This is the first part of a 4-part series on a new term. These are the four parts:
1 – Deep Skepticism of Group Narratives
2 – Secular and Theistic Worldviews as Mere Masks of Group Identity
3 – The First and Third World Archetypes and reality (an effortpost with sources)
4 – First Worldism
This four-part series will not be meant to be a stand-alone, but the end point of the book “Now Comes the Hard Part”, which assumes normalized views on slavery, colonialism, segregation, and assumes both thin and thick racial heredetarian views.
The purpose of this is two-fold. First, it is to solve a language problem that I, and I know many others, have, when someone asks “what are you politically?”. Alt-Right has too many people, and can mean Milo and can mean Andrew Anglin. Perhaps this is valuable, maybe it’s good to be a bit of a chameleon in that way, I don’t know. But I want my views to be clear, and the reasoning to be clear.
At the outset, Richard Spencer was intentionally vague with alt-right so as to create an “idea space”. As a result, you’re seeing something that happened to “anarchism”, with a battle between the people who made the original term and new people who are making new definitions of “true anarchism” and “true alt right”. And like Spencer, the original anarchists didn’t want to rigidly define anarchism, because they didn’t want to restrict people. And so then they got anarcho-capitalism, something the original anarchists would consider an abomination, just as the original alt-right considers Paul Joseph Watson and Milo to be abominations.
But the horse has left the stable now, and there was a last-ditch attempt to reclaim and standardize the meaning of alt-right with this article and energetic but scattershot individual attempts to correct alt-lite calling themselves alt-right. But I don’t see it working any more than classical anarchists trying to remove an-cap. The model needs to be Karl Marx and Ayn Rand. While anyone can go around and lie about what Marx and Rand believed, the fact is that both are defined by the writings of a person, which can be cited to settle disputes. It’s not just there in the air as “anarchism” and “alt right” currently are.
And the second purpose is to come up with a new term for the people who call themselves “leftists”. Because “leftist” is vague, and it doesn’t get at the root of what they are all about. And what they are all about is the third world: they support both third world government policies and third world genetics. Either they are third-worlders themselves, or they are dupes of the third-worlders. Either way, they are third-worldISTS.
It also focuses them into the deeply racial nature of what they advocate, cutting through the BS about “equality” and sidestepping dumb cuckservative attempts to pathologize “the left” as having something to do with being “against judeo-christian values” or some crap about taxes and hard work. By calling third worldists “leftists”, you allow the user of the term to focus on things other than race as whatever they imagine to be the essential values of “the left”. Which, as most readers here should know, is stupid, as all policy disputes are going to be decided by racial majorities.
This isn’t ready for prime time just yet. Right now I’m quickly going to bang out these posts, which means no sources for a while; but it’s all pretty simple history stuff so if I say something incorrect it should be fairly obvious eventually.
Foreign Political Armies and “Oppressed Minorities”
Muammar Gaddafi, like many regimes, used foreign troops to enforce the will of the regime on a non-compliant population. Following the revolution, if found, blacks would be charged for collaboration with Gaddafi unless they could prove otherwise, as they were more likely than Libyans to be part of Gaddafi’s forces.
Gaddafi was also considered to be more popular among Aficans in Libya than among Libyans. Would the “left wing” thing be to stand with the black minority and Gaddafi against the Caucasian Libyan uprising?
In Yugoslavia in WW2, Nazi Germany supplied and trained Croatian and Bosnian Muslims to control Serbia, a nation historically antagonistic to Austria and Germany, and the only republic within Yugoslavia that put up any serious resistance to the German invasion.
Would aligning with the “minority” Croats and Muslims within the traditional boundary of Serbia be “left wing”? After all, I’m sure they have plenty of stories to tell you about how the mean old Serbs oppressed them when they were in charge.
During the Spanish Civil War, Francisco Franco used Moroccan troops to fight the Republicans. Which is to say, Franco’s coalition included some darker skinned people from Morocco, and was thus more racially diverse than the Republicans.
Mao Zedong, during various revolts in Beijing, used Mongolian troops to put down the revolts, as domestic troops would refuse to fire on people from the same region.
The Soviets also regularly used troops from the Central Asian Republics to put down riots or revolts in Russia and Ukraine.
The Romans would bring in “Barbarian” troops from Gaul and Germania to suppress revolts in Rome.
You can probably find many more examples of autocratic leaders arming and training some “oppressed minority” to use as an internal army to quash domestic opposition.
