Third Worldism

As anti-Israel sentiment creeps into mainstream conservative discourse, a number of Jewish authors — some who try to interface with white radicals — have sought to counter this rising tendency with proverbial Pavlovian bell-ringing: opposition to Zionism is the agenda of “brown people,” “the woke left,” “anti-whites,” and “Third Worldism.”

This discourse is intended to reduce a Middle Eastern geopolitical conflict, where Israel enjoys bipartisan unconditional military support from the entire American ruling elite, into a meaningless domestic red team vs blue team culture war issue. To see this in its basest form, observe the New York Post’s coverage of the conflict, which is broadly ignoring all of the real news in the conflict in favor of photos of nefarious looking Arab Muslim protesters and blue haired Marxists holding “Queers For Palestine” signs on college campuses. This is an inversion of Zionist Bill Maher’s type of appeal to the left, which dwells on images of protesters waving Swastikas and frames support for the Palestinian cause as a betrayal of progressivism and minority rights.

The Jewish figures involved in pushing various shades of this narrative include Constantin Alamariu (“Bronze Age Pervert”), Nathan Cofnas, Paul Gottfried, Curtis Yarvin (“Moldbug”), and so on. 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.”

The first problem with this intellectual distortion is that their definition of “Third Worldism” is kept vague. The specific theory of the worlds is an outmoded Cold War Marxist trope that views wealthy and urbanized America and Western Europe as having an exploitative, colonial relationship with the more agrarian global south based on capitalist relations.

In common parlance, the word “Third World” is often used pejoratively for nations that fail to meet liberal-democratic metrics and developmental standards, or in some cases, merely reject cultural impositions aggressively exported by the Judeo-American order. For Alamariu, Stark, and the rest, the word vacillates as a stand in for non-white, where they seek to tie moral support for countries battling erratic expressions of Jewish violence, like American foreign policy, to domestic, largely unrelated, and US-elite sponsored anti-white sentiment.

The theory of the worlds is fundamentally flawed and requires ideological blinkers and confirmation bias to even make sense. For example, was the United States pursuing “Third Worldist” policies when it armed and trained Vietnamese nationalist Ho Chi Minh’s guerrillas to fight the Japanese and the French? Did Ho Chi Minh transition from First Worldist to Third Worldist when he appealed to the USSR to help him later? How do we characterize Third Worldist Mao colluding with the US government to subsidize the Khmer Rouge in Cambodia in their conflict with the Soviet-backed Vietnamese?

What of the Pan-Arabists, who took inspiration from German Nationalsocialism and even worked with German emigres to fight for their sovereignty? Gamal Abdel Nasser initially appealed to Dwight Eisenhower for an alliance following the Egyptian revolution, but was rejected due to the White House’s fear that any weapons sold could be used against Israel. Eventually, Nasser wrote the US off as being captured by Jews and went to the USSR for support instead. Was this an act of “Third Worldism,” or commonsense nationalism?

Fidel Castro, a figure popularly associated with 20th century “Third Worldism,” also enjoyed American support. Washington initially supported Fulgencio Batista, but as the revolution developed, wound up betraying him and implemented a weapon’s embargo in 1958 that was essential to Castro’s triumph a year later. It was only when Castro’s new government decided to nationalize the casinos of Meyer Lansky and other Jewish gangsters operating on the island that relations soured.

Castro would later go on to declare Cuban military adventures in Africa and the Middle East as acts of anti-fascist third world solidarity, yet simultaneously, he retained a lifelong close alliance and personal friendship with Francisco Franco.

Cuban independence is itself a product of American interventionism. Cuba’s freedom from Spain came after the 1898 Spanish-American war, which was openly prosecuted in the name of ending the supposedly unique cruelty of European imperialism in the Caribbean.

Before that, President John Adams provided crucial military and financial aid to the blood-curdling Haitian revolution, including fighting a naval war to prevent French forces commanded by Napoleon Bonaparte from saving the white people stranded on the island. Following their US sponsored victory, Haitian forces would go on to massacre every white man, woman and child they could get their hands on. The Jefferson administration would later reverse this policy approach, but the damage was done.

In his article, Stark mentions that Israel supported Apartheid South Africa. This is true, but ideology and solidarity played no part in this. The South African state offered to trade Israel the materials needed for their illegal nuclear weapons program in exchange for international Jewry shielding the country from bad publicity. Once the Israelis got what they wanted, Jews suddenly turned their back on the country and politically isolated it via the United States and Britain. Anti-Apartheid activists, both on the left and the right, were overwhelmingly Jewish, and often pro-Israel as well. One of the main players in this nuclear intrigue between Israel and South Africa, the Hollywood mogul and Mossad agent Arnon Milchan, has produced countless films racially demonizing whites, such as 12 Years A Slave.

