1,671 words
The De-Nationalization of the Global European Diaspora
When the Alt Right speaks about a rise in “white identity politics” or increasing racial tensions, they are observing phenomena which could lead to nationalist politics and the reorientation of Western society towards ethnocentrism and cultural preservation. Conversely, they may also be observing the dying gasps of an older model of existence for Western peoples. Outside of a few Eastern European countries, nationalism is largely civic, not ethnic or racial, for Europeans and Eurocolonials. Anyone can be or become an American. Anyone can be or become British. Anyone can be or become French. Anyone can be or become German. And so forth. Expressions of nationality are almost purely based on location and [sometimes] language rather than, say, a shared biological, cultural, historical, political, and geographic heritage. Most Americans agree that an American can be of any race, ethnicity, or religion. Increasing numbers of Europeans feel that way about Europeans as well. With that attitude, how can one speak of a European or Eurocolonial nation as anything other than an administrative unit of the Atlanticist social and economic order (which is founded upon anti-nationalism in the first place)?
Despite nationalist politics being mostly civic rather than ethnic or “identitarian”—those are more metapolitical and largely lacking in formal representation— nationalist parties and movements are treated as if they were ethnic or identitarian by their opponents. And that’s only when slightly exaggerating. When they really want to throw a punch, they label these parties, movements, and ideologies as fascist or nazi.
It is hard to say which has done more to undo the national sentiments created in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries: globalization and the erosion of local identity, or deliberate social and political initiatives to suppress and morally deconstruct national sentiments. The poisoning of the nationalist “brand” is potent, but so too are the effects of global mass media in homogenizing and leveling the interests and tastes of their consumers across the Western world. Just as media was instrumental in creating a sense of national unity, it may have become instrumental in undermining it. Even civic nationalist outbursts like 2016’s Brexit or the election of Donald Trump as President of the United States are still taking place within a firmly integrated Atlanticist context (which is a form of liberal globalism). Britain will remain economically and ideologically tied to continental Europe, even if it has its own currency and trade regulations. The United States will remain the engine of NATO and heavily involved in the geopolitics of Europe.
Regardless of what has greater explanatory power in determining why nationalism is dying on the long arc of history, nationalism is evidently dying. If most members of the ethnic French nation or the ethnic (white) American nation saw themselves as members of ethnic nations, there would be ethnic nationalist politicians in power. Labeling them as “nazi” would fall flat. Most people would not view themselves as the political personification of evil for sharing views with ethnic nationalists, if most people were ethnic nationalists. The fascist/nazi accusation works precisely because an audience of people who are either civic nationalists or liberals are already primed to oppose nazism and fascism, as such ideologies are popularly conceived of as forms of evil.
Narratives of these nations being oppressed by “globalists” fall flat when one realizes that most Westerners outside of Eastern Europe see themselves not as members of an ethnic nation, but as colorblind communities of people whose ethnic or racial similarities are politically irrelevant to them. The most agency rests in the ethnic nation itself in suppressing its ethnic nationalism. Otherwise there would simply be too large of a politically nationalist majority for it to be discarded.
What this means is that we should not be terribly surprised when Westerners have little or no reaction to the projection that they are going to become minorities in their historical geographic ranges of Europe, North America, and British Oceania due to mass migration and declining fertility. (The Southern Cone as well may become less European over time due to migration from the rest of South America and intermarriage, though the racial and political contexts are different in Latin America).
These are powerful currents. We should not assume that the attempt to form a global order built upon the free movement of capital, goods, and people will fail any time soon. Capitalism generates lots of profits. Entertainment technologies give idle minds something to be engrossed in. And diversity and multiculturalism are popular enough to remain the elected state ideology of much of the Western world. These are all things that the masses permit, out of choice or inaction. As long as they can still go shopping, what does it matter? Also if you care about the ethnic composition of a country you are a bad person.
The reality is that Europeans and Eurocolonials in the aggregate do not believe their own nations matter enough to be perpetuated as demographic majorities inside what were once their nation-states. While an extremely grim picture for people who believe in celebrating and continuing our Western heritage and legacy for generations to come, the problem is ultimately one of attachment to a form of social organization, that of the nation-state. The notion that “we” will become minorities in “our own countries” is not appealing to us, but it is of no negative political consequence to everyone else. A minority of Westerners care about this (and of that minority, some actually celebrate becoming a minority as atonement for racism or colonialism, etc.). As the minority that cares about this from a self-interested perspective and not one of masochism, we need to ask ourselves different questions about how to continue our traditions, our cultures, and our lines. We need to think in the terms of the world we are living in, a de-nationalized world.
