The Necessity of a New State-Agnostic Model

The Fifth Political Theory (5PT) asserts that identity-conscious Westerners form a diaspora people across dozens of states (which they are in essence foreign to). Even though France and the United States, for instance, have European and Eurocolonial majorities, those majorities are de-nationalized and do not conceive of themselves as real, meaningful ethnic groups worth preserving as the majority owners of their nation-states. What remains salvageable into a Western diaspora is thus a far smaller share of the population than the ethnic majority would suggest. And that is fine, because the purpose of the tribe is to have a future. People who do not want a future with their heritage and descendants in it do not belong to the tribe.

As such, the diasporic model looks at the purported nation-state—more relevantly in the West its demo-bureaucratic, multiculturalist successor—rather askance. 5PT can only be agnostic on the issue of the state and its legitimacy, as well as the legitimacy of its claimed boundaries as makers and markers of our identity. The nation-state has died as a political model and imagined community because its theoretical people do not “believe” in it anymore. Its demo-bureaucratic successor is so aggressively in favor of replacing its old stock through multiculturalism and promoting the religion of unattainable progress as to be nothing but an entity we cannot feel any deep attachment to, even if it mimics the forms and symbols of its predecessor. And that is perhaps the most bitter part of all of this, that demo-bureaucrats appropriate terms like “our nation” as if they were referring to a community of shared Blut und Boden, when they are actually referring to an HR department hiring new citizens from around the world to replace its older, whiter, and less progressive staff.

Identitarians propose an ethnostate in response to this, a more explicitly ethnic form of nationalism that would resist globalism, multiculturalism, Islamization, and so forth. What is less clear is how this ethnostate will come about. Identitarian and nationalist praxis is rather hazy. Can the ethnostate truly be “memed into reality” if reality consists of an anti-ethnos super-majority which controls the existing state? Or is the ethnostate a kind of a myth to be nursed for an untold amount of time? Is “Europa” our Zion? Does it matter that we will not live to see it realized so long as it has therapeutic properties for the alienated and politicized?

The pursuit of a revolutionary ethnostate carved from the boundaries of the Atlanticist world order is explicitly Romantic, no less than the nationalist impulses that created Greece, Italy, and Germany in the 19th century against the initial wishes of the Great Powers. Those latter cases all succeeded through war and obtaining the consent of the world’s most powerful states. The power structure of today, however, is so robustly inert as to make even insurgents into willing participants. Our prime example is Donald Trump, who seems to have taken up that “false song of globalism” more than “America First.” Whither the right-wing Leninism of Bannon in the court of Abu Ivanka?

The answer cannot merely be to double down on advocating a nation-state, with all of its structural impediments to implementation in the current system. Nor can it be to push for a demo-bureaucractic state with an ethnic reference, as we have seen that the reference can simply be dropped.

The diaspora tribe is 5PT’s answer to the contemporary state’s anti-ethnos orientation. 5PT cares about the state insofar as we must render unto Caesar. But unlike most political philosophies, 5PT does not believe the state should be the ultimate prize and object of our desires and energies. The state is a powerful tool but we are not so stultified as to think it is an election cycle or clever campaign away from belonging to us. It is not ours and it will never be turned over to us without a fight (which we are far from likely to win). Diversity will continue, and fuming at it is not the same as changing it. We cannot control who enters and exits “our nation” anymore, because such control implies possession of a state.

What 5PT wants to achieve is not state power but congregational power, that of real communities networked together as part of our sub-national and trans-national diaspora. The state will change over time and so will we. But changing is not the same as disappearing. Our current trajectory is disappearance and the state is agnostic (at best) towards that: Does it really matter that Germany is German? So we return the favor in being agnostic towards it: Does it really matter that we live in Germany5PT believes that what matters in the case of Germany is the Western diaspora in Germany, not the Germans (or the German nationality) and not Germany itself (or the German state). That is the essence of our agnosticism towards the state.

I of course do not want to single out Germany here. But as the most generous recipient of racially, ethnically, culturally, religiously, and sexually divergent migrants over the last few years, it certainly comes to mind as a European or Eurocolonial nation which doesn’t conceive of itself as a nation. Germany is of course not alone in that regard, nor is it  alone as a nation inside a former nation-state which no longer has an interest in maintaining its nominal nation due to both elite and popular support for the enforcement of multiculturalism.

Perhaps the only area where the European (or Eurocolonial) nation-state will survive for a time longer is Eastern Europe (where we must make inroads as well). We should not take regions of the world with large Western diaspora communities which friendly governments for granted. The Poles and Hungarians and Estonians and the like still do exist as nations within nation-states. But they are under the European Union, the most demo-bureaucratic and multiculturalist of all Atlanticist governments. That is a potent threat, though also an accelerator of our diaspora and tribal formation.

Were we to remained tied to these sorts of concepts—to Germans in and of Germany, or to Americans in and of America, or to Swedes in and of Sweden—we would witness a world of miserable ethno-masochism and engulfing atomization compensated for with spiraling materialistic consumption and “progressive” virtue signaling. Panem et circenses is a powerful balm for social decay, especially in the exciting times we live in of television, internet, and soon enough virtual reality. Should the peoples of the Western diaspora be fire-walled off from one another and declining individually in each of “their” allotted states, where a “woke” minority fecklessly attempts to push for reversal of the demographic decline while their co-ethnics engorge themselves, it would be the end of us.

