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 this 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:
- De-nationalized Europeans. Loyal to the managerial state. Believe in liberal cosmopolitan paradigms about identity. Politically dominant in the demo-bureaucratic system but complacent.
- 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.
- Ethnocentric Europeans. Skeptical 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 the 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.