The old nationalism was a territorial nationalism. The ingroup didn’t just have ethnic and cultural ties; they were connected to a region. The Jacobins, who birthed modern French nationalism, tied it into the expansion of the State (and the Revolution) under the Republic and Napoleon. Similarly, the German volk is inconceivable without a German heimat. Modern Western identitarianism – responding to mass immigration – promotes territorial integrity and advocates tightening the borders. This focus on reclaiming control over incoming populations is a rational response, given failed policies based on ideological commitments to open borders and ideas of a “global community”. Unfortunately, this produces a side-effect which reduces the potency of identitarian criticisms by making them very inward-looking. Sort out your own house, and let the rest get on with it.
In the 21st century, China is pursuing a rather different policy:
“Indeed, while in the past the status of overseas Chinese citizens and overseas Chinese of foreign nationality was treated differently from the time when the nationality law of 1955 prohibited dual citizenship, in the 1990s there was a resurgence of the calls appealing to overseas Chinese’ common descent, blood, and culture with China. This move was prompted by the fact that 90 per cent of the overseas Chinese were of foreign nationality. In this respect, overseas Chinese citizens (huaqiao) and ethnic Chinese abroad (huanren), have received the same eminence in the PRC’s overseas Chinese policy considerations (Zhuang 2000: 6)…Firstly, to take into account differences in the nationality status of the Overseas Chinese and ethnic Chinese; secondly, not to treat ethnic Chinese and ‘common foreigners’ (yibang waiguoren) similarly; to cherish the national feelings of the overseas Chinese and ethnic Chinese, to protect their interests and close relations with China (Zhuang 2000: 7).”
China isn’t the only one taking this approach. Indian expats from the US to Kenya to Dubai maintain links with the subcontinent. Russia is harnessing the influence of Russian populations beyond its borders to counter American political and media influence. When they do this, they are acting as phyles: ingroups which, beyond identity, can propagate themselves biologically (i.e. members can breed with each other without risk of inbreeding). This gives them the potential to claim political sovereignty.
With the rising stars of the non-Western world sending their children to Western universities, it seems safe to say that this strategy will continue to be attractive. That’s not to say that territorial states are out of the picture. Far from it, the predictions about a more multipolar world seem to be coming true before our eyes. Phyles generally feel much safer when they have some part of the world to call home and return to when things go bad abroad. Phyles without a homeland end up experiencing stress and paranoia because their host countries can simply expel or persecute them. Predictably, extreme distrust of outsiders becomes a characteristic of such phyles. Inevitably, this state of affairs ends up actually bringing them into conflict with the local populations, resulting in violence. This ought to ensure that any self-interested phyle which can maintain a territory and state will do so. Call it the Zion Incentive.
Generally, societies and civilizations can mark their peaks around the time they stop being outward looking and become more concerned with internal strife. Conversely, they can mark the start of their ascent when they begin to expand at an increasing pace. For modern phyles, there are at least three major driving incentives to expand their influence beyond territorial borders:
1) Increasing economic globalization and interaction, which present opportunities
2) Technological developments which will only increase 1) for the foreseeable future
3) The threat of being outcompeted by states/phyles which choose the Chinese approach
Europe and its colonies drove the world into modernity because they expanded beyond their borders and reaped the benefits. This occurred for several reasons. First, geopolitical shifts in the east forced Western Europe to look across the Atlantic for another trade route to the Indies. This incentivized them to establish colonies in the New World. Once these colonies were self-reliant, it became increasingly viable for commoners to try and better their lives. Second, North-Western European cultures (Britain, France, the Netherlands, etc.) were already more individualistic than other parts of the world. England in particular had a highly individualistic culture, likely due to ease of travel and acceptance of outbreeding. Combined with their position as an island kingdom, they had some competitive advantages in an age where oceanic travel and ability to create resilient colonies would determine the economic and geopolitical future of the country. The Empires formalized the concept that these colonial populations were ethnic and political extensions of the mother country.
This strategy has implications for identitarian criticisms of globalization. First, the focus on regaining control of national borders forgets the existence of large global networks of expats and outposts. These are economically and therefore politically important. Identitarians condemn “cosmopolitan globalists” for the destruction of identity; but these expats are the historical successors of the colonies which allowed Western countries to become as powerful as they did. “Enriched” they may be, but they also advance the political and economic interests of their countries. The critiques of neocolonialism claim that this strategy is a unique feature of the evil White Cis-heteropatriarchy (include whatever the new target is this week). This is not so much wrong as inaccurate; it’s a sensible strategy which appears to be adopted by any phyle with the resources and population to make it work. It’s rational for phyles to take this approach because it increases their economic and geopolitical strength.