But if we see these ghosts of the nation-state as entities drawn by the managerial elite of the Atlanticist system, we can check most of our historical baggage, finally end the wake, and proceed to the funeral. After commending their spirits back to our forebears and creator, we are at last free to create and restore rather than slavishly inherit. We must outlive the nation-state and its demo-bureaucratic successor, not cling to them.

5PT will be about building and creating our congregations and networks, about forging the Western diaspora into a real-world tribe with populations in both hemispheres in order to restore ourselves as a viable ethnos. We will link the Western diaspora of Europe with the Western diaspora of North America, with the Western diaspora of British Oceania, with the Western diaspora of Latin America, with the Western diaspora of Africa, and so forth. This is a stateless, sub-national and trans-national conception.

5PT does not deny that a state would be beneficial. Nor does it deny that a nation-state of refuge that provides space for the flourishing of an ethnos would be a good thing. 5PT does deny, however, that these are viable options in the foreseeable future. In some circles this has been received as “blackpilling,” but we must look at it as triage. It is not urgent to have a nation-state or an empire before having a tribe, and there are really no political actions identitarians can take towards obtaining those state-level institutions because they lack that sort of power and the means to achieve that sort of power under the current system.

But there are other varieties of power beyond direct control of a state (and the administration of its territories and population) which are highly useful, beneficial, and possibly superior to simply running a demo-bureaucractic state with an ethnic reference.

The Chinese diaspora of Southeast Asia forms a market-dominant minority, one that lives relatively comfortably in multi-ethnic countries while producing quality offspring who take leadership roles in business and commerce. They do so without directly administering Malaysia, the Philippines, Vietnam, etc. In fact, it might alarm the non-Chinese of those countries were they to become their political leaders. As it stands, the Western diaspora has neither “soft” nor “hard” power. What do “our” business leaders in European and Eurocolonial countries do, to say nothing of “our” politicians? They are nearly all anti-ethnos to a man (or a woman!).

As I have described previously, we can divide the typical European or Eurocolonial state’s population into three groups: de-nationalized Europeans, ethnic minorities/immigrants, and ethnocentric Europeans. The latter group, the nascent Western diaspora, is simply too small to play demo-bureaucratic politics. It cannot vote itself a new state or control of an existing one. The other groups outnumber it and form the dominant political coalition.

The Western diaspora has to think about what is plausible in the lifetimes of our children and our children’s children. Can we form ethnic networks and multi-generational communities of neighbors? Can we colonize sectors of the economy? Can we master our public relations as a disliked minority? These are all things that trump the orthodoxy of political programs aimed at state capture and redirection.

The identitarian dream of having a demo-bureaucratic state with an ethnic reference is problematic in its adherence to the forms of a particular phase of modernity which progressed to the present situation. And without praxis at the lower level there will never be anything at the higher level. Thus we are agnostics about the dream of a European Zion, not because we would find it repulsive, but because we would not be able to find it as we are. We must still struggle against the status quo, while at the same time understanding it as deeply as we understand ourselves.


Titus Quintus

May 2, 2017

43 thoughts on “The Necessity of a New State-Agnostic Model

  1. Thank you for solidifying and summarizing my own internal thoughts that I’ve been having for quite some time. It should be readily apparent and self-evident to any astute and erudite racialist at this point that the ethno-state, while a pleasant and inspiring ideal is about as possible of coming into being as peace between the extreme Zionist wing of Israel and the Palestinians is. Unfortunately its a pipe dream…the west is dead and its never coming back. I hate to admit that for some of us, putting further stock into this lifelong dream is simply a waste of valuable finite energy and resources that should instead be focused toward revolutionary nihilism (giving up on any attempt to reverse the obvious trend and trajectory toward european racial death or the belief that recapturing the zog system politically is any kind of realistic possibility. I think if Trump has done anything he has disillusioned well-meaning racialists of these notions, and now we can start seriously thinking about the long game of the life boat strategy. A large % of our people will not make it. Nothing short of full scale system collapse, ecologically apocalypse, or a giant asteroid hitting the earth will reshuffle the deck and give us an even playing field or a chance at actual rebirth. I think we should prepare for the worst and try to ride out the coning dark age. I’ve been having these feelings for a long time and they are confirmed on a daily basis..every small, meaningful glimmer of hope is countered by crushing and more frequent black pills. Could a black swan event like the rise of another Hitler happen? Sure. But don’t count or depend on it. As I see it, survivalist tribalism and disengagement seems to be the only option. Breaking the hold of the Jmsm, capturing the culture with a metapolitcal strategy (cc), or defeating the education system which is a Talmudic Pavlovian indoctrination session from kindergarten to higher learning are not going to happen. Liberalism will fall eventually because it is inherently self I destructive/defeating, and the contradictions of the multicultural are all well and good, but it will kill us in the process of its undoing. We dwindle, as the numerically insignificant % of our race who have the knowledge and agency to fight are tossed to and fro as we clutch desperately onto our piece of wood in a giant river of western decline and racial suicide. The Jewish parasite will die, but only after it has killed its European host, and it may live on by moving into other races. Time is so crucial, and we need to find each other, organize, and work out survival strategies while that can still be done. Sound the alarm. We cannot save it, the barbarians have entered the gates and they will not be repelled. The idea of hitting a critical mass of our folk that will awaken dormant racial instincts of our collective unconscious is nullified by the constant and relentless barrage and bludgeoning of globalist modernity. Only the nonwestern world is still tribal, and we should seek to replicate their traditionalist societies at a microcosmic, localist level without hoping to change the flow if the current which is only going in one direction. Only a stark, grim recognition of reality will help us realign our priorities. We cannot catch up to the third world no matter how many white babies we pump out. And turner diary dreams of converting liberal ethno-masochists into modern SS to bring their numbers down are just that, dreams. Neither reproduction nor extermination are possible. We can only hope that the survivors of the West’s death evaluate what led to the acceleration of cyclical Spenglerian civilizational expiration and build a new one with stronger defenses and racial immunity. A theocratic racial ethnostate should be the desired future but something that results on the other end of chaos rather than an immediate projection and answer to our problems in the here and now.


