The Problems with Right-Wing Third Worldism

Eric Striker has a recent article critiquing opposition to Third Worldism on the Right, that was reposted on Unz. Eric Striker said that “[m]ost recently, Robert Stark, who claims to be the descendant of a prominent Zionist ideologue, begged the ‘alt-right’ to reject the Palestinians and anti-Zionism on the grounds that taking this position is tantamount to embracing ‘third worldism.’” Striker epitomizes that anti-Zionist White Nationalist ideology that I had some criticisms of in my article on whether Jewish liberal diaspora hypocrisy is a valid reason to oppose Israel.

Striker lumped me in with Jewish or half-Jewish authors who have also criticized third worldism, including Constantin Alamariu (“Bronze Age Pervert”), Nathan Cofnas, Paul Gottfried, and Curtis Yarvin (“Moldbug”). However, I am only of very distant Jewish ancestry and identify as European American. In a recent podcast, Striker mischaracterizes me as some shill for Zionism, when I am neutral/non-intervention and think that Israel has gone way too far and support a ceasefire. Striker also ignored that my article emphasized that it is bad for White Americans and Europeans for Israel to be a stand-in for Whiteness and for Whites to get blamed for Israel’s actions.

Source: Wikipedia

Third worldism, which was initially a Cold War dialectic, is the idea that people of the Global South have a shared identity due to being victims of colonialism. It can mean opposition to American imperialism or nations outside of liberal control, but it can also mean opposition to Whiteness, or a stand-in for non-Whites. Third worldism also means a belief that the third world is fundamentally culturally and spiritually superior to the West. The big irony is that liberalism is so heavily associated with Whites and that the anti-liberal world is heavily non-White.

While it is one thing to respect anti-imperialist struggles in non-Western nations and oppose US foreign policy, Western third worldism has the potential to empower anti-Whiteness and left-wing racial dialectics. Basically, it is the view that modern Western imperialism is just an extension of old school colonialism, thus Whites must pay for the crimes of colonialism. For instance, the push for White nations to take in more migrants and pay reparations for colonialism and slavery. Would a global anti-colonial movement seriously challenge US foreign policy and multinational corporations, or would it be used as a vehicle for anti-Whiteness?

In an article on the fallacy of rightist third worldism on Counter-Currents, Jarosław Ostrogniew stated, “The core of the fallacy of Rightist third-worldism is a case of putting the cart before the horse: mistaking consequences with causes. The Rightist third-worldist believes that the non-white world hates the West — and white people — because the West is liberal or capitalist. This belief is based solely on the anti-liberal or anti-capitalist declarations of non-whites. To put it differently, if whites changed their ideology, the Third World would change their hard feelings toward us.”

Ireland is the best example of Europeans embracing third worldism backfiring. The Irish left-nationalist political party Sinn Féin embraced a third-worldist paradigm in opposition to British imperialism, with Nelson Mandela and Yasser Arafat as their icons. This helped lay the cultural groundwork for neoliberal oligarchs to exploit, such as pushing for mass immigration and hate speech laws. Because the Irish suffered under British colonialism, they saw the new South Asian and African immigrants as their comrades. However, Ireland’s Indian-origin prime minister, Leo Varadkar, has shown about as much respect for the Irish as Cromwell.

I remember a while back, paleolibertarian Paul Craig Roberts said that an upside of immigration making America less White is that neocon influence will be diminished. The argument is that a multi-racial America will be less able to exploit patriotism for overseas military intervention. However, is that trade-off worth it? Not to mention that more immigrant diasporas lobbying for their national interests means that the US is more entangled in other nations, including humanitarian interventionism.

One can be anti-war without being a third worldist, as Pat Buchanan was an anti-war isolationist but also a Western chauvinist and apologist for settler colonialism. Despite European colonialism involving exploitation and other bad things, it did encapsulate a Promethean spirit of European man, especially the archetype of exploration, which is practically non-existent under modern American imperialism and managerialism.

The argument in favor of right-wing third worldism is that Western dissidents and non-liberal and non-elite Whites are a colonized people. Thus they are oppressed by the same imperial structure that is oppressing and exploiting the Global South. A common strategy among populists is pointing out the hypocrisy that the US military-industrial complex, which bombs brown people, is also woke, or that woke tech corporations that censor White dissidents use sweatshop labor and cobalt mines with child labor in the Congo. Another example is making comparisons to how mass immigration is a colonial tactic, such as by the British Empire. Not to mention the third positionist European nationalist standpoint that Europeans are also oppressed by the American empire.

While all of these points are valid and somewhat undermine the establishment’s soft power, pointing out hypocrisy is insufficient by itself. It does counteract the narrative that anti-immigration or nationalist sentiment is linked to colonialism of the past. Ironically, there are parallels to normie conservatives’ “Dems are the real racists.” An outcome of pointing out the establishment’s hypocrisy has actually been political elites doubling down on things like open borders and affirmative actions. The same can be said of the American establishment backing the Civil Rights movement to counter Soviet propaganda, directed at the Global South, that America was racist.

The third worldist bloc will not come to save Western dissidents from the boot of technocratic elites, so it is primarily an issue of symbolism and moral capital. The pathetic lack of power of Western dissidents, nationalists, and populists is why third worldism or shilling for Russia is appealing to many. Examples of non-Westerners who have spoken out against replacement migration in Europe include Cardinal Sarah from Guinea and the Dalai Lama. However, neither are really third worldists, with Cardinal Sarah being very pro-Western while the Dalai Lama represents Tibetan nationalism and is primarily concerned with Chinese imperialism.