The Sacred Tribulation
There was a very illuminating interview between a Romanian and Nigel Farage (who is from Britain). There was some EU legislation about corruption that was written to deal with a problem Romania has but would apply to all EU countries. Nigel Farage mentioned how silly it is for the UK to be in a political union with a country as backward as Romania.
A Romanian caller called in and called Farage a “racist”. Farage responded by claiming the Romanians treated the Gypsies poorly, and the caller responded saying that’s different as Gypsies are criminals, con-artists and layabouts.
A similar dynamic would be the Turks in Germany claiming oppression, and yet limiting any kind of Armenian influence on Turkish politics.
Or Moroccans claiming marginalization in Holland, but building a giant wall and making laws preventing any black African from entering and becoming a citizen in Morocco.
Or Egyptians, complaining about marginalization when the enter Europe as they make laws restricting the practice of the Coptic Christians in Egypt.
Or we can point to the Zulu, who were in the process of conquering the Khoisan region of South Africa and putting them under Zulu rule, and later complain about the horrible oppression of the Dutch, then British, who essentially entered “their” land and just started farming and setting up a new country with zero regard for the Zulu and Khoi people around them.
Or Japanese in the United States who claim to be put-upon for being Japanese, while Japan allows in almost no immigrants and allows establishments to explicitly discriminate against non-Japanese.
The Mughals, who controlled roughly half of the area of “India”, had no problem ruling over people of different races, languages and religions. But then later fought against the British and, when they lost, considered it a horrible injustice that the British stole their “Mughal lands”.
Later, when Britain had enough of managing India, Ghandi, who was a relentless advocate of separation from Britain, was just as adamant that the Muslims not be allowed a separate state (today Pakistan and Bangladesh, though at the time of partition it was a single state of Pakistan), and that Sri Lanka be kept as part of India.
Going back to South Africa, Nelson Mandela, who was imprisoned for blowing up buses full of children, was adamant that “apartheid” end. However, like Ghandi, he was opposed to any partition, and refused to negotiate the existence of a white country around Cape Town and in Transvaal (similar to Pakistan and Bangladesh). And during their rise, and once in power, the ANC actually killed more political opponents than the National Party did.
Another two controversial examples would be the German occupation of Czech and Poland. At the end of WW1, a state “Czechoslovakia” was created, which had the nations Czech and Solvakia, along with Hungarian and Ukranian-majority regions, and a German majority area known as Sudety.
The Czechs had no problem engaging in “land reform” on the Germans, taking their lands and handing it to Czechs, not counting German votes in Czechoslovak elections. And even the Slovaks, the #2 group in the country, wanted out. It was only with German support that the Slovaks were able to break off. And the Germans first took Sudety from the Czechs, and then took the ethnically Czech part of the country and made it semi-independent but whose resources could be conscripted for military purposes.
This is similar to the relations Britain used to have with Canada, Australia-New Zealand and Ireland. The Czechs in the past, or Bohemians, always conquered as much as they could get away with, controlling the whole of Silesia and even being the Holy Roman Emperor several times, which was essentially king of “Germany” at the time. They had no problem keeping unwilling Germans, Slovaks, Hungarians and Ukrainians under their rule, but when the Germans took over, then it was a great atrocity.
And in Poland, Hitler simply wanted rail access to East Prussia, an isolated pocket of German territory, cut off from the bulk of Germany by the Danzig corridor, and control over the city of Danzig, which was majority German, but allowing Poland to keep their port city of Gdynia. Hitler didn’t even demand the majority German lands in Poznania, and had plans to include Poland in a military alliance along with Hungary and Romania. He was also willing to forgive the Poles cutting off German rail access across the corridor to East Prussia, which was a treaty violation.
But once the war began, Germany inflamed propaganda about Polish atrocities against the German minority – real or imagined – to justify their invasion. Prior to this, Poland had invaded Lithuania and Czechoslovakia in the 1920s, and also invaded the Soviet Union while the USSR was still fighting a Civil war, and pushed as far as Kiev, the capital of Ukraine, and Minsk, the capital of Belarus. In the peace settlement Poland took large chunks of Ukraine and Belarus from the USSR. In fact, after the war with the USSR, Byelorussian and Ukrainian lands were about half of the land mass of the state of Poland, and Poles only made up 69% of the population of “Poland”.
But once Germany invaded, then the Poles perceived themselves as a pure victim. And the narrative in the west was “plucky little Poland”.
This game is constant, this game is universal. The Hebrews, who were almost certainly mercenaries who worked for the Pharaoh as political shock troops, claim to have been slaves who, when they tried to escape, were ruthlessly pursued by the Pharaoh; when in reality the Pharaoh let them leave and probably went after them only when he heard the Hebrews were sacking towns for supplies.
