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 Germany? 5PT 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.