The obvious objection to this is that it sounds essentially like an argument for open borders. There’s a simple response: does China have open borders? It’s important to not mistake dominant strategies as being motivated by altruism. They aren’t. The strategy is dominant because it serves the best self-interests of the person or group employing it, given any other strategy used by other players. It was an optimal strategy for Europeans when they were the only ones doing it, and it’s an optimal strategy for Europeans now that every country with the will and resources wants to do it. Since it’s not motivated by altruism, a country which recognizes this as a good strategy is under no obligation to throw open its borders. It just needs to provide the political and economic support necessary to those nodes beyond its own borders. To an extent this means making deals.
But allowing Chinese and Arab heirs visas to complete a degree at a university is an entirely different animal from playing host to the camp of the saints. Again, ask China. Or Singapore. Or the UAE.
Most phyles are always going to have a portion of their population attracted to cosmopolitanism. They want to travel, live abroad, and so on. Globalization gives them the opportunity to do this. Others wish to enjoy the comforts of home. An intelligent phyle will use both tendencies to its advantage. Cosmopolitans go abroad, build phyle networks, and extend its influence. The rest remain home, and ensure the phyle’s survival in its home territory. Therein lies the opportunity for reconciliation.
For the phyle, the risk it takes with cosmopolitans is that they might integrate into foreign cultures, terminating the phyle’s future propagation. Phyle’s which successfully pull off the cosmopolitan strategy – and especially ones without homelands – have social institutions which incentivize marrying within the phyle and social constraints against marrying out. Many phyles do in fact manage to do this, both as rulers (colonial Europeans) and as migrants/minorities (Jews, Roma, overseas Chinese).
Phyles and states are undergoing dramatic shifts worldwide, and various forms of identitarianism across the globe attempt to respond to some of these. The ideology promoted by Western countries states that the ethnic and cultural distinctions which created them must be done away with. Assuming that nothing displaces this ideology, this may occur. But it won’t be in the way that the ideologues want it to. Rather, remnants of the old phyles will morph and adapt, perhaps even into new ones.
We will likely see a large global Anglo-white population remain, for example. Nevertheless, these phyles born in the remnants of the West will contend with opportunities and competitors from around the world. Given that, successful phyles will find it useful to look beyond territorial borders (at this point, likely nominal). They will extend their influence through ethnic and cultural cousins. The phyles being born from the ruins of Europe and its descendants – barring total technological collapse – will do the same.
At this moment, white expatriate enclaves exist in centers of wealth and power beyond the Western world: Dubai and Abu Dhabi in the Middle East; Beijing and Bangkok in eastern Asia; Nairobi and Dar es Salaam in Africa. Others seek their fortunes doing security or consulting or driving trucks in the world’s most unstable regions. Even those which retain thin veneers of progressivism must by default accept very un-progressive realities. They are getting the first taste of what many of their home countries will in time undergo. They are also working through the realities of what it takes to maintain a recognizably Western form of civilization in a variety of non-Western environments.
Some navigate countries where social order is maintained through authoritarian diligence (Singapore). Other expat communities take it upon themselves to govern their enclaves and keep chaos at bay (Nairobi).
Barring a reversal of current demographic trends, many white communities within the West will be (and already are) living like expats in the very cities their ancestors built. These communities will be adapting the same techniques which real expats have honed in foreign lands. They are shock troops in a very similar way to the gentrifiers in American inner cities. They are preserving something familiar even if many refuse to acknowledge it, much like the wealthy housewives of the Upper East Side.
The simple fact is that the mind virus of Social Progress has eviscerated Western and European civilization. Once, when a more ancient Western civilization died, it went to seed; the foundations of the Middle Ages were laid. If Providence has preserved us once again, then these communities will assist in carrying it forward, hopefully joined by states and regions which maintain or reclaim ideological sovereignty.
These phyles will have to engage with the rest of the world. Given that Western political structures are currently limited to those which promote Progressive ideology, the expatriate communities will provide a space for such phyles to extend their influence. If the rise of China and the challenges by Russia continue to delegitimize Progressive ideology, these phyles would do well to provide an alternative for political and economic engagement with the West. Both those in the West and outside it will have to abandon ideological fantasy, building on the realities which many already accept in actual practice. It’s easy to talk about cultural enrichment with private security maintaining order outside.
So weaponize the expats. In the age of Exit, it pays to have friends in the far corners.