Then the Hebrews enter Canaan, and by their own words slaughter them all, but that’s okay because the Canaanites were really really bad, the Hebrews tell us.
So this tactical use of “oppression” narrative is at least as old as Moses and Exodus, or about 3,300 years, and is probably quite a bit older than that.
And so when you hear of some group saying they are immensely put-upon, and tell you all the stories – rape, extreme forced labor, beatings, killing for minor infractions, breaking up families – remember that these stories are all designed for some political goal. They are not disinterested accounts of events. It is their sacred tribulation.
“Oppression” Narrative as Prelude to Belligerence
The two archetypal uses of “oppression” as a rationale for belligerence are Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union. Hitler of course used Versailles – the debt and territory loss – and the perceived treatment of Germans in Poland.
The Soviet Union used the idea of the oppressed worker to justify the invasion of basically any other country. Of course they still had to deal with military realities; but their internal story would justify any invasion of any non-“communist” country to their own population. In addition to duping the usual suspects in the United States and other NATO countries.
Less well known is how the Serbs used the perceived Nazi oppression to justify their subjugation of the Bosnian Muslims and the Croats within the new, “communist” Yugoslavia.
Similarly, Poles and Czechs, as the Germans started to lose the war, helped themselves to historically German lands in Silesia, Deutsche-Krone and East and West Prussia, and Sudety, citing German oppression for the land grab.
Not surprisingly, the Poles, the Czechs and Serbs, along with the USSR, played up Nazi atrocities – real or imagined – as much as they could.
Mao also used both the global oppression of the worker and the perceived oppression of China by “the west” to galvanize the Chinese population for a war against the United States in Korea. But the Chinese were constrained militarily from doing much else.
The United States used the events – real or imagined – of the sinking of the USS Maine and the sinking of the USS Maddox in the Gulf of Tonkin to invade Spanish Cuba and the Spanish Philippines, and to send troops to Vietnam, respectively.
The Kuwait war in 1991 is another example of an oppression narrative. Prior to the Kuwait war, Iran had a fundamentalist revolution, and the Iraqi perception was that Iran wanted to unify all Shia Muslims, which included most of the population of Iraq and Kuwait. Iran, then Persia, attempted something similar in 1917 during World War 1 when they invaded the area of modern day Iraq, then controlled by the Ottoman Empire.
Iraq fought an 8-year war from 1980-1988 with Iran, and went into heavy debt, including debt with the country of Kuwait. The region of Kuwait had always historically been a part of the Mesopotamian civilization, and Kuwait being separate from the rest of Mesopotamia was merely a result of it being occupied by the British while the Ottomans controlled what is today Iraq, and when the British took what is now Iraq from the Ottomans, they never combined the two. And so you had “Iraq” and “Kuwait” as two separate countries.
The perception in Kuwait and Iraq was that Iran planned to invade Kuwait as well, and Saddam expected Kuwait to forgive the loans they made to Iraq during the war – given that Iraq supposedly protected them from Iran. But Kuwait refused and stuck to terms on the loan.
Moreover during the Iran-Iraq war, Kuwait, which already has far more oil per person than Iraq due to it’s location right on the coast of the Persian Gulf, engaged in slant drilling, sucking up oil from oil deposits within the land and sea borders of Iraq.
All of these reasons led Saddam to invade Kuwait. And then came the oppression narratives, of Saddam’s forces ripping babies out of incubators, using chemical weapons and fuel-air explosives against the Kuwaitis. And this galvanized US support for the war against an Iraq desperate and hollowed out from 8 years of war with Iran.
This is not to say that the US intervention wasn’t justified. Maybe you think it was or it wasn’t. But it certainly wasn’t what most people thought it was. And given that, at the time, the US public didn’t know it would be such a one-sided fight, they probably would not have supported it without the atrocity stories or if they knew the whole backstory.
Leading up to the Great War of 1914, the Austrians justified their invasion of Serbia with Serbian terrorism in Austria-Hungary. Germany honored their alliance with Austria, which meant war with Russia as Russia was allied with Serbia, and war with France as France was allied with Russia.
But part of the motivation for war against France was the perception in Germany that France and Britain had prevented Germany from getting colonies, and were conspiring to keep Germany contained and weak. Another oppression narrative.
Then during the war, Germany, instead of attacking the hilly and well-defended area on the French-German border, invaded Belgium and into France from the flatter and more open north.
