On Accusations of Third-Worldism

It is beyond evident that accusations of Third Worldism are used against American dissidents as a means of discrediting their narrative that Israel and her interloping agents are in control of America, and that support for Palestine would dislodge this occupying force.

On Accusations of Third-Worldism

The events of October 7th have altered the world in several serious ways. Armed conflict is currently ongoing in the Holy Land. Regional alliances, networks, and economic deals have been put on hold or terminated as a result. One thing, however, which seemingly is always the same is America’s continued undying support for the state of Israel. It is a given that the United States will support its so-called Greatest Ally time and time again. With powerful lobbying organizations such as AIPAC (the American-Israel Public Affairs Committee) putting up serious money (or primary challengers), the members of the Legislative, as well as the federal apparatus overall, hold fast to this continued support that Israel enjoys. 

There are very few places in American society where this arrangement is questioned and challenged. The most notable in recent years, however, has been the dissenting factions within the American Right. Led by young men, such as Nick Fuentes, this younger cohort of the American Right frequently challenges the influence and control over American politics that Israel and its international agents enjoy. A deep desire for national sovereignty and American independence is the foundation of this belief; this is the common sense position for American nationalists to hold.

This has not been without pushback from elements in the American Right which claim to be adjacent nationalists. Some have argued that support for Palestine is a Third Worldist position. The label “Third Worldist” has been thrown around in online circles following Hamas' strike against Israel on October 7th – but who is making such accusations? Which groups would benefit from slandering Americans advocating for their own sovereignty?

American Dissident Strategy

For starters, Third Worldism refers to the support for regimes which are not aligned and oftentimes adversarial to the United States or the ever-nebulous “West”. These regimes are, of course, found in the Third World and are commonly identified with Russia, China, Iran, North Korea, Venezuela, Palestine, etc. Charges of Third-Worldism are meant to highlight the seemingly hypocritical position some American nationalists hold where they will support America’s adversaries overseas yet still claim to be ardent American nationalists. However, this supposed hypocrisy is in fact a pragmatic argument centered around the issues of legitimacy and power projection.

Holding that the American regime is in fact occupied by interlopers who do not have America’s interests in mind, for the American nationalists who are invariably outside of the regime, there is a strategic advantage in supporting the regime’s enemies abroad temporarily. Doing so potentially redirects the regime’s gaze from the domestic activities of dissidents and out towards the rest of the world, buying themselves time to build up their infrastructure and base of power. Additionally, it is beneficial for revolutionaries if their enemy in the regime loses its ability to project power abroad. Losing nodes within its sphere of influence, primarily Ukraine and Taiwan, deprives access to these economies and resources, as well as whatever strategic positions they may occupy. Furthermore, the degradation of American power abroad will have a radicalizing effect on the American population. The already disenfranchised Americans will become more incensed to support these dissidents as the solution to a faltering America abroad, seeing that the current regime is completely bankrupt in its achievements. 

Support for these foreign, adversarial regimes comes from a place of pragmatism and an understanding of power politics, and not from a place of admiration or desire for domination by foreigners. Once in power, the goal of American nationalists is to put the interests of America before all others, adversaries and allies alike. The most preferable course of events for these nationalists is to support the opposition of the American empire abroad. It is still an unequivocally desirable position to dominate the globe, and American nationalists seek this same level of domination in their future regime. A Third Worldist would give up America’s influence abroad. An American nationalist is a recusant of the empires influence up to the point of their own assumption of power.

Those Doing the Accusing

With the internal logic of the position secured, we must now turn to who exactly is throwing around the charges of Third Worldism. Most vocally, this refrain is being sung from those who claim to be a part of the “dissident right”. This sphere of online influencers centers around the self proclaimed nudist, fascist bodybuilder Bronze Age Pervert, known in real life and academia as Costin Alamariu. Costin and his acolytes promote a specific brand of dissident politics that is renowned for its transgressivity and edginess. Frequent activities include obsessing over the criminality of American blacks, posting homoerotic images of men (poast fizeek), and sexualized cartoon images of young girls. Another unique element involves sharing Nazi imagery or photos from the Second World War, usually accompanied by allusions to Nietzsche and Evola.