Europeans and Eurocolonials are de-nationalized peoples. Most became political nations, centered around a shared biological, cultural, historical, political, and geographic heritage in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, but they have since lost this feeling. The national sentiment, the concept of a folk-based unity and shared ethno-cultural identity, is clearly gone to anyone observing our politics from a mental state of non-hysteria, no matter what the paranoid style of political journalism churns out. America, Britain, France and the like have still refused to ban immigration knowing full well it will make Americans, the British, the French, and so forth, into minorities. For them, there is no fundamental distinction between current Americans and to-become Americans, current Britons and to-become Britons. They are separated by paperwork, perhaps an ocean or two.
Once a civilizational feeling of that magnitude is lost, it is very difficult to resurrect. It may remain in our memories like the Roman Empire has—who could ever forget the centuries of splendor of Britain, France, and the United States for that matter—but in the political lives of Westerners it will be a corpse.
You cannot bring a corpse back to life. That’s the premise of the Fifth Political Theory (5PT) with regard to ethnic nationalism. The way forward is not to cling to the nation-state or to try to carve one out of a multi-ethnic imperial state. It is to reorient ourselves towards a diaspora model. The West is becoming de-nationalized. Years from now, all these national identities that existed are going to be gone and the people inside the former nation-states will look and behave quite differently. If we are to become a minority in what is becoming someone else’s country, and we want to continue our Western heritage, we will need to embrace the ur-identity, that of the tribe. Because we are a tribe inside a vast, multi-ethnic superstate that is increasingly foreign to us (and us foreign to it), we are also a diaspora.
The nation was, in many respects, just a large tribe. But with it came increasing social complexity and geographic dispersal that resulted in regionalism and political splintering. We who embrace our identity and heritage as sons and daughters of Europe are a minority among people who share “our” heritage in all its forms (cultural, genetic, ethnic, political, religious, etc.), and we can only convert so many people to our way of thinking in what is frankly a race against time at the national level. As our tribe scales down, it will fortunately become more cohesive and resilient. And if we reject the national model, we do not need to burden ourselves with pursuing fruitless objectives at that level. We can focus on the tribal level.
Ultimately, 5PT sees nationalist politics and building a mass movement to “take our country back” or “save our nation” as a futile waste of resources that we need to build our tribe. 5PT is about Westerners with a future, not Westerners with a death wish. You cannot save those who do not want to be saved. What you can do is find those who want to save themselves, and build them into the network. If those of us alive today fail to link together the remnants of our atomized people who still feel the vague stirrings of self-preservation and civilizational perpetuation, it will not happen. We will fold into the new kind of race and materialistic philosophy that is being created, and all that came before it will be obliterated to make room for more shopping malls and immigrant communities. We shall lose our noble virtues, our Promethean fire, and the legacy of thousands of years to the successors of managerial liberalism and their precious “end of history.”
5PT says our choices are as such: We become that immigrant community living in a strange land, or we go to the mall and never come back. There are forces which cannot be fought, but only ridden. The Atlanticist order will not allow itself to be voted out of existence, and if we are to be pushed from the world stage as nations, we will simply have to find another abode as a people.
18 comments
What makes you think they will simply allow us to survive as a diaspora? Seems pretty clear they are hell bent on WHITE GENOCIDE.
It sounds like you’re advocating a White people’s version of Rod Drehr’s Benedict Option.
The real question is will they let you do it? Social justice Warriors are far more fanatical than most religious missionaries.
Near me in Brooklyn the Hasidic Jews have their own neighborhood, with delis signs asking for proper dress.
So of course SJWs invaded wearing provocative attire and the ACLU is now suing the Hasidic Jews for discrimination based on dress code .
These Hasidic Jewish people have a diversity problem!
And there are movements doing this – the NorthWest and Cascadia movements.
I honestly don’t know if this is possible. Do we need political power to be left alone?
We send armies across the sea to make sure Muslim women have liberal values and Western college degrees, and they have an entire court system of hate speech and discrimination laws to tear apart any community that resists the holy order of liberalism.
Mark Citadel had a strategy in mind, call it…the Muslim strategy :
https://citadelfoundations.wordpress.com/2015/07/09/parallel-blueprint-to-victory/
Just to say, I do think there is something to learn from the Muslim experience in Europe, especially for those who identify under the banner of Traditional Christianity. Part of the problem has been that those people still think they have institutional power when they don’t. This is an extremely dangerous delusion. We have to be in some admiration of how effectively Muslims have managed to maintain a hostile foreign identity through a very doctrinaire condemnation of your average pozzed liberal.
