Our friend Kadphises linked to an excellent site that deals with the situation in Europe and the West as a whole through the frames of geopolitics, European-Preservationism, 4th Generation Warfare, and- his own creation- 5PT or “Fifth Political Theory”.
Here is Kadphises comment:
Talking about networking between European preservationists instead of old-school nationalism: are you familiar with the 5th Political Theory, which, as I understand it, favors an adaptation to diaspora life and tribal networking for preservationist Whites over electoral politics but also over a direct involvement in violent conflict with Muslim invaders?
It would be very interesting to hear your thoughts on these ideas.
I had never stumbled across the site before but as Kadphises intimates it is an absolutely fascinating one dealing with much the same issues as we do here on ECW.
The basis of the site is- as noted- the author’s theory of 5PT, or “5th Political Theory”.
That author- who goes by the nom de guerre of “Titus Quintus”, describes 5PT in the following manner:
The Fifth Political Theory (5PT) seeks to conceptualize a non-nationalist approach to the perpetuity of Western people(s) and their cultures in our world. When completed, it is my hope to have formed a sound theory aimed at reconciling our heritage and the legacy of our empires and nation-states with our most viable future prospect, which is becoming a stateless diaspora people or peoples.
Per Alexander Dugin, the first three political theories are Liberalism, Communism, and Fascism. In brief, his Fourth Political Theory (4PT), while deliberately not an -ism, contains elements of communism, fascism, and pan-nationalism(s) lumped together under the label of Tradition and the cause of opposing Westernization (which to him is a chimera of secularization, imperialism, and capitalism). 4PT is tied to Eurasianist geopolitics (Russia as the center of the world) and similar to the idea of “the autarky of great spaces” that also has currency among the European New Right, particularly Guillaume Faye’s work. 4PT conceives of vast civilizational blocs and a multipolar world, but does so from the perspective of promoting peace and preserving the diversity of traditional cultures against what is considered capitalist- and imperialist-driven homogenization. In that sense 4PT diverges from the more popular geopolitics of Samuel Huntington, who theorizes these blocs as primed for war with one another rather than forming a system to check the advance of Liberalism.
What makes 5PT an innovation upon this, localized to the specific needs of Western peoples (rather than Russians and Middle-Eastern peoples), among other things is chiefly that the national or pan-national approach is replaced by one of diasporic tribes, both sub-national and trans-national. That is to say, due to the intellectual and political trajectory of the Western world, we exist not as peoples with states, but inside them. And among those who have cultivated a mindset of “saving” their nation, the hardest pill to swallow is that they will only be able to save those who elect to save themselves—to form a diasporic tribe rather than being dissolved into the homogenizing mass of consumption and nihilism. 5PT is about studying, defining, and implementing the ideal of the diasporic tribe.
Apart from literature to this end, the long-term goal is to create our own inter-connected communities and networks that would exist independently of whatever empire happens to nominally rule us, under the assumption that we will need to endure for a very long time without a sovereign state or states.
I agree with much of this. It is evocative to me of what William S. Lind says (and what I feel he is correct about) regarding the fact that the 21st century will be marked by the waning of nation-states and the Westphalian/Nation-State system.
While this nation-state system has ruled the world for several hundred years at this point, that was not always the case. There are previous eras where citizenship was defined not by lines on a map but by religion or other such “non-physical” factors, and it seems that in the increasingly globalized (and virtual) world, we are returning to such a paradigm.
Therefore I agree with Titus Quintus that for us as European-Preservationists an excessive focus on individual nations and politics can be unhelpful.
This is also because the modern Western “democratic” system has become a tool of globalism.
Indeed, Titus Quintus points this out in a manner I had never quite thought of, but which brilliantly captures the reality:
Under the demo-bureaucratic state we find in any Atlanticist country, political power is an abstraction. It has been intermediated through an electoral process in which powerful interest groups delegate the authority to perform state functions to temporary bureaucratic administrators. The election serves as a secularized initiation rite, one in which power is recognized rather than genuinely invested or conferred.
The last sentence absolutely nails it in my opinion. I do think that ‘surprises’ can still happen in our politics, and I do think Donald Trump’s election was one of these, and that it sort of upset the above process, however it is abundantly clear that the above description correctly describes how “Democracy” works across the modern West, and highlights the meaningless of the ballots that we cast to effect any real change from the globalist-progressive system.
Sides Of The Conflict
Likewise, Quintus and I separate the populations of modern Occidental nations into the same three groups.
As he states:
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. Skeptic 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).