And so the British press went to work about how the Germans were impaling Belgian babies on bayonets, were raping and murdering nuns, and would take villages and lock them into a barn and set fire to them. Once chemical weapons started to be used in the war, then you got stories about Germans locking Belgians in barns and gassing them.
All of these stories got the British into the war. Then, to get the United States into the war, the US military sent mixed ships filled both with civilians and military equipment. Their treaty with Germany allowed civilian ships to be sent to Britain and France, but ships carrying military equipment could be sunk. So by sending mixed cargoes, the US could send war material without fear of sinking or, should Germany sink a mixed-cargo ship, have an example of German brutality to goad the US public into war. The Lusitania was just such a mixed-cargo ship, it was sunk, and that’s what happened.
But in each instance, oppression narratives were key to goading populations into war in WW1. Even Austria-Hungary pushed the narrative that Serbia, because they were protected by Russia, was able to terrorize them without fear of reprisal.
Mass Immigration as Military Action Against an Opponent
During World War 2, one of the things Nazi Germany did was to “colonize” both France and Poland with German settlements. After the war this was brought up as one of the atrocities Germany committed.
In the Soviet Union, one of the things Stalin did was move ethnicities around, isolating them, and turning them into Russians. For example, moving Ukrainians into Russia proper, and moving Russians into areas that were formerly majority Ukrainian, reducing the area of majority-Ukranian land and, because Ukranians are white, converting Ukranians into Russians inside Russia by isolating them from any other Ukranians.
Until very recently, Israel supported and supplied settlements in Judea-Samara / The West Bank. These were Jewish settlements in a majority-Muslim area. This was considered a “human rights violation” by the United Nations.
ISIS, which has operations in Libya, has stated that part of their strategy is to promote mass immigration to Europe – both Middle Eastern / North African and black African. The idea is that this will destabilize Europe.
Gaddafi, just before the NATO air strikes on Libya which, in conjunction with the anti-Gaddafi “rebels” on the ground, ultimately overthrew him, Gaddafi threatened to send millions of black Africans to Europe, saying he would turn Europe black unless they gave him 4 billion Euros. He correctly saw mass migration in military terms.
When the Chinese began mass importing of Chinese into Tibet, the whole world recognized this as an aggressive military act – independent of the invasion that occurred back in 1950. Like with the Israeli settlements, there were protests saying to “free Tibet” in response to mass Chinese immigration.
Similarly, when the League of Nations condemned Japan’s actions in Manchuria, part of the list of grievances against Japan was Japanese settlements in both Manchuria and Korea.
When the Turks settled the then-majority-Greek areas of eastern Anatolia, including Constantinople, that was seen at the time as a terrible tragedy by Europe. And the settlement of Bulgaria and Serbia with Turks was also seen as a form of immolation of those countries.
Lets say you want to bring a Kenyan into France. What is the outcome of this? Ignoring the likely net economic cost of the Kenyan to France, the result is that Kenya is still 100% Kenyan, while France now has a Kenyan in it, who can vote. Send in a million, and now Kenya has 2% control of France, but retains 100% control of Kenya.
The reality is that mass immigration is a form of warfare against whoever you are immigrating against. It is seen that way by most people, and when non-Europeans are facing replacement-level immigration problems, even “liberal” white Europeans see it that way. If a country invades and takes 10% of your land, well, they took 10%. If they mass migrate and make up 10% of your population, well, either they can vote or otherwise influence as 10% of the population.
This is a normal way to see this, this is how the third-worlders moving into Europe see it, they see it as a form of conquest, and to the extent they think about anything at all, are puzzled by how dumb white Europeans are. This is how white Europeans in the past would have seen it, and it’s even how Europeans today see it when it’s done to other people.
What has happened is some worm has entered the minds of Europeans, something changed and caused Europeans to brutally suppress their own survival instincts. Europeans are facing the conditions of military defeat without having lost a war to cause it.
Which is More Likely?
If what I say here is true – then one should have a deep skepticism of any politics involving grievances. Of course that includes some of the things I say, because while most of what I do is argue against anti-white grievance narratives, I do have a limited grievance narrative of my own. But most people are deeply skeptical about what I say anyway, so applying this skepticism universally would just make a level playing field that improves my position.
Now, there are particular grievance narratives that exist today. We know that most of the ones in the past were fake or exaggerated beyond reason. Now, without any information, our BIAS should be that, whatever grievance narrative is popular today – slavery, segregation, – is probably, like the ones in the past, fake or exaggerated. You should certainly entertain that as a possibility, unless you think your bugaboo is special.