So I’m supposed to abandon the nation my ancestors fought and died for because a deracinated yank tells me too?
No thanks.
An interesting article, and an extremely interesting theory. These are the kinds of ideas we should be cultivating—not because matters will necessarily transpire as Titus Quintius has indicated, but because they very well might.
One thing that jumps right out at me is that there is no room in Dugin’s schema for a “5th” political theory. Dugin’s PTs are arranged in a circle with Liberalism at the top, Fascism and Communism on the sides and an occult middle ground at the bottom between Communism and Fascism, diametrically opposed to Liberalism. This is the 4PT. So there’s no room in this zero-sum schema for a 5PT. I’m not saying anything about the substance of what is contained in this idea of 5PT (other than that strategic withdraw from politics and culture – essentially a repudiation of the Alt Right and metapolitics – seems a mistake), just pointing out that the Duginist framework is misapplied here and may end up conceptually hobbling the project from the beginning.
You rebuild the tribe, then you retake the nation. In modern day America, it will require violence unless you get the numbers the “cultish” mormons have in the two towns they currently control, straight from the outset.
No one in either of these towns (if there are even any non-mormons left in them at this point) dare to tell the mormons that their polygamy or other “religious” acts are illegal – because guess who shows up if you called the cops to complain? The same would be true for for any town.. and then county.. and then state controlled by white separatists. Finally, you get the nation back.
It’s why, no matter how much I find Harold Covington an annoyance, I’ve never had anything bad to say about the NWF besides the fact that it’s far too widespread. The idea is not only tactically sound, but may be tactically necessary. It just needs to be much, much more concentrated. If there aren’t even enough ethnic nationalists to begin taking back a single county – why are we even bothering?
The second I finish getting my degree I’ll be moving up to that area.
Excellent article! Important thinking!
This bridges the unnecessary division between the perspective presented by Jack Donovan in his most recent article and Greg’s perspective in his reply to it. For those who worry that this type of thinking will lead to a type of “defeatism” might I suggest a book: Robbert-Jan Adriaansen’s “The Rhythm of Eternity: The German Youth Movement and the Experience of the Past, 1900-1933.” This phenomenal and little know work examines the philosophical ideas developed by the Wandervogel and charts the movement’s effect on culture. The German Youth Movement/Wandervogel did exactly what the author of this article proposes that we do. Their tribe building and culture creating became so extensive and influential within the larger nation-state of the time so as to make the construction of an ethno-state possible!
I, also, wholeheartedly recommend the book to the author of this article. It really should be required reading for the Alt Right. The way the youth of Germany of that time period thought their way out of the hollow shell of society they were born into can act as a guide to our similar predicament.
Also, I must mention a related topic. At some point in our tribe building efforts we will have to face the issues of “authority” and leadership. What is the most evolutionarily adaptable way for us to conceptualize “authority” and leadership? I recommend we look to a model of leadership developed within Prussia’s military – the model of Auftragstaktik. This leadership philosophy facilitates the flourishing of initiative at every level within an “organization”. I believe this model is of the utmost importance in challenging the cultural bagged we have inherited as “Americans” – our problem with “authority”. That is a problem of two sides, mind you. We, as “American’s”, have a truly awful way of “commanding”. There’s much more to be said about this topic –perhaps I will, another time — but for those interested in learning more might I suggest a reading list (to be read in this order):
1.) “The Enlightened Soldier: Scharnhorst and the Militaerische Gesellschaft in Berlin, 1801-1805” by Charles E. White
2.) “Stormtroop Tactics: Innovation in the German Army, 1914-1918” by Bruce Gudmundsson
3.) “Command or Control? Command, Training and Tactics in the British and German Armies, 1888-1918” by Martin Samuels
4.) “Science, Strategy and War: The Strategic Theory of John Boyd” by Frans P.B. Osinga
The Auftragstaktik leadership philosophy had an effect on the Wandervogel and the greater völkish racialist movement of that era and played no small part in the construction of the ethno-state of that time.
This is an excellent comment. Thank you. Please consider reviewing some of these books for Counter-Currents.
Thanks, Greg. I may do that.
Matt S.,
I think that the US Marine Corps’ doctrinal publication Warfighting could serve as a useful primer or introduction to the books you’ve listed above. It’s short, pithy, profound, inexpensive (you can download it from the link below or buy it cheaply), and markedly Boydian (it contains references to John Boyd as well as William S. Lind, whose canon has evidently informed your list). I’d like to know what you think of it.
https://archive.org/details/MCDP_1_Warfighting
On a somewhat related note, I should get around to re-reading Chantal Delsol’s short works, L’autorité and Le principe de subsidiarité. “Mission command” (Auftragstaktik) requires a combination of authority and subsidiarity.