    1. Wow a lot of stuff in there but my general point is that forming a 19th or 20th century nation-state so that we can enjoy the end of history forever inside a gated community is a ship which has sailed.

      It’s also worth noting that in the long run many of our political enemies may not “make it” either. We are entering a period of revolutionary change in human society, not just our own but around the world.


  2. I’m as “black pilled” as anyone, but you are operating from a woefully incomplete data set, and this “movement” is far from having a solid enough footing on planet earth to make this shift just yet.

    Just a few months ago, the “alt right” was falling all over itself cheerleading a boomercuck real estate shyster, the ultimate shabat goy, a literal SAG card-carrying ACTOR with Jewish grandchildren, as the savior of the white race.

    This has, of course, led to disappointment. Instead of learning about how illusion-based and manufactured the system is, people are now being directed to give up on waking the normies completely.

    Our enemies print trillions of dollars out of thin air, and control all mainstream avenues of information, yet we see comment sections like this (and did before the Zog Emperor, by the way):

    The hardcore shitlibs are amplified by the MSM way out of proportion to their actual numbers. No one can speak truth in public without fear of losing their employment. It all goes back to the financial system and mass media.

    The situation is indeed urgent, but tucking tail and retreating to some kind of “diaspora”, while our technology is in the hands of our enemies, is not an option.


    1. I am all for trying to wake people up but the question then is what do you do with such people now that they are “woke.” There won’t be enough of them to start a political party and win an election inside the demo-bureaucratic state. What I am interested in primarily is what we can do with this pool of ethnocentric Europeans and Eurocolonials beyond failed election campaigns.


    2. Bill, I don’t think becoming a diaspora is a “retreat”. Doesn’t diaspora imply that we will still live among the nations? Render unto Caeser? Its what the Jews have done living in all nations, still today. Its about us becoming connected within but also abroad. You still remain where you are. Its a survival mechanism as one becomes an exceedingly minority over time. Something must bring us together to perpetuate our existence.


  3. Hey bill, just for the record, I would challenge you to name one legitimate alt-right leader/thinker/figure who seriously thought Trump was going to be the savior of the white race. Even Putin is never proposed to be such, and I would say the sentiment in our circles was pretty much unanimous from the onset that trump was just a means to an end, a force to be used, manipulated, and exploited for various goals and purposes of advancing the European racialist movement.


  4. Furthermore, nobody is saying to give up on the Normie’s, the cause, etc. Your assumption that conceptualizing our race as it realistically exists in 2017 as a “retreat” demonstrates a misunderstanding of what the author meant by “diaspora”. Ironically, this is a Greek word that once described the condition of world Jewry for most of their history, until the establishment of the Zionist entity gave them a home to call their own, even if it was forcibly stolen from the native inhabitants. Now, since the White world has decided to hand over their nations to racial aliens who will quickly outbreed and displace them, there is literally nowhere to run except to your racial brother/sister, wherever they might be, who also are most likely are experiencing the same situation of being relegated to second class citizen and stranger in their own land, regardless of what specific white country they may have belonged to.


    1. This is exactly what I am trying to say across this site: The idea that we are foreigners in our own countries needs to be turned on its head to be we are ourselves in foreign countries. Ethnocentric Europeans possess… Poland, Hungary, Ukraine, and so forth. De-racinated Europeans, liberals, and ethnic minorities possess… everything else.


  5. I’m afraid that you’re operating under the assumption that the nation-state(s) in which these diasporic communities would exist will be at the very least ambivalent to the existence of cohesive ethnic communities. What happens when the state or even internationalist bureaucracy, wielding enormous power, turn their all seeing eye upon the diaspora and endeavor to snuff it out? How can we, as those promoting ethnically exclusive communities/networks, avoid falling victim to the power structure that “is so robustly inert as to make even insurgents into willing participants” in the same way that ethno-nationalists do? And, if we do avoid that fate, how do we protect ourselves from victimization through explicitly “racist” policy by those in power. You may or may not have previously explored this problem, if so, could you direct me to the article(s) covering this topic?


    1. That I would say is something we still need to develop a response to both theoretically and in practice. I should clarify then that I am not talking about making an explicitly “whites-only” neighborhood or business or something of that nature (as that is illegal). What I envision is having networks and institutions which we both create and control to serve our interests as a group and bring us closer together in terms of location and livelihood.

      I don’t see how these could be “snuffed out” either. Ethnocentric Europeans are a minority nearly everywhere and the point of view I am advancing is that we must stop pretending we are a majority. What are they going to do, add more non-Europeans or liberals to our surroundings? We’re already living that reality as is, we just aren’t responding to it correctly. The immigrants who’ve been admitted to “our” countries are not bothered by living in jurisdictions where they are minority. They just cluster and live off one another, while some go out into the broader economy to interact with other ethnic groups for employment.

      If we get to a point where we are being actively persecuted for being apolitical and keeping to ourselves then I don’t really have an answer I can give. At that point we would probably not be the only ones for whom the system has become illegitimate. And in the event we are being persecuted, it will be all the more important to have a real-world tribe.