As for Israel’s support for Serbia, this was also fleeting and circumstantial. When Serbian forces laid siege to Sarajevo in 1993, the Serbs offered to allow the 300 Jews in the city to leave the conflict zone in exchange for Israeli weapons — effectively a hostage negotiation. It should be noted that Yasser Arafat, then leader of the PLO, also expressed full support for Serbia throughout these conflicts, despite the fact that many of Slobodan Milosevic’s opponents were Muslim. Nevertheless, we can’t omit that the decision to bomb Serbia in 1999 was made by the Zionist Jew Madeline Albright and executed by another Jewish individual, NATO General Wesley Clark.

Israel’s support for Serbia, aside from a few arms transfers and half-hearted diplomatic support, was meaningless. In 2020, Israel officially recognized Kosovo. Kosovo is the most pro-Israel Muslim country on the planet.

The First Worldist USA and Third Worldist USSR both supported anti-colonialist movements as intrinsic to their mutually shared post-war agenda of neutering Europe via NATO and the Warsaw Pact. In some cases, rival rebel factions battled each other and the European element at the same time, as in the case of Angolan independence, where the Portuguese fought alone against proxies backed by the communist bloc and the liberal West.

Aside from the distinction being ahistorical, it is also obsolete. Nations understood as Third World are now becoming increasingly sophisticated and wealthy. Last year, BRICS nations surpassed the G7 in global share of GDP per PPP. Naturally, these countries no longer feel they should have to tolerate bullying and harassment from the cabal in charge of Washington.

According to their own liberal indexes, both the United States and Israel are beginning to cluster with developing nations. The Economist’s Global Democracy Index placed America below three Latin America states in 2022. The United Nation’s Sustainable Development report, which tracks wealth inequality, health care, infrastructure, and education, ranks America at 39th and Israel at 48th, significantly below Europe and even many non-European states.

So in other words, this informal distinction between First World and Third World is not clear cut, including on racial grounds. Diplomatic missions from the leader of the “free world” the United States increasingly lack white non-Jewish male representation, especially compared to their allegedly “third world” Russian counterparts. Some even joke that the judicial rulers in Iran’s Guardian Council are objectively more Aryan than the heavily Jewish and multiracial US Supreme Court. The superfluous and stupid memes appealing to base impulses featuring European-looking Ashkenazi Jews could easily be countered with the millions of fair featured Muslims throughout the Middle East, North Africa and Central Asia.

As for the Western left, it’s true that they have retained some of their support for the Palestinian cause on human rights grounds, but they generally do not support Hamas, nor are they “Third Worldists” in any ideologically consistent sense.

Most American anarchists and communists support the CIA and Mossad backed Kurdish rebels in Rojava against the legitimate government of Syria, for example. Many Western leftists have even gone so far as to volunteer to fight with them.

In 2011, the American left rallied behind the US and NATO backed rebels against Muhammar Qaddaffi, perhaps one of the most influential “Third Worldists” to ever live. Marxists, many of them of Jewish ancestry, squared their bizarre support for Washington’s neo-conservative regime change endeavor by claiming that they supported the rebels but not the NATO bombing runs removing all the obstacles in their way.

You won’t hear most Western leftists defend the right of Ugandans to pass anti-LGBT legislation, which the Africans have defended in anti-imperialist, third worldist terms. Few, if any, serious leftists celebrated the Taliban liberating its people from two brutal decades of US occupation.

In fact, prominent Marxist thought leaders like Slavoj Zizek support Western sanctions on Uganda. Zizek has been calling on the United States and NATO to intervene further on behalf of Ukraine!

Clearly the left is capable of compartmentalizing its hatred of white majorities in the West separately from its remarkably sympathetic views of America’s post-Obama left-liberal presented interventionist agenda. Polls show that right-leaning Americans are more isolationist and anti-war than left-leaning ones.

In truth, the views of Iran, Russia and China on issues such as gender, family values, tradition, and even immigration are much closer to those of the average American right-winger (and the global average), while the ruling ideology of the United States and the orientation of the Western left often appear hand-in-hand.

The exception is left-wing rejection of America’s unlimited backing for the barbaric actions of the Israeli government. But this is not ideological, it’s a moral question. Nobody tries to characterize the universal disgust and outrage provoked by ISIS’ horrific behavior and moral support for the forces trying to stop them as anything more than what it is. Well guess what? The overwhelming majority of people feel the same way about a regime that deliberately murders children by the 10s of thousands. This does not make you a Marxist-Leninist-Maoist follower of Gonzalo thought.