It may then surprise you to find out that Alamariu and his orbiters are the most vocal opponents of these American dissidents and supporters of the status quo in Israel. These personas have made clear their enmity for the American nationalists and their critiques of Israel's Middle East policy. Here are some examples of this activity.

User "Bronze Age Pervert", aka Costin Alamariu, presenting us with a false dichotomy

User "Zero HP Lovecraft" and his Nietzschean analysis

User "russiancosmist", aka Martin. Ironically he is Canadian.

Setting the Narrative, Winning the War

This is all part of framing this war to ensure continued support for the Israeli cause. Someone’s perception of the conflict, what the sides are and why it is happening are crucial to what that person will support in regards to the conflict. Support for Israel, this tiny foreign nation with a people and religion alien to our own is not a guarantee for Israel and its agents in America. In order to ensure Israel has the backing of the United States it must ensure its own narrative is the dominant one and that there is significant buy-in from American elites and public alike. 

During Israel’s initial conflicts, including the Six Day War and Yom Kippur War, support amongst the American Right for the Israeli cause was whipped into existence through equating Israel’s enemies with the Soviet Union and communism. As the Soviet Union funded Israel’s Arab neighbors, a convenient picture was painted in the minds of Americans that Israel’s continued existence was crucial in combating communism abroad, specifically in the Middle East.

Following the events of September 11th, 2001 Israeli rhetoric took a turn towards equating Israel’s enemies as radical jihadists. Building up to 9/11 were various attacks carried out by Muslims, such as the PanAm Flight 103 bombing, the USS Cole bombing, or the 1993 World Trade Center bombing which convinced the American public that its enemy in a post-Soviet world was Islam. Israel was able to paint a new picture wherein her enemies were radical jihadists, and that supporting Israel’s wars, which were funded and carried out by America, ensured that America would not have to fight Islam at home. American intervention in Iraq and support for the Syrian Opposition were prime examples, even though both of these regimes were run by men who adhered to the secular Ba’ath party.

And as we are seeing today, a third generation of narrative framing has begun. Palestine is equated with “wokeness” in America, specifically Black Lives Matter and non-White immigration. Palestine plays the role as the “Third Worldist” state which racially conscious or nationalistic Americans are meant to rally against. Israel plays the role of the “White” resistance, being called by leftists and kosher right wingers alike as the “European settler state”, and the general idea being that Israel is Europe’s bulwark against mass third-world immigration, and supporting Israel abroad will help in the fight against demographic change at home. This narrative, whilst of course not popular with the regime or the American left, has become the dominant one in the mainstream American right. Here are some of the largest conservative X accounts pushing this narrative.

Of course, this narrative soon falls apart at the realization that these refugees and the mass immigration crisis was a creation of the Middle Eastern wars, of which Israel was the driving force behind. Siding with Israel in the current conflict is counter-intuitive to any nationalist who has paid the slightest bit of attention to history and the events which have led to our current situation. Ironically, supporting Israel in the current conflict is going to create even more refugees for Europe and America to take in. The best part is that the plan for Europe to take in Gazan refugees will likely originate in the Israeli Knesset, as has already been discussed. 

What's Really Going On

It is beyond evident that accusations of Third Worldism are used against American dissidents as a means of discrediting their narrative that Israel and her interloping agents are in control of America, and that support for Palestine would dislodge this occupying force. By attempting to outflank American dissidents by claiming they are not sufficiently against the Third World and mass immigration, Zionists are helping to define what the priorities of American nationalists should be: focus on Israel and its occupation agents in America first. The immigration issue can and will be assimilated into a kosher political dialectic, and so the first step towards national sovereignty is to break this method of narrative control through a convincing counter-narrative.