  6. Very fascinating series of articles. As I watch the self-destructive responses of the British liberal population to the recent terrorist attacks, it’s hard not to be convinced by your thesis that trying to capture state power in the modern demo-bureaucratic states is an extreme uphill battle. Building a diasporic tribe sadly seems to be the available path for us.

    One area I’d like to see you explore in a future post is how to deal with the hidden nature of our groups. While the various dissident Right groups have been successful in ‘redpilling’ people online, resulting in detaching them from the existing anti-ethnos media/social/political machine, the question is what then to give them that they can attach themselves to. The issue is that, as you describe, the yet-to-come diaspora community would ideally have a meatspace and hyper-local aspect to it — nodes of IRL physical communities of generations of families with a broader network across the globe.

    Historically, members of a diaspora wore their membership “on their sleeve” so to speak — part of why they were marginalized and ended up in tribal clusters of similar people was that they couldn’t just hide and assimilate into the dominant society. However, with us we typically keep real-life identities secret out of fear of social/career consequences, which makes us a more hidden community. Even if such local diaspora communities are formed, it will be some time before they are self-sufficient. There’s still a lot of requirement for people to be part of the existing system for their income, which may demand that they remain hidden and undoxxed — which thus reduces their ability to contribute to the IRL local communities.

    Essentially, I wonder if our approach has to be adapted based on us not being exactly analogous to an ethnic diasporic tribe that is known to be separate, but rather a community of politlcal/”religious” dissidents/”heretics” trying to become a tribe and where public knowledge of membership in such is inherently a thing to be weaponized. What were the social mechanisms used by persecuted religious groups throughout history, and how long did they have to remain crypto/underground? And what is the most straightforward path to get a fledgling community to the point where a critical mass of its members can exist without being hidden?


    1. I think on some level time may be on our side regarding this. If we broadly speaking would consider ourselves to be politically “pro-European” in all issues then we are essentially the vanguard of European and Eurocolonial identity politics, something only a minority of Europeans subscribe to. That ethnocentric European minority I suspect actually grows even as the overall number of Europeans in a society shrinks. Eventually the only Europeans left will be ethnocentric and that point our “politics” will be indistinguishable from our ethnicity.

      Now of course there is much more work to be done than simply having a political platform and that is what I am trying to get people thinking about. It is a serious problem that public self-identification with the Western diaspora or with “white identity politics” results in expulsion from the mainline bourgeois economy.

      So there is definitely an element of crypsis that will be important in the short-term. It is also a serious disadvantage. But it’s what we have to work with because the alternative is to “do nothing.”


  7. One difficulty is in distinguishing the in-group from the out-group, since as you allude to, race is not enough. It would be nice to have a way to identify each other, something that wasn’t easy to fake, which would allow us to communicate as an in-group. My suggestion would be to consider a common language to unite the diaspora, one that nobody else speaks and we can claim as our own. Fortunately, we don’t have to invent a new language, there is a beautiful one waiting for us to use, one which is also satisfying in the sense of drawing us back to our roots. If you haven’t guessed it yet, I am suggesting resurrecting Latin as a spoken language. It would absolutely be possible and the effort to learn it would create a high enough entry cost to prevent entry-ism. Anyways, just a thought to help your project along. Keep up the good work.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. James, you’re getting at something by suggesting the “tribe” adopt a separate language; this raises some important questions.

      “Tribes”, real ones, are formed from kinship groups- nuclear family’s, extended families, etc., who, implicitly, speak the same language. These are the ties that bind(actually it “constructs”)a true “tribe.” In Roman times, Germanic “tribes” were made up of multiple, related, kinship groups in a political alliance​(led by an elected chief). That’s what a nation is, more or less. Sharing a common language is just a given.

      What this “tribal model”, clearly, is attempting to do is forge a new ethnic group from those who share our politics, within our race; but that isn’t enough.

      You can’t build a tribe on politic’s alone: It would just be a group of whites sharing the same ideology(which no group will ever agree on 100%) and sharing some economic interests with one another- but again, because of ideology.

      The moment some fraction of this “tribe” has a political disagreement with another, or some business dispute, this puts the whole project at risk.

      Organizations built on hobbies(trains, motorcycles, etc.) are successful because they don’t ask much from their members and they provide a lot of benefits- they’re based on having fun. Our political tribe, however, asks it’s members to take a lot of risk for people they’re only distantly related to- being persecuted, for one(setting ourselves “apart” can provide benefits but it also places a huge target on our backs).

      If we really want to construct a new ethnic group- a real tribe- and not just a subculture, then we’ll need to build it( and I’m not convinced it could be done through will) from families and extended families. The actual nature of the tribe will have to be determined by the nature of these families; otherwise, we’re a gang or a cult(in the bad sense).

      …Or, we can build groups of militant white nationalists who advocate for the cause(to the whole race within our respective nation-states) and prepare to take power when the opportunity arrives. Liberal democracy won’t last, it’s only a matter of time- probably not much at the rate things have been going. The question is if we have an elite-in-waiting, prepared to take a leadership role. These groups could use all sorts of exclusive club and “secret society” methods(like actually forming secret societies and clubs) to protect themselves from persecution and coordinate activism.


  8. I wholeheartedly endorse the project of building networked tribes. Doing so is well within our short-term capabilities, and is a necessary foundational element for achieving greater objectives. White nationalists have considered aspects of this project for years, from the idea of PLE (Pioneer Little Europe) to Kievsky’s promotion of whites as a market-dominant minority. Others who are not white nationalists have explored the issue as well, notably Jack Donovan. As our movement expands and Western countries decay, the possibilities for developing and implementing these and other concepts will grow exponentially. Let a thousand white tribes bloom.