Matt S.,
If you’re interested, and if the editor is willing and able to forward it to you, I could have the PDF file of a book dealing with “mission command” that you probably haven’t read forwarded to you.
Sure, it would be fine by me if the editor forwarded it my way.
I can´t point that out enough: our enemy is not POCs but our own fellow-Whites. It´s them who ostracize us and starve us out. Now granted, they do it because they are stirred up by the hostile Jews; which then shifts the focus to a different problem: namely that 80% of people will always be stupid (that is probably a Pareto distribution), and he who commands these 80%, wins: and that´s the deciding strategy of the Jews since always: control the mind of the masses. With bullshit theories, that is.
The second point is: empiricism! That is: people need to experience vibrancy, then they reject it! We White ethno-identitarians would easily win if the majority of our fellow-Whites were exposed to vibrants closely enough. But of-course the White-genociders see to it that the process is slow and gradual enough so that always only a minority of Whites is riled up to resistance.
So: the Jew plays his hand well. It´s not a lock that we will survive.
My suggestion: we start using self-emitted money (based on hours of work, i.e. time-based). It will make us souvereign and take away the jewish source of power, the central bank money model.
Only an American with a synthetic sense of identity could come up with such nonsense.
The only thing this article gets right is that the loss of our nations and cultures is due to Atlanticism, whose entire premise is to keep European nationalism down.
Therefore, death to America. We won’t survive without a collapse of the deracinated freemasonic judeo-capitalist monstrosity called the United States of America. Fortunately, there are indications that this is beginning to take place.
Everything you here critique in America (which critique, incidentally, seems largely valid to me) was nonetheless the original offspring, not of America, but of Europe. This idea you seem to propose—supposing I have understood—that the rise of American hegemony has caused all of Europe’s malaise, and that the decline of American hegemony will open the door to Europe’s recovery, seems to me to disregard the entire European liberal tradition which prepared the way, not only for the American superstate, but also for the absurd meddling conglomeration known as the “European Union” which is now squatting like a greedy spider over the mainland continent.
Were our troubles merely geopolitical, it would be much easier to hope for their resolution.
What I get out of all this is:
White people no longer have any culture, they are totally rootless. They not only lack a sense of ethnicity, but actually lack a distinct ethnicity as they’ve been “de-nationalized.”
We cannot ever hope to gain power and reverse the trends of minoritization. We must instead form a new ethnic group (a tribe) which stays aloof from the world, from it’s politics, and from the culture at large if we want any remnent of our race to remain at all.
It’s an intriguing idea and Titus has some good advice for the movement. Many of his recommendations, for this hypothetical “tribe”, we should already be doing in order to make our movement stronger and more self sufficient.
I do, however, have a number of objections:
1) We are not totally deracinated. Even in the US, whites have a distinct and particular culture and identity whether people openly admitted it or not.
2) It is a defeatist strategy; it assumes defeat before we’ve lost. We aren’t a minority yet and we have a responsibility to do everything we can to prevent it from happening.
3) I am very skeptical we(white people from all sorts of different groups and backgrounds and religious) could simply forge a new ethnic group- a new nation- of ourselves because of a theoretical argument that it might give us an advantage when we are a minority. Who wants to throw away their identity like that?
4) I’m unconvinced that we could survive, indefinitely, as a minority. The Afrikaners are a minority which stick to themselves; they stay out of the limelight and they don’t assert themselves into South African politics. Yet, they are still persecuted and could face a “hot” genocide any day. Even worse, they are absolutely necessary for the country to function- indespensiple- and yet they face exctintion in their “host” nation.
Why should we expect the world to let us, the most evil race responsible for everything wrong, “dwell alone?” At the very least, we’ll still need an Israel(with nuclear arms) as a back up.
The day will come where most whites, not just South Africans, find themselves “packing for Perth”. Let’s hope that a single destination like that emerges where white minorities can begin to migrate to and congregate. This seems more desirable that living as a persecuted diaspora. 5PT seems to borrow from the Jewish experience, but white men need territory ultimately to maintain their type of civilization.
Comments are closed.
If you have a Subscriber access,
simply login first to see your comment auto-approved.
Note on comments privacy & moderation
Your email is never published nor shared.
Comments are moderated. If you don't see your comment, please be patient. If approved, it will appear here soon. Do not post your comment a second time.