuine and conscious Western diaspora then the Afrikaners would be in much less of a quagmire as they could count on help from abroad and for Western diaspora communities to pressure their governments to put pressure on South Africa.

        Now that may sound a bit far fetched at the moment, but ethnic networking is not nearly as insurmountable as creating a revolutionary ethno-nationalist state in Europe or North America opposed to the entire existing global order.

        The “current, decadent white elite,” are going to be replaced by well-trained people of color, men like Barack Obama, Sadiq Khan, Leo Varadkar, the Jewish children and grandchildren of Trump and Clinton, etc. Ethno-nationalists are extremely far from replacing any of these people.

        I of course want to change minds and bring people over to the idea that the Western diaspora consists of a sub-national and trans-national community of ethno-centric Europeans and Eurocolonials. But I doubt there are enough of them to take control of a demo-bureaucratic state by voting. (Or by war for that matter).

        I am interested in what we can do in our current conditions and existing timeframe. And in my opinion that is ethnic networking, and building up our financial resources, social capital, and so forth rather than running for office on a mass deportation platform.


      3. Even if our top politicians are non-white, our people will still have a elite within our group.

        Part of the issue I see a lot of white nationalists having is they claim to be elitist, but they always orient everything toward the mass: how do we convince the masses, can we or should we abandon them? These are the wrong questions.

        The problem is the masses don’t really matter, not even in a democracy. It’s the elite within our group that matters. The thought leaders, the cultural and political vanguard that asserts itself and pushes the envelope. Its also the potential elite within our group that we need to appeal to as well, which can replace our sick elite. This has always been the strategy of fascism and NS. Read Codreanu, the whole purpose of the Iron Guard was to forge a new elite and then lead by engaging with society. It wasn’t a purely political movement, it was a cultural, spiritual, intellectual and activist movement which asserted itself.

        Even once we fall below the 50% mark, we’ll have plenty of political and business and cultural leaders because we excell at these things and there aren’t enough qualified POC to replace us. Certainly not when we form a large plurality.


      4. In order to have those political and business and cultural leaders in the first place we will need a mutual sense of belonging to one another in a tribal sense that we currently do not have on a large enough scale. We need a group to have an elite. Getting there is vastly more plausible that capturing the demo-bureaucratic state. And if that group is strong enough to affect policy, that would not be unwelcome.


  4. A statement of the obvious to anyone with a modicum of intelligence, perception, or critical thinking ability. Nevertheless it is well stated. Ironically it circular in nature. You touch on the failure (and inability) to take meaningful action to make changes, and yet despite the time and energy you took to write this all out you never propose any action to take.

    What then was the point of re-stating the obvious, even if done with clarity and elegance, if you never conclude anything?

    You remind me of a child whose eyes have been opened to basic realities and you are so bewildered by your realization that you seem to think you have stumbled upon some fantastic new idea.


  5. I’ve recently made a shift in my trolling of white shitlibs on twitter. I no longer use any terminology that can be seen as sharing any common identity with them or concern for their well-being. Now when they are attacked by kebabs I just point my finger and laugh at them. I take pleasure in their demise at the hands of Islamic invaders, or in the case of America their demise at the hands of whatever black/brown coalition is seeking to destroy them. When I do this they struggle mightily to come up with a response. They can’t even bring themselves to call me a racist because I’m actually taking pleasure in WHITE shitlibs being slaughtered by NON WHITE invaders. One can practically see their brains malfunctioning in real time.


  6. Everyone can start building up himself and his tribe, clan, network, etc. today. There are no downsides and it is something anyone can do. It requires personal discipline, development of leadership and other skills, involvement, compassion, reading, physical training, etc., things everyone should be working on anyway. Real-life tribes can be used as examples of what works and what doesn’t.


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