    You make an excellent case for the diaspora model, and I look forward to reading more. However, it is vital that we continue to promote the ultimate goal of the ethnostate – doing so has far more than therapeutic value. For purely practical reasons, the networked tribes must have an overarching goal, a unifying vision of the future. It doesn’t matter if the goal is not likely to be achieved for a considerable amount of time. The jews didn’t get their Zion overnight. So what?

    What we don’t need is to create tribes that, over time, become more inward and limited. Such tribes will not be able to make a meaningful, long-term contribution. We should also remember that, no matter how bleak things may appear at a given time, opportunities and turnabouts do happen. Given the grossly unsustainable practices of the current system, it is entirely possible that these windows of opportunity will open during the lifetimes of most who are reading this now. The networked tribes must not be so inwardly focused that they miss these windows – hence the need for a broader, grander vision. Yes, it’s a romantic vision, but it serves a number of very practical purposes.

    Our people are passing through an evolutionary bottleneck. Many will be lost. But, on the other hand, we may well be able to salvage a much greater share of the white population than now seems likely. The point is that we must be ready, and always carry the ultimate objective in our hearts: homelands of our own. All tribal members must understand this as an ongoing duty with no expiration date, to be passed from father to son and mother to daughter. We do not seek a state with an “ethnic reference.” We seek a state with a racial foundation – the very purpose of the state will be to secure the existence of our people and a future for white children. To allow our people to fully achieve and fulfill our destiny, which will inevitably be in the stars. Remember, we are whites. We are a race of dreamers – we NEED it. We must make money – lots of it – but cannot limit ourselves to emulating money-grubbing Chinamen. That doesn’t work for us; we must look beyond.

    In any event, back to earth. At the end of the day, all tribes seek dominance over a particular territory. Our future as a people, if we are to have a future at all, will be severely restricted if we fail in this task. Whether we achieve it in ten years or a century from now is, in the overall scheme of things, of little consequence.


    1. Other thinkers that have things to say relevant to networked tribes include John Robb (Global Guerrillas) and William Lind (Fourth Generation Warfare).


    2. I suppose there is a distinction to be made between having a prophetic sort of vision of an ethnostate in the future to be achieved through the work of future generations and engaging in contemporary electoral politics inside an existing state on an ethno-nationalist platform. The former has quite expansive possibilities in terms of what it could be because it is so far removed from present conditions while the later is something I have hinted at as being something I want to critique in greater detail, the idea of a demo-bureaucratic state with an ethnic reference. That latter version of “the ethnostate” is extremely problematic because the basic premise is that having a European majority with a pro-European demotic government is a fix. In the United States we had this arguably from day one until 1965. I am sure we both understand that a simple return to that would be a band-aid!

      At the stage we are in now as ethnocentric Europeans and Eurocolonials, which is that of a scattered minority, talk of states I believe is wholly premature. Now if there were some sort of radical paradigm shift that shrunk the de-racinated European population and exploded the ethnocentric one we would need to rethink the whole diaspora model as being worthwhile. But how many terror attacks and hits to our quality of life later has it been and the demos still votes for more?

      Maybe there will be a state in a hundred years. Maybe a thousand. What do we do now in particular in our current context is what I am most concerned with. People who want to refine their arguments for nationalism and who belongs to the nation and what its borders are can do so. But the audience of people who are willing to both hear it and agree with it could not fill a parliament. That’s a problem for nationalists rather than tribalists, even if nationalists and tribalists face similar challenges elsewhere. And in any event, without those ethnic networks nationalism cannot succeed.

      The historical example of Greece is instructive. There were Greeks living in what became Greece in the 19th century, as well as the rest of the Ottoman Empire, Russia, the Danube principalities, Britain, France, and parts of Italy. These networks made the independence of what was then (and in many ways arguably still is) the rump state of “Greece” possible. How else did the Greek nationalists get loans from the British and aid from the Russians if not for Greeks abroad?

      Do we have that level of solidarity yet? How do we get there? How do we become the diaspora we already are? These are the questions I think need to be answered more than how to get elected in a system built to lock you out.


  9. A suggestion, if you will have it. You should re-write this post and the post about Tribal Praxis v. National Praxis. The latter sounds like a simple re-branding of communism whereas this post elucidates your position. Separately they obfuscate your point and risk the alienation of those who would be a part of the diaspora.

    A criticism – The differences between those that would be considered members of the diaspora are not insignificant. There is a reason that nation states with unique identities arose in the first place. Even more pessimistic than the belief that “the dream” as it were can not be saved, I submit to you that the tribalistic diaspora itself can not be achieved. Sub tribal differences would undermine that. This is where nationalism is useful. It allows for members of the diaspora to deflect from internal strife by latching on to that piece of commonality.

    It is much easier to rally together under things like “America Fuck Yea!” as opposed to “members of the same diaspora tribe fuck yeah!”


    1. If you are calling for a sort of stateless nationalism then that is really quite similar to what I am suggesting, except for the fact that it would cordon off the various subgroups of the Western diaspora off from one another.

      As I have said elsewhere, my opposition to nationalism is less because I think nationalism is bad for us and more because I think it can no longer work for us. Your typical European does not believe his own country is worth anything, if his votes are anything to go by.

