Counter-Currents
Salman Abedi
2,279 words
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.
Source: https://fifthpolitical.wordpress.com/2017/05/27/terror-and-tribe-in-the-west/
Enjoyed this article?
Be the first to leave a tip in the jar!
7 comments
The claim that the British are ‘de-nationalized’ (in the sense of not having a national identity) is simply empirically false.
Most British people (outside of a small liberal elite) have a strong sense of national identity. This is still also implicitly ethnic (for instance, many British people will casually use ‘British’ to refer to a native as opposed to an immigrant). The overwhelming majority of British people are and always have been opposed to immigration. The author is incorrect in his implicit assumption that one is either a conscious ethnic nationalist or ‘de-nationalized’; the vast majority of people have likely ever seriously ocnsidered the question and fall into neither category (they have an implicit sense of ethnic identity and at the same time maybe some sort of civic nationalism).
The reason why this is insufficient to effect change is that the political system is set up in such a way that it does not reflect the preferences of the British people regarding immigration and sets up significant hurdles in translating these preferences into action. This doesn’t show that the British people are ‘de-nationalized’ or do not want to preserve their nation, only that they do not yet want it enough (which in my view is because they simply do not realize the danger and pressing importance of the demographic issue).
I don’t know what justifies the author’s implicit assumption that the Brexit vote cannot have been both an expression of ‘the new nationalism’ and ethnic nationalism at once.
It was an assertion of British nationalism and British identity; for some people this was purely civic, but for many it was implicitly ethnic.
Given the significant nationalism still possessed by the British people, the author is clearly wrong in thinking that creating some totally new group, to which virtually no-one has any feeling towards, is the best means to preserve the European people (this is even putting aside both the pragmatic issues with trying to exist as a diaspora without a state and the inherent worth in preserving a nation for any nationalist, which the author consistency ignores).
I will also comment that I am very suspicious of the psychology of the author of these pieces. His injunction not to care for our fellow countrymen strikes me as very odd for a nationalist. My tentative explanation for this is that involvement with the nationalist movement (and perhaps disappointing personal experiences with members of his own people, with which I can empathize) have led him (paradoxically) to identify more with the movement itself than his own nation. Thus for him the white nationalist movement itself has become the goal, and not the actual preservation of his nation. Assuming he is an American, this will be paritcuallry easy for him since Americans in general have a less implicitly ethnic sense of identity than Europeans, probably on account that they have less shared history and ancestry.
I assume some sort of underlying psychological motivation because his pragmatic assessment seems to be to be so incorrect that I find it difficult to see how an unprejudiced process could have arrived at it (although alternatively, perhaps it is merely an American misunderstanding of the actual European situation due to selective and caricatured exposure).
You are wrong.
It is your fellow British, afterall, who repeatedly vote in traitors and shout down anyone who takes issue with this. Frequently the thought-criminal ends up in those emotional day care centers you call courts.
Your fellow British are the ones who excuse terrorist atrocities and march in peace vigils. These same people join the police force, arrest other British for merely saying “mean” things while stubbornly ignoring Muslims inbound from Syrian war zones.
In your country people actually go to jail for posting things on the internet.
I agree with the author.
Most British are not worth saving. They sealed their fate as a people when the orchestrated the mass-murder of their German cousins in what will go down in White Diaspora history as the greatest betrayal against the European people.
I have a hard time feeling any sympathy at all for the British. Sure, I have met exceptional Britons who meet my criteria for sincere National Socialists, but I do not for a single moment delude myself into believing that this is the norm for Anglo people.
In my experience I do not believe Anglos are biologically capable of the group solidarity (ie fascism) it takes to save them.
Germans demonstrably are, it’s that drop of Asiatic blood (ie collectivism) is Germans and all people to their east.
But Western Europeans? Not so lucky, far too individualistic and self-indulgent. The Islamic wolves will pick apart that deracinated herd of cattle with ease.
This is just another form of ethnomasochism. To say most of a race isn’t worth saving because they don’t stick their necks out against the system is a bit ridiculous and more than a little histrionic.
Most people are followers.They only concern themselves with getting by and they accept the current dispensation because they are conventional by nature.
Only a small percentage of any group forms it’s elite and only a small minority forms it’s militant vanguard which directs, shapes and reforms, culture and therefore, politics.
You’re hating on people(you’re own people for god sake) for who they are; rhetorically casting them aside for not being what they cannot be- contrarians. Extreme contrarians even.
