1,889 words

Rightist third-worldism is a tendency among people of the broadly understood Right — nationalists, New Rightists etc. — to take the side of the “Third World.” The Third World is understood by them very differently from its original meaning — that is, referring to those countries that were not on either side of the Cold War). I think that in most cases “Third World” basically means “non-white countries.” Thus, in reality Rightist third-worldism boils down to people of the Right taking the side of non-white countries, because they think that for certain reasons it would benefit their own countries. I believe that this is a completely wrong viewpoint and aim to explain why in this short essay.

A brief history of Rightist third-worldism

The two Rightist thinkers, among those who have the most influence on the contemporary Right, who were the first to present a form of third-worldism were the founders of Integral Traditionalism, René Guénon and Julius Evola. Already in their early fundamental works — Guénon in Crisis of the Modern World and Evola in Revolt Against the Modern World — argued that the West is not synonymous with the ideology of progress, humanism, and secularism, and that these are a corruption of the original Western Tradition. They have also argued that the East is not inferior to the West given that it has preserved more elements of the original Primordial Tradition. While Guénon went so far as to claim that the East is in fact superior to the West, and that it is only in the East that man can reunite with Tradition, Evola claimed that putting action above contemplation is a unique Western path which can still be followed today. Regardless of these differences, both Guénon and Evola inaugurated a different way of looking at both the East and the West on the Right which would eventually result in the birth of contemporary Rightist third-worldism.

The pinnacle of Rightist third-worldism came with Alain de Benoist and the French New Right, especially his book Europe, Tiers monde, même combat (Europe, Third World, One Struggle), first published in 1986. In this work, de Benoist makes all the classic Rightist third-worldist arguments: Both Europe and the Third World are victims of American imperialism, liberalism, and capitalism; Europe and the Third World should unite in a struggle against the United States; non-white migrants are not the main problem but rather the liberal capitalist order which brings them here; and the Third World is in a terrible state because the West continually undermines or destroys it. This was paired with the new concept of “ethnopluralism,” the idea that every ethnic group, white or non-white, has the right to preserve its own identity and does not need to be in conflict with any other ethnic group when it is minding its own business.

Alain de Benoist’s ideas were soon developed — or rather various elements of these ideas, and to varying degrees — by Claudio Mutti, Derek Holland, Roberto Fiore, Troy Southgate, and most other New Right and Third Position figures and organizations. They were finally picked up by the famous charlatan Alexander Dugin, who made use of them when speaking to Rightist audiences, and it is probably due to this influence — along with English translations of Alain de Benoist and interest in the French New Right — that Rightist third-worldism has enjoyed a second coming, this time among contemporary anglophone nationalists such as the National Justice Party.

Fallacies of Rightist third-worldism

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. This is false. The vast majority of white people of either the Left or Right hugely underestimate the level of hatred that non-whites have for people of other ethnicities, especially white people. The level of racial hatred which even those whites who identify as racists would consider borderline mad is the norm among non-whites. Non-whites are ethnocentric by default. They hate people of other ethnicities exactly because of the otherness of their ethnicities; hatred for the characteristics associated with other ethnic groups is a consequence of this original racial hatred. Hatred for other ethnic groups is the starting point, not the endpoint, of the non-white vision of the world and society.

The Rightist third-worldist believes that non-whites hate liberalism and capitalism, and thus they hate the West and white people. In reality, non-whites simply hate the West and white people, and therefore they hate liberalism and capitalism. Had white people been conservative monarchists, non-whites would hate conservatism and monarchy (anti-colonialist movements in the British colonies in the early twentieth century are a good example). Had white people been Communists, non-whites would hate Communism (non-white independence movements in the Soviet Union are a good example, where Communism was associated with white Communists, in this case with the Russians). Changing the predominant ideology in the West will not change non-whites’ hatred for the West and white people, because this deeply-rooted racial hatred is the unchangeable basis of the non-white worldview.

This current non-white hatred of liberalism and capitalism, and their past hatred of conservatism and monarchy, is just a declaration and an expression of non-white ressentiment towards white people. My main proof to support this argument is the fact that whenever they are faced with the possibility of voting with their feet, non-whites choose to go to liberal and capitalist white countries. This has nothing to do with their ideology or their current system of government, but everything to do with the fact that whites are much better at creating well-functioning countries than non-whites. Despite their declarations, non-whites are well aware of this fact — much more so than whites, in fact.

