The term Nationalism—as it is known outside of the West—is mostly synonymous with the anti-colonialist and anti-imperialist sentiments of the 19th and 20th century, that is to say Nationalism from the perspective of an Asian, African, Middle Easterner or Latin American is not merely an affirmation of ethnic and cultural identity, but also the rejection of White colonial or imperial authority, and to a certain degree, white culture.
However, there is also a paradox involved in the sense that the development of modern economic, technological and, to a lesser extent, political institutions are also synonymous with the concept of Westernization. For if truth be told, the White/Western World invented most of what people would now call modernity. In other words, the White/Western World was the template for what the rest of the world wanted to be, despite negative attitudes to Western projections of power.
So when white people created modern society, the rest of the world wanted copies of those societies for themselves. When white people embrace “Democracy,” the rest of the World sort of embraced “Democracy.” When white people created the internet, cars, and the bourgeois lifestyle, the rest of the world also adopted the internet, cars, and the bourgeois lifestyle. And when white people embraced multiculturalism and mass immigration, the rest of the world em . . . eh . . . we’re still deliberating that one.
So Nationalism in the traditional sense of the word, as perceived by a person of a non-western background, like myself, is something which is intertwined with both the rejection of the West, and the paradoxical imitation of the intellectual and technological achievements of the West.
I call this the “Go Home Yankee, And Take Me With You” Syndrome.
Now, there are many accounts on how this particular phrase developed here in the Philippines, but the most common among them was that back in the nineties, one of the protesters of Uncle Sam’s foreign policy was holding up a sign that said, “Go Home Yankee and Take Me With You.” And though it was taken to be a joke, it’s implications are much more serious than what some people think.
Of course, the Philippines is not the only country to have this kind of mentality. This type of intellectual dissociation exists among different nations all over the world, particularly in relation to the Western World. What this means, in my estimations, is that the concept of nationalism, which most non-white nations still adhere to, is largely outdated and is incapable of meeting challenges that the intellectual and economic proponents of globalism and modern soft-marxist liberalism put forth.
So what I am saying is that what is happening in the West (e.g. Hate Crime Legislation, Political Correctness, Deindustrialization, Mass Immigration and Multiculturalism) is a prelude to what may happen to the rest of the world. Already there are small indications that the rest of the world may also end up following the same path as the Western World if present trends continue.
The value of the New Right in both the US as well as in Europe is that it offers a serious intellectual critique of the modern zeitgeist which goes beyond the post-nationalist paradigm. So even if the goal of these movements is the preservation of the white race, the restoration of national sovereignity in Western Nations and an intellectual revolt against the established intellectual dogma, it also offers the intellectual template for many non-white nations to resist the globalist agenda, and to offer new ideas in relation to government and society.
And there is a need for such a template. Most non-white opposition to the international establishment is framed in the context anti-globalization, cultural and linguistic preservation, environmental protection, opposition to economic exploitation or simply, opposition to neo-liberalism. However, this opposition is expressed in a much different context than the traditional left/right dichotomy found in Western nations. For one thing, the metapolitical and historical narrative of the rest of the world is radically different from that of the West.
Despite these differences however, most of non-white opposition to ideas of the internationalist/globalist left lack the sophistication and complexity of New Right thinkers as well as their predecessors. That is not to say that there are no non-white thinkers who have put a lot of time or effort in opposing the Internationalist aspirations of the world’s various political, economic and intellectual elites.
However, what the New Right can offer is a different set of perspectives and alternatives. For even though identifying problems are easy, the New Right in the West is on ground zero of the globalist/internationalist project, and therefore have had more time forming their metapolitical and ideological solutions.
At this time, it’s impossible to tell just how many non-whites throughout the rest of world are aware of the ideas and positions of people like, Alain De Benoist, Tomislav Sunic, Joe Sobran, Pat Buchanan, Paul Gottfried, Alexander Dugin, etc . . . So even though a certain degree of commonality exists, the problem remains that people in the rest of the world are not aware of the existence of the New Right.
This problem – as I percieve it – is largely because the New Right in the West expresses itself in terms of pursuing and defending the rights of white and western nations. This is, of course, a good thing. However, unlike the Right, the Left (and this includes those the global capitalist Left) express themselves not in terms of any single group’s interests, but of humanity as a whole. And although the Left has had a terrible record in representing humanity’s interests, the fact remains that the Right is typically lacks an the percieved openess of their opponents. One need not look farther than the rhetoric of the Occupy Wall Street Protests.
So now the question is how can the ideas of the New Right be shared with the rest of the world?
In my view, there are certain prerequisites which have to be in place before Non-White Nationalists can begin adopting New Right ideas into the context of their respective nations.
First, there needs to be organization. Historically speaking, anti-colonial revolution has been organized by an intellectual elite which expressed and translate Western Nationalist (and Enlightenment) Ideas into the context of their own respective nations and peoples. So in order for non-whites to adopt the metapolitical discourse of the New Right, a receptive intellectual community from non-white countries must first be found and organized.
Second, there needs to be an incentive for Non-whites to adopt New Right Ideas. A good example of this would be to present political economic systems which can act as an alternative to the old capitalist/socialist dichotomy. I am confident that economic systems commonly associated with the right, such as Distributism, Productionism, Social Credit and Localized Economics, will be quite welcome to the rest of the world, and not just in the US and Europe.
Distributism, for example, may have its limitations as a practical economic system in industrialized societies, but it can be reasonably adapted to the needs of third