The truth is, if and when the true right forms a cultural vanguard(which we’ve made massive strides towards this decade)that pushes politics into the direction we want it to go, ordinary people will follow. New elites who agree with the cultural vanguard will replace the old and they will together form a healthy leadership again. That’s how political change happens, always has, and it’s a reflection of how human nature works.
I see Anglophobia is still alive and well in white nationalism.
I’ve already explained that the voting of msot British people comes from a lack of knowledge rather than a lack of desire. All of your examples are opposed by the vast majority of British people.
Your German-fetishism is just laughable. Obviously I’m opposed to British entry in the Second World war. However, it can’t be blamed on most British people who were fighting for what they considered to be their national interest. In a clash of national interests, the obligation of British people is to Britain, not to their ‘German cousins’. I’m sorry if British people are too nationalist for you in considering their first priority their own nation rather htna the ‘European people’. Nations don’t relinquish their right to exist by being too mean to other people.
The claim about Germans being more ethnocentric is also just obviously completely wrong. Everything you said about modern Britain applies to Germany but even more so. Modern Germans are objectively far less ethnocentric or willing to save themselves than British people. They are, after all, about to re-elect the woman who let in a million invaders to their country. At least British politicians have to be more subtle about it.
The speculation about this being due to ‘Asiatic admixture’ is also completely unjustified by any evidence.
You like the author, also seem to consider yourself part of an ideologically committed group instead of a nation. I don’t know what that makes you, but it’s not a nationalist.
While I agree with discarding those self-hating whites who cannot be saved entirely, I’m afraid I still believe that there is some hope as to save the apathetic majority. Maybe not any time soon, but eventually. I also view a diaspora as a dead end. I’m American, and in America at least we have plenty of room and plenty of whites to carve out our own ethnostate when it all crumbles. Britain I’m not sure about. You’ll probably have to fight or flee.
I do recall seeing that video of the manchester victim’s parents, and being absolutely disgusted. If you know anyone like this, you not only need to cut them out of your life, but tell them exactly WHY you’re doing it.
Social shame and avoidance is the only real weapon we have at the moment against people like this. Even if they don’t end up caring, at least they will no longer be of any concern to us.
5th political theory, the ethnostate, Islamization, all these things are predicting the future while looking at the west in the most God-awful way. My theory is that there is a collective mass psycosis, we need to wake up as a people not wake up individually. Everything could change in months once the Promethean fire is sparked… Every race has a genocidal instinct in it, against foreigners of course, but somehow the depths of the european soul became so deep that this societal instict for genocide was flipped around in the profundity of the collective spirit and redirected toward the race itself.
I think white sharia is an interesting thing, is it just laws to control women that people crave? No it is full scale Islamization, right now the foreigners are in competition for resources in the west and while they radicalize their tribal diasporas they do not actually want islam in the west, right now the west is a theatre of war for plunder to the moslem. If mass Islamization happened in white populations the whites would be able to do more to collectively guard their resources and ensure the survival of their genes. I am not looking forward to this but it is one of the possible scenarios for the abrupt end of the mass psycosis which is the self immolation of the race.
Another option is violence, the author of the article says violence is not an option because of the power of the state and yet if we really are under mass psycosis as european people the end of that psycosis could likely be the end of all democratic european states as well, war calls could rise up from the most unlikely places, such as former state actors, zionists, and junta revolutionary militaries. It is not as things like this have never happened before and on a world wide scale.
A few more words on mass psycosis, it can be extreme and widespread , there are cases of people dancing in groups until they died of exhaustion, scientists today suggest the victims ate ergot fungi which triggered the psycosis but i suggest that these things happen only out of the desire to conform, well if she is dancing i will dance!
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dancing_Plague_of_1518
today the religion of white guilt demands conformity to the principles of white genocide, do not have children oh but you will make 80000 dollars a year and get unlimited access to your favorite pleasures like pornography and liquors and children are such a burden especially to white people, so just freeze your genetic material in a test tube so you can try having a child past the natural age, although the procedures will cost thousands of dollars and likely only lead to miscarriage. Basically what is accepted as normal is nuts…The mass delusional behavior of european descended people today means that we, even the most philosophical white nationalists, have no idea what a more ethnically conscious tommorow will look like, it could be WWIII, it could be a greater Islamization than anyone imagined, it could be a peaceful expulsion of foreigners following a political revisioning of the state.
But I do not think 5th political theory will pan out, there are not going to be a bunch of independent farms full of white militias like the branch dividians were. We, european descended people within and without Europe, are near the tipping point and even former antifa will join and unity will be the driving force behind the reclamation of history.
Comments are closed.
If you have Paywall 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.
Paywall Access
Lost your password?Edit your comment