What is third worldist and what is Western or American can be convoluted. For instance, Barrack Obama was simultaneously an American imperialist and a third worldist. Expect more of this as more immigrant strivers from the third world enter America’s elite and the American imperial core becomes disassociated with Whiteness. Not to mention that America is spreading anti-White sentiment to other nations and being anti-White in the third world is synonymous with consuming a lot of American media.

Black Lives Matter protests globally:

Eric Striker correctly pointed out that American imperialists backed anti-colonial movements to undermine rival European powers, and how the Cuban Communist revolution was a product of America breaking up Spain’s colonial empire in the Western hemisphere. This also applies to the anti-apartheid movement against South Africa being a coalition of both Western powers and a third worldist bloc. Striker also pointed out that pan-Arabism/Baathism took inspiration from German National Socialism and that Hitler supported Arab resistance to British colonialism. However, that wasn’t really third worldism, but rather a tactical alliance to weaken the British Empire, much like how the British used various non-Western peoples.

There was some hope for Russia to lead a third geopolitical bloc that included European nations and was independent of America, China and the Islamic World. However, the West has isolated Russia, pushing Russia closer to China. Putin also deserves a lot of blame for civilian deaths in Ukraine, which isn’t helping Russia garner any goodwill among Europeans, including those previously friendlier towards Russia. Hungary’s Viktor Orbán is somewhat independent of both the Atlanticist “rules-based international order” and third worldism, but has little to no power outside his nation. Also, liberalism being associated with White nations caused Trump to sever ties with Europe and form alliances with autocratic non-Western nations.

Right-wing third worldism or third positionism came about as resistance to mass global homogeneity under American imperialism and consumerism. It primarily has its origins with Francis Parker Yockey, who during the Cold War considered America a much greater evil than the Soviets and supported third world liberationist movements. Yockey was a huge influence on thinkers ranging from Aleksandr Dugin to Alain de Benoist and the European New Right. I am somewhat sympathetic to third positionism or pan-nationalism, a coalition of many nationalists against globalism and imperialism, though I am skeptical of its viability. Third positionism has devolved from great thinkers like de Benoist to grifters like Jackson Hinkle.

Alain de Benoist is considered the founder of ethnopluralism, which is close to pan-enclavism or right-wing multiculturalism, which I advocate for. In contrast, Bronze Age Pervert has been critical of Whites taking part in multiculturalism, thus just becoming another minority grievance group. Whites need to “decolonize” themselves by liberating themselves from managerial institutions and return to organic tribal living. However, I don’t see how ethnopluralism has to be third worldist, even if its proponents like de Benoist are. The inspiration for pan-enclavism is Dutch pillarization and the Swiss canton model, though people in the third world often rely upon tribes and enclaves rather than institutions. However, enclaves must serve as neo-Byzantines that lay the foundation for a future Renaissance and are the only way for the European diaspora to survive in the future.

The tribalism and traditions of the third world can be alluring to Westerners who are demoralized, atomized and lack an identity, which also applies to the Left. Right-wing third worldism is a kind of romanticized noble savage complex. Even Bronze Age Pervert, who criticizes third worldism, romanticizes certain non-Western peoples like Mongolians. While it is fine to find value in other cultures, the big irony is that Western orientalism is very much a product of colonialism. The very online dissident Right is also very much a product of globalization, liberalism, and post-modernism rather than traditionalism or parochialism.

The same alt-rightists who ridiculed conservatives for their “Dems are the real racists” mantra latched onto Kanye West, as embracing a Black man somehow made it okay to be anti-Semitic. Besides, Kanye’s antisemitism is really kooky, low-brow, and anti-intellectual. The same applies to the Right’s embrace of Andrew Tate, who is a half-Black convert to Islam who engages in crude misogyny. This explains why someone like Richard Spencer, who is a WASP elitist, utterly detests everything that has become of the dissident Right.

As America becomes more non-White, so will right-wing politics. I just find it ironic that White nationalists are often the ones pushing the third-worldization of the Right the hardest. White nationalists ironically share more values in common with peoples of the third world than with cosmopolitan Whites. This fits in with the political realignment where the MAGA GOP is winning over more working class non-Whites while losing college-educated Whites.

Even though El Salvador’s Nayib Bukele is a staunch American ally, the Right’s embrace of him shows that the future of the American Right will be more like the Latin American Right. While Bukele might make sense for El Salvador, many American right-wingers want him for America. My prediction for the future of America is that Democrats will embrace Chinese-style one-party rule and top-down technocratic control, while the GOP will embrace third world-style feudalism, with oligarchic but decentralized fiefdoms and good old boys networks.

While I have my share of criticisms of right-wing third worldism, there are also plenty of problems with hardcore Western chauvinism. For instance, the counter-jihad movement which channeled nationalist and anti-immigration sentiment towards neocon aims in the Middle East, as well as Yoram Hazony’s more recent national conservative movement. Right-wing third worldism was largely a backlash against neo-conservativism. Also, those who over-emphasize Western values tend to de-emphasize White identity.

The concept of Western civilization can be a euphemism for White people but also represents a geopolitical zone that is a mishmash of “Judeo-Christianity,” capitalism and consumerism, and classical liberal ideals. European civilization certainly existed prior to classical liberalism and the Enlightenment, going back to ancient Greece and Rome. Also who and what is Western? Is Russia not part of the West despite being White? Is Israel part of the West? What about Latin America or staunch Western allies like Japan and Taiwan? What constitutes the West is vague and the West and America are going through an identity crisis.