      As for the accusations of communism if you view any sort of economic collaboration to reduce costs as communism then sure, I am a communist. But as for myself, I associate communism with bolsheviks and Spanish republicans smashing things and shooting people.


  10. I largely agree with your description of the problem, and with the main thrust of your prescription. However, what can we do to address the fact that, particularly in the US, we ethnically conscious Eurocolonials do not have the distinctive features of an ethnic community that would enable exclusion while also tying us together.

    To be more specific, when you examine other diaspora communities, what you will find is that they possess features that bind them together and also enable exclusion in ways that are not offensive to the nation state. For example, Orthodox (let alone Ultra-orthodox) Jews have various restrictive rules for conversion and very particular standards of behavior (Kosher laws, etc…) that are both binding and exclusionary.

    Furthermore, our civilization and identity as a “Western diaspora people” is intimately and organically tied to Christianity, which even in its traditional instantiations, was not built for exclusion along ethnic lines. Instead, it was built to be exclusionary only insofar as the political powers and peoples who adopted it were willing to be so on a geographic or legal / political basis – a la the former nations of Europe prior to the 20th century, Afrikaner-controlled South Africa, the Jim Crow South etc.. As the results of the Synod of Constantinople in 1872 bear out, the attempt among diaspora practitioners of more traditionalist branches of Christianity (in this case Bulgarian Eastern Orthodox diaspora in the Turkish Empire) to maintain exclusions based on ethnicity are generally quashed by the Church hierarchy.

    Because of the fact that many on the ethnically preservationist dissident right are traditionalist Christians of one form or another, and because of the fact that English is the lingua franca of all peoples of the US and arguably the Atlanticist order writ large, what can be the distinguishing features that can be organically adopted from within our tradition that bind us together while being exclusionary enough to maintain our distinctness?

    My best answer at this point is to agree with James Dean above, and say that we must learn Latin, or some other “western diaspora” language that will preserve us by means that are inoffensive to the legal and social strictures of the bureaucratic post-ethnic nation state. Korean communities and their very much Christian churches (a main cultural institution for their diaspora) are almost always 100% Korean due to the fact they often retain their language in their church services and many of their social/institutional functions – again, binding the community together and making entry by outsiders unattractive by means that are inoffensive to our current regime.

    I’d be very interested to hear any alternative suggestions you may have, and thank you for the good work you’re doing here.


    1. I can’t see anyone other than the elite of the elite within a hypothetical Western diaspora network or congregation having working knowledge of Latin. Although who knows, perhaps instead of learning about social justice children who are instead homeschooled could be taught Latin, finance, and history. Anything is possible.

      As for making ourselves more distinct, while there are probably actions we can pro-actively take in that direction we are also going to benefit from decreasing ethnic cohesion in our countries of residence in terms of raising our own ethnic consciousness. The silver lining of an otherwise black pill is that diversity intrinsically produces tribal conflict and tribal conflict solidifies tribal identity.


    2. Picking some arbitrary language won’t work. Where is the necessity? When Koreans come to America it makes sense and is necessary for them to communicate with their friends and family- their first language makes sense.

      But here, you’d be compelling people to speak a foreign language simply to “otherize” them. Unless you’re tribe provides a ton of benefits already and these benefits are conditional on speaking Latin or Greek or whatever, then no is going to learn. But, your argument is- and it’s a good point- there needs to be a mechanism for ethnogenesis.

      I’d argue religion is the best solution. Religion is the basis of Jewish tribalism, afterall. We’d have to have an ethnic religion which prohibits race mixing. But it can’t simply exist as some instrument, it has be believed and it has to be organic.


  11. In responding to you both, the problem of creating the conditions for ethnogenesis that can be sustaining remains unsolved in my mind. Although it will be helped by the increased presence of multicultural and multiracial conditions within western nations, that will not alone be sufficient to both bind together and exclude over the medium to long term.

    I like the suggestion of an ethnically oriented religion, but again, Christianity is the only one which fits the bill of, as Tiwaz suggests, being believed and being organic for us as the inheritors of the civilization and peoples of Christendom. It has the intellectual respectability, the mythos tied intimately to post-Roman Europe, etc… Odinism won’t cut it on either front. Obviously any variation of Judaism is off the table as completely inauthentic to our identity. And any religion that is simply “made up” from ethical and transcendent principles we happen to hold will not be organic in the least. I’m curious what this new “ethnic religion” could possibly be while being both believed and organic.

    To go back to my point above, and assuming Christianity does at least fit the bill of belief and organic adherence, even in its more traditionalist instantiations it does not possess the theological infrastructure to be ethnically exclusionary in a context of diaspora praxis. With the legal / geographical / political elite being ethnically conscious, no problem, Christianity can be the religion that guides our people. But given that such legal and political conditions are dead and gone, as Titus Quintus has ably shown, how can Christianity be both the focal point of our peoples’ ethical/transcendent communal beliefs and standards and sufficiently exclusionary so as preserve us as a distinct people. Perhaps it can’t but if language and religion are out, where does that leave us?

    May I suggest reflection on the specifically American/Anglo-Saxon ethnogenesis which occurred in the US from the late colonial period to around 1850 (as ably explored in detail by Eric Kaufmann here – and the conditions that enabled it? I do think it will also be revealing as to both the minimum conditions for ethnic formation (specifically ethnic fission from the mother stock) and how, at the end of the day American ethnogenesis was too weak to endure the forces of the universalist seeds buried within. But at the very minimum, the conditions which attained would be the minimum for formation over a relatively short (~100 year) period of time.


