The problems with Rightwing Third Worldism
The Third Worldism vs Western Chauvinism Dialectic
Eric Striker has a recent article critiquing opposition to Third Worldism on the Right, that was reposted on Unz. Eric Striker said that “Most 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, 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 Wordlism, 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 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 leftwing racial dialectics. Basically, 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 Wordlist paradigm in opposition to British Imperialism, with Nelson Mandela and Yasar 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 Wordlist, 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.
Source: @morris_que14 on X
The argument in favor of rightwing 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 Wordlist 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 Wordlists, 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
Source: Bloomberg
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 Wordlist 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 block that included European nations and was independent of both America, as well as 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 Victor Orban 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.
Rightwing 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 Benoist to grifters like Jackson Hinkle.
Alain de Benoist is considered the founder of ethnopluralism, which is close to pan-enclavism or rightwing 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 Wordlist, even if its proponents like Benoit 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. Rightwing 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.
Source: @Empty_America on X
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 ok 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 rightwing 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.
Source: @CWBOCA on X
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 rightwingers 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 rightwing 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. Rightwing 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.
Many good points made, Robert! Well done.
As you say, it is true that the Third World is more conservative (and really, how could it not be) but that romanticizing it is wrong. But most people can only think "for" or "against" something. Should I be for or against X, huh?
Well, let's take Ethiopia as an example. They join the BRICS, why?
-Not because the West is "White imperialism!" Whites give Africa everything. Unfortunately. Free money flows every year. Volunteer doctors go to Africa and treat patients where the local hospitals have a high death rate. And so on. So any leftists who are pro-Ethiopian or pro-BRICS because they imagine Russia is their beloved Soviet Union are dead wrong, as usual.
-It is understandable however that Ethiopians and others want to get away from a West that now demands homosexuals be legalized. They see all the craziness that goes on in our streets. Unfortunately, they often think that's simply "the West" - when it's the Left.
-Countries like Ethiopia also want to get away from Western demands for pro-women laws. On the one hand, there are African countries where a rapist goes unpunished if he offers to marry the rape victim. On the other hand, there are quotas for women in Western society. An African wish to get away from pro-women laws can be either understandable, or an example of just what goes on in Africa.
-The big trump card for BRICS is that they don't interfere in whatever the current government in a country is doing. In Ethiopia, that means the government could kill hundreds of thousands of people in Tigray, rape tens or hundreds of thousands of women, and there's not a word of BRICS condemnation.
-Likewise, Saudi Arabia, now also in BRICS, doesn't want to be too tied to a West that - inefficiently - criticized them for mowing down hundreds of Tigray on the border. These Tigray tried to escape Ethiopia through Yemen and get to SA.
What I want to say is, there is a lot we can understand in the Third World, and also a lot to condemn since they are the same bastards as they have always been. They are conservative because that is simply the ordinary way of living, and opposing the Western Left's excesses is normal. But conservatism doesn't always mean something good. Not in the hands of people like Africans.
But such nuance takes too many words to write and doesn't fit in a short YouTube comment or X post.
I write about BRICS because you mentioned the hope of Russia acting as a force against what we see in Washington. I still believe that, and I don't see why it would be bad that they are getting closer to China.
Speaking of China, that's another country people lack nuance about. "Should we be for or against, huh?" China is more conservative than the West, and it is a market economy, not "communist" like fake conservatives like to say when they look for a safe enemy to oppose. But then they have a leader who says "I'm communist!", because you mustn't admit that the party did something wrong in the past. Just like Putin, a pro-market nationalist conservative, tries to separate "Soviet power sure was a cool thing" from the communism that he doesn't support.
While I'm at it, China will never attack Taiwan. For one thing, they have repeatedly said so. There's no reason to. They simply hope that Taiwan will come back to China voluntarily in the future, and in the meantime, the usual stubborn "can never admit anything wrong" attitude demands that they keep talking about how Taiwan really belong to them. But look beyond the rhetoric. There is daily trade between Taiwan and China. Two companies have daily flights from Taipei to Shanghai. Taiwan has invested more in China than the U.S. has. (And China has invested more than 1 trillion in the U.S., so they definitely don't want war.) Millions of tourists have gone back and forth between the countries. Many Chinese work in Taiwan-owned factories.
Aside from that, China barely has a navy and Taiwan's US-made rockets can hit them as soon as they leave port. There are only a few months per year when the weather would allow a crossing. Experts believe China would have to land half a million soldiers in the first day of a war, and they only have two modern vessels for that. Before the U.S. navy, far superior, would come to blow them up. China has no reason to send its navy to be destroyed, and lose their huge investments in the U.S., when Taiwan works with them in every way already. BUT, they keep up the rhetoric against Taiwan. Giving the "China is communist!" types what the want. So tiresome.
China also lays claims to waters not just around Taiwan but all the way down to Indonesia and Brunei, demanding Vietnam's coastal waters along the way. And the party is corrupt - most people in China rightfully want to get rid of it. But it is also a party that keeps homosexual pride parades out of the country. It is a party that keeps Tibet from becoming a CIA-armed and -trained outpost like Georgia's military was. It is a party that limits online games to a few hours a day, because young autistic-style Chinese guys become obsessed with them, just like in South Korea. Xi Jinping has a close advisor who spent years in the U.S., observing leftist universities and movements, and wrote about how China must not be torn apart like U.S. society. He couldn't criticize "leftism" or "Marxism," so he said that "the U.S. has no core today." We can support that while seing the bad as well. We don't have to be "for" or "against" China, any more than we have to be "for" or "against" Third World countries.
And as seen in the cases of Ethiopia, Saudi Arabia's bombings of Yemen, the Sudanese civil war, factions fighting all over Africa, there is no Third World unity.
Which makes the new propaganda term "the Global Majority" the most laughable new leftist phrase. As if the Third Worlders would all have the same opinion. Using "majority," a word from democratic thought, because Westerners are conditioned to think that whoever is the majority should get to decide.
Does that Global Majority include the Ethiopian government or their victims in Tigray? Which side in Sudan does it include? Which side in Yemen? Does it include the Saudi government or the Shias it is holding down? Are all of these supposed to be on the same side, in a "majority"?
A nice run-through of the twists and turns or trials and tribulations besetting us. Thank you.