This mirrors the sentiments I have and that I have written about. In the frame of 4th Generation Warfare, we now have three groups within modern Europe (and much of the West), all three of whom are at war with the other two.
We have: 1) the globalist elites and those who benefit from them being in power (the ‘De-nationalized Europeans’ above), 2) the foreign invaders who, while potentially benefiting in the short term from the policies of the globalist elites- are in the long run desirous of conquering them and taking power, and 3) European-Preservationists, who wish to preserve their nations in the same form they have existed for long centuries previous (the ‘Ethnocentric Europeans’ in the above breakdown).
It is this third group that brings up the major delineating line of the author’s 5PT Theory, which is the question of national borders and “nationalism” in general, and what the aims of Identitarians should be.
As he states:
It is becoming anachronistic to speak of ourselves as belonging a particular nation, since those nations do not even care for their own existence. This is a dangerous paradigm to remain trapped in, but the diaspora model is a way out. We should embrace this de-nationalization in recognizing that ethnocentric Europeans and Eurocolonials who want to have a future are an unconscious stateless people who we need to awaken into the Western diaspora.
5PT, unlike most other political theories, will not focus on wielding power on the international stage or directing it at other groups internally, but on creating spaces for our people which are capable of resisting the trends that work against us. Rather than engaging in theories of global conflict or coexistence, of more interest is finding ways to live with the conflicts inside countries (or civilization blocs) that threaten our existence, and to use power we acquire to secure our interests as a tribe.
Instead of a preoccupation with nationalism, statism, or electoral politics, 5PT is about the self-selected tribe, no questions asked and nothing owed to others unless necessary for its perpetuity. It is not about the capture and direction of a state but the creation of folk communities and ethnic networks both sub-national and trans-national, capable of enduring under any state that would tolerate them and able to assist those living where they are not tolerated. As these communities and networks develop, they will allow us to be more influential in both world affairs and our own self-governance. Such will be the essence of the diasporic tribe.
The higlighted portions above are from me, and I selected those which I think most likely to cause debate amongst those of our mindset.
Overall I agree with most of his sentiment, and it reminded me of Jack Donovan’s “Becoming The New Barbarians”, where he argues that modern Occidental men should take their cue from the liberals who call them barbarians and separate themselves from regular society in exactly that manner, purposefully becoming such barbarians.
Violence, War, And Occupying Territory
These seem to be the subjects that generate the most debate on Quintus’s website, and there are some very good discussions about them in the comment sections.
The question of violence– which Titus Quintus specifically says he opposes (not as a way of virtue-signalling, I should add, but from a utilitarian perspective in that it doesn’t have a positive impact on the situation) would probably be one departure between my thinking and his.
Now, I should preface this by saying 1) this site doesn’t support violence or illegality, and 2) I’m always hesitant to appear too “LARP-y”, but there are two reasons I would differentiate my thoughts on this issue from his.
- Is the fact that there still might be countries in Europe that could end up in the Hungary/Poland/Czech Republic camp IF they are able to push back just a little bit more. Such examples might be places like Spain, Finland, maybe even Denmark or Norway… Also certainly some less urban areas within eastern Germany, Austria, and northern Sweden and Norway. If any of these areas could- through the use of force- push themselves to the place where Hungary or the Czech Republic are existentially and politically/demographically, it would be worth it. This wouldn’t have to be an all out conflict either, it could be the same kind of 4GW ‘soft-warfare’ we have seen in the Ukraine and other places, where minor violence and the threat of violence is used to achieve political ends. This brings us to the second reason, which is…
- The ‘moral’ side of 4th Generation Warfare. While Quintus is completely right that the idea of armed revolt by small groups of Brits or Germans or Frenchmen is ridiculous from a vantage of point of Clausewitzian politics (attaining actual political power through violence), it can still be valuable in shifting the “moral” level of war, and making those governments look like evil “Goliaths” amidst a broader swath of their native citizenry. I wrote about this subject extensively in this article, and I think it applies now more than ever. Basically, by fighting back and nobly losing against these all-powerful globalist governments, those Preservationst 4GW-actors become ‘David’-like in the popular consciousness and turn more of their fellow citizens against the government.
On the question of nation-states I think there is much to chew on as well. On the one hand I think Pontus makes fantastic points about Occidentals needing to think more like the Jewish diaspora does, in terms of visualizing themselves as a unified, high-asabiya, diaspora force that will ensure its success irregardless of borders.