Here we touch upon the next fallacy of the Rightist third-worldists: Non-white countries are in a poor state because of Western colonialism and exploitation as well as present aggressive Western foreign policies. This in turn causes increased non-white migration to the West. While one must admit that Western foreign policy, especially when it comes to the Middle East, used to be quite aggressive, and the invasions of Iraq or Afghanistan were pointless and surely did not improve the situation in the region — this is not the main cause of the poor situation there (or in any other non-white region, for that matter). The fact is that non-whites have not been able to create a well-functioning country. There are some examples of quite well-functioning non-European countries, such as ancient Persia or modern Japan, although the former was a “borderline white” country and the latter is a mix of white social order with non-white ethnocentrism. Non-white countries have always oscillated between anarchy and tyranny, both of which are based on violence and exploitation.

China is a great example. Although it has been ruled by local despots (warlords), an Emperor, or by a Communist dictator throughout its history, one feature remains constant: It has always been a dog-eat-dog society where the state’s purpose is to rob you, not protect you. The history of Europe and the larger West has not been all roses, either, but the common people have on average had it much better here than those in non-white countries. Non-white countries have been either anarchical or tyrannical since long before Western colonialism, and are still this way almost a century after Western colonialism ended. No matter how many bombs or food the West sends, non-white countries will always be worse to live in than white countries. Again, this is something that non-whites are well aware of (and they are much more aware of it than whites).

The overall permanent poor state of non-white countries is directly connected to the next fallacy of the Rightist third-worldists: non-white immigration to white countries is a consequence of Western foreign policies. Now, I must admit that there is some truth to this: Non-whites migrate to white countries because white countries are a better place to live. But the rest of that statement is false. As I have just argued, the poor state of non-white countries is not caused by Western foreign policy but by non-whites themselves. Hence the final third-worldist fallacy: Had the West ceased interfering in the Middle East or any other non-white region, we would not have non-white immigration from these countries. This is false. While the West should cease interfering in the Middle East, because it is not beneficial to whites, this is not the cause of non-white migration. The actual cause is the fact that white countries are better places to live. Let us observe that it is not during a crisis such as a war that most non-whites come to Europe. It is rather during times of relative peace and when conditions in these countries improve — i.e., when the conditions are good enough for non-whites to carry out their migration. There will always be migrants from non-white countries, and we should be thinking about actual ways of stopping them. Improving the conditions in non-white regions will actually mean more non-white migration into white countries.

The answer to the fallacy: Taking our own side

Rightist third-worldism is a great proof of the evolutionary biologists’ claim that a positive trait — in this case, intelligence and abstract thinking — can become an obstacle or even the downfall of both an individual or a whole group. René Guénon ended up rejecting his French identity, converting to Islam, and role-playing as an Arab, ultimately breeding out his genes through intermarriage. Alain de Benoist, for his part, has completely alienated himself from the nationalist scene in France, and while he remains one of the most important Rightist intellectuals of the twentieth century, he has lost any chance of seeing his ideas having any actual impact on the real world. By distancing himself from the Right, he has not found any following on the Left, who see him as an “evil fascist” who needs to be silenced into oblivion. Furthermore, non-whites do not care about “ethnopluralism” or the “common struggle of Europe and the Third World”; they simply want to get free stuff from white people and ultimately see us go extinct. The only good thing about contemporary Rightist third-worldists is that they have zero impact on the real world, and the only thing they can do is to cheer on non-whites as they genocide whites in their groups on Telegram and Discord.

My answer to the fallacy of Rightist third-worldism is the same as always: White people need to take their own side. There is no one coming to save us. Either we save ourselves or we become extinct. There is no common struggle of Europe and the Third World; there is only our struggle against our extinction. Liberal capitalism and the Third World are working hand-in-hand against us. While the original Rightist third-worldism of Alain de Benoist was a theory created in good faith, it is a perfect example of an intellectual overthinking simple truths and turning a blind eye to his own mistakes; the later Dugin-inspired aggressive third-wordlism is an anti-white cancer which needs to be removed from our movement.yo