    1. There is definitely a time scale component to tribal formation. It won’t happen in a generation. The same is also true of religion. If Christ (or Paul) founded Christianity, it took it 300 years to become strong enough to nearly monopolize religious practices among the people of the political territory it originated in (the Roman Empire).


    2. The answer is Christianity simply cannot form the basis of an exclusionary ethnic identity in a multiracial society. Not when the members of the religion are multiracial themselves. Especially not when another group forms the majority of the religions adherence.

      It’d be a contrivance to try and sculpt Christianity into something it’s not for a sociopolitical purpose anyhow. A Religion can’t be a manufactured instrument, you can’t make it that way and expect people to actually believe in and practice it. This is one reason why Christian Identity was a dead end.

      Another issue with Christianity is white people don’t really believe in it anymore; our people simply don’t have the conviction they used to. And even if they did, it’s a foreign religion- textually; It’s not organic to us, it was shaped by us for a time, but once our people were exposed to the actual text, in the renaissance, the genie was let out of the bottle. The religions’ true nature was revealed. It’s no coincidence the Puritans were philo-semites.

      Christianty has collapsed anyhow, for whites, it’s hard to imagine us reviving it; it’s collapsed for us morally, spiritually, intellectualy. Especially hard to see a revival since it will soon be a religion animated by Black and Brown people.

      Christianty has taken over Africa. In 1900, less than 10% of Africans were Christian. Now it’s 60%. The future of the religion is Black and Brown.

      I’d urge all whites to look to past for that which is prior. For that which is more primordial. For that which is truly organic, in regards to metaphysically objectivist ideas.
      Even if you can’t believe in what our people used to believe, it deserves respect and study and admiration.

      Many ancient Greek philosophers were effectively atheist, but they supported their system and in that system the gods didn’t demand belief, why would they? They simply demanded respect through ritual. Ritual which simultaneously binded together national communities as they connected them with the Divine.


  12. In regards to an Identifying and unifying factor. Christianity has been reformed many times throughout history in the face of unique political/cultural/societal pressures. What I’m proposing is it might not suffice to adopt a ‘traditional’ instantiation strictly, but to revise the scripture with the intention of creating a new doctrine that is implicitly/explicitly identitarian. Revised in a way that will appeal to this already existing dormant diaspora but doesn’t taint the fundamental nature of the ideology. I don’t know enough about religion to support this notion with textual examples. Though it isn’t out of the realm of possibility, ethnic religion already exists.


    1. One of the problems of reforming Christianity is that you can reform Christianity in the first place. These various reformations have tended to make it either more demotic or more Judaic and brought it further away from its semi-Traditional, hierarchical/imperial origin through which it was transferred to most European, the Roman state cult. Of course, before its Romanization and later adoption of other pan-European (but especially Germanic) religious elements it was a thoroughly non-Western religion. But that religion is not what the kings of France and peasants of Ireland and princes of Germany later practiced. They were Christian in a Roman context, not a Second Temple Judaism context. Now the Christianity we practice is heavily ecumenical and egalitarian, reflecting the broader malaise of the West. And somewhat ironically, the only exclusionary nation-state most Christians will support is Israel.

      People have tried to shoehorn Christianity into being an ethno-religion but I don’t find it very convincing. You can of course cherrypick scripture for it, but also against it. It ultimately depends on who the sources of authority are, and we are not them.

      At the same time, the religious context in which the Western diaspora finds itself is decidedly one inherited from Christianity, even if it has become secularized for many, i.e. “cultural Christianity.”

      I am yet to really commit to a religious perspective in article format for 5PT but as of writing here, I think we will have something that draws from Christianity but which mainline Christians would probably not want to identify with on the grounds of it violating the orthodoxies of “racism,” and because they believe religion is just something that makes them “feel better” and that “god” is just someone you ask for help and he always gives it to you. Now, the ideas of a paternal creator god, of messiahs or god-like men, of patron saints, are all as pre-Christian as they are Christian, so there is no reason why they would not be “post-Christian” as well. I think something syncretic would be more workable than “revising” the Bible but just my two cents.


  13. Bravo. What a wonderful website. Finally somebody in the west pointed out that we in the Eastern Europe know a long time.

    I think that white ethnostates will be not memed into existence. Just with diversity and general
    decandence goes so bad, that social cohesion dissapears. The result is societal collapse. And it is closer than most of us think.

    Next economic disaster is stright on the door and lot of Eastern Europeans think that Western Europe will not survive this as countries or states. Survival demands altruism, readiness to sacrify for the others and unity in general.

    Without unity and altrusim , society decends to tribal survival areas as we see right now in Libya. There are approx 140 tribes, who despite common religion and arab heritage and much more they can,t find nothing common to exist as a nation.

    It`s very good to know that some folk in the west became aware of the problem at least moment before midnight. Economy is so bad that midnight may come at any time.


    1. I don’t think we’re going to meme a tribe out of thin air any more than an ethnostate. But I think the conditions we are in and what will be achievable in a reasonable timeframe is tribal formation rather than revolutionary state formation.


  14. The diagnosis here rhymes quite a lot with what I outlined in an essay at alternativeright back in January.
    My basic point is that while in the past people largely inherited their communities, now, for diverse technological and ideological reasons, people can choose (and do) choose their communities. And so the ethnonationalist answer to the age of globalism should be an ideology of elective nationalism.

    This vague idea of an identitarian diaspora though is deeply unsatisfying to me. To me, the entire point of ethnonationalism is to achieve a territory where we are sovereign—i.e. a state. To be an ethnonationalist is to prioritize, at least partially, the perpetuation of a biological community as a means to self-perpetuation. And the state, because it is sovereign, is uniquely capable of perpetuating a community.

    At the same time, the state is also uniquely capable of eliminating communities. (I’m assuming the state is competent.) Which is life as a diaspora community is so precarious. Diaspora communities are not sovereign, and are therefore always vulnerable. The overseas Chinese may be economically successful, but they’re also made into political scapegoats and have been the victims of pogroms.


    1. If diaspora communities are threatened by the state, they are less threatened than diaspora individuals would be. The formation of a diaspora community is not something purely theoretical like ethno-nationalism currently is. It is something people with the will to do, can do. There is no “will to do” ethno-nationalism as is evidenced by the results of our demo-bureaucratic elections.

      Wanting an ethnostate is not the same as forming one. It cannot be formed electorally unless there is a massive paradigm shift among Europeans and Eurocolonials. And the other method of creating one, through war, is not even remotely in the cards as far as I can surmise.


      1. We both agree, I think, that white ethnonationalists should give up on their all or nothing vision toward the West. “White nationalist” hegemony (if we can call it that) over the entire Western world is not coming back. However, it does not follow from this that the creation of any white ethnostate anywhere is a complete impracticability. It just means that any future white ethnostate(s) will be smaller than the states we previously thought of as “ours.”

        “Wanting an ethnostate is not the same as forming one.”

        No, but if enough people want it badly enough, I wouldn’t bet against it. I agree that attitudes must change for it to be realized, but the odds are not as daunting as you imply. If our ideology ever gains enough adherents to form a diaspora of any great consequence, it will also have gained enough followers to form a state. So I really don’t see the point of this diaspora concept, not as an end anyways.

        I think you are working under the assumption that the powers that be are determined to stop us at all costs, and I agree that they oppose us, but that they would learn to live with us. If 500 white ethnonationalists gathered somewhere and declared themselves a sovereign state and decided they would no longer pay taxes to the existing state, then yes, the feds would squash them. But if 500,000 decided to do the same thing, I don’t think you’re going to see them roll in the tanks. I’m not saying the existing authorities would formally recognize this state, or that they wouldn’t try various less costly (and less effective) means of sabotage, but I don’t think total war is likely.

        I say this because if there are 500,000 willing to uproot themselves for a cause, that means the cause has gained a wide amount of sympathy and an even wider audience. That means there are probably 10 million more who would like to do the same, but are tied down for whatever reason. And there are probably 100 million more who might not wish to live in a such a state themselves, but who are at least somewhat sympathetic to it. And there’s probably many more who will at least be willing to accept such a state. Many on the Left might say good riddance, let the racists leave—this is already a fairly common attitude among everyday Leftists. In a democratic society, it’s very difficult for the government to wage total war against the wishes of its population.


  15. Teach tribe/clan building for fun and profit, then point to the real-life examples which others can follow and improve upon.


  16. One thing, do you think whitey can emulate Diaspora Jews & Chinese in their rootless commercial ways? Seems like Aryans are biologically not a commercial race of merchants, but more of mountain/outdoorsie hunters/warriors/explorers, and not as suited to the Han/Ashkenaz strategy of worldwide economic politics. The smartest​ of any race can adapt, but the vast majority cannot override their instinctual tendencies. Imagine Jews having to not trade internationally but manually labor!
    Perhaps also the percentage of whites which will survive and join our de facto race, I guess it will be from 10 to as little as 1 percent.


    1. Many a European society has thrived off commerce and produced great people and culture: England, Venice, Genoa, the Netherlands, Hanseatic Germany, etc.

      And the Jews and Chinese only appear to be rootless. They clearly have identities and loyalties, but often the state of residence is not the primary one.

      There are in fact laboring Jews in Israel, since they form a complete society there rather than a stratum.

      Moreover we are not concerned with the vast majority but with self-selection of a new tribe made up of the best of the old. We will bring along whoever we can but we have to recognize, if only for practical and psychological reasons, that not everyone wants to make it to the future.


  17. Then what is your speculative percentage of whites that will transform into the surviving tribe? 10, 1, 33? Venice and England are both the equivalent of islands, and the others were still geographical places. Will we not have even those though?

    And what about the hostile media environment, (you don’t mention the J’s very much), will they not attempt to “finish us off” through, if not physical violence from the third world majority, then economic sanctions, even if unofficial, like they did to Rhodesia and South Africa, refusing to do business with “Racists” (ie whitey). The same hostile, paranoid and neurotic opposing tribe will still have the media (or least much of it) and lots of money themselves– as well as a highly armed home base (In the middle East) that we lack.


    1. It’s hard to guess how many of our people will form the diaspora and how many will leave it but I assume a minority will retain their identity. As for control of geographic territory that’s a state-level issue and we do not have states.
      I don’t think the elite truly have power to violently “finish us off.” That level of Inquisition would probably provoke a backlash that would cripple them.
      I don’t think we can extrapolate South Africa and Rhodesia to North America, Western Europe, and British Oceania on a large scale either. We will never have a society that is 90% African and 10% European. We will have a much more “diverse” context as a diaspora, which means the outgroups we will have to deal with will have far less united interests.
      Economic persecution is probably unavoidable in the short run. We will need to practice a little crypsis, a little taqiyya, and be informal. But cash is king, and if we can find our niches, control an economic sector or two, and become a market dominant minority, our diaspora will not be adrift and powerless but defensible and influential.

      And if there are places we find it impossible to get by, we will have to move.


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