However, at the same time, making up 1-2% of society can be hard as a white person today because the cultural-marxist idea that whites are evil has become accepted in many swaths of the globe. In this manner being part of a minority white ‘diaspora’ is only advisable (in my mind) in places like Korea and Singapore, and not so much in Angola, Nicaragua, or Indonesia. (I would in fact say it is far easier for those of Jewish background to be in such a role today as anti-semitism has- outside of the Muslim world- become so rare and untolerated).
Titus Quintus is absolutely right though that our people will do far better if we begin to think of ourselves as parts of a worldwide, united tribe that is something bigger than individual nations. As he states:
Remember, this is not your country and not your system. You are the outsider, and yet you have been trained to be loyal to a master who does not value you. You are the sons and daughters of a civilization that has fallen. Your task, should you take it up, is to build a stronger and more resilient tribe than all the rest, with its own culture and institutions in order to navigate the world we live in.
I agree with him- someone from Ireland or Iowa or Croatia should have their chief loyalty be to their ‘people’ overall, rather than any national identity. While some will say Pontus and I are foolish to argue this since nationalism is so ingrained in Europeans, I disagree completely, and think that this is absolutely the direction we are moving in on both sides of the Atlantic.
If the ultimate goal is reconquest though, I think it is dangerous not to keep the goal of occupying territory high on our list of objectives. Yes, our nation-states are today ruled almost entirely by hostile elites, and yes, this century will be defined by a waning of nation-state power, but it does now follow from that that territory does not matter – because if we don’t fight to hold territory we will eventually find fewer and fewer countries in which we can survive as a diaspora, as the fact is we have very passionate enemies who wish to eradicate or enslave us.
I don’t think Pontus necessarily disagrees with this, I think it just comes down to tactics and strategy more than anything. The question is how will reconquest/survival/ascendance come to pass?
There is very good comment I noticed on his site that matches my thinking on this question perfectly, by someone named ‘Rusty’. It goes as follows:
Everyone can start building up himself and his tribe, clan, network, etc. today. There are no downsides and it is something anyone can do. It requires personal discipline, development of leadership and other skills, involvement, compassion, reading, physical training, etc., things everyone should be working on anyway. Real-life tribes can be used as examples of what works and what doesn’t.
This perfectly matches my thinking that our struggle is ultimately an individual one first and foremost. We all have the knowledge and the models from our ancestors and history, we know how revolutions and historical victories occur and how wars are won, it is just a question of our combined individual willpower to make it happen.
This interestingly enough matches the Muslim concept of the “inner jihad” very well- the individual struggle against oneself- against one’s lack of willpower, courage, drive, etc.
My ultimate conclusion follows from that: that the “greater jihad” of reconquest is ultimately nothing more than a larger manifestation of our collective “inner jihads” within our own minds. Only by each of us triumphing in our “inner” jihad is a reconquest of the Occident possible, and while macro-level strategy is absolutely important, our greatest efforts should each be directed at the inner jihad.
In the comment section of another article on the site the author makes a statement regarding the idea of waiting for the collapse and then “taking power”, which is close to the ‘best case scenario’ often painted by us here on ECW. He states:
So then there is the “take power” idea. I am not sure what this means. If it means waiting for a collapse then ethnocentric Europeans will not be the only ones looking to take power. They will also be among the worst prepared and have no friendly territory to operate out of.
I agree with him completely on the second half of that statement, however… if our people are successful in his own idea of building transnational post-state power, and becoming an effective and connected global diaspora, then we would be prepared for such an eventuality.
Secondarily, being prepared for such an eventuality is something we should strive for purely because it is inherently right as well. The vision of post-reconquest European homelands is in part based on the very sacredness of those lands specifically.
Therefore I think in conclusion Quintus and I share about 80% overlap on these ideas.
If I understand him correctly he envisions a future for our people where borders and land no longer have any great significance, whereas I see a future where they do, but where they have merely been sublimated behind the greater unifying factors of culture and heritage.
Considering all the horrors we see in modern Europe, I think both are very positive visions.
All in all I heartily recommend checking out his site, and sincerely hope he keeps formulating and sharing his ideas!
Men: I would very much like to get feedback. What are your thoughts on these questions?
-Should our people focus at all on electoral politics now?
-How important are land and borders compared to power and size? If we could somehow magically double the number of Identitarians in the Occident today and double our people’s birthrate but instantly give up all of Scandinavia to Islam, would that be worthwhile trade?
-What do you think of 5PT? Does it mesh with your view of the situation in Europe?
-Should white Europeans embrace the Jewish diaspora model of transnational power/influence/tribalism, and put less focus on nationalism and nation-states? Or do you disagree or see the question differently? Or is this all way too philosophical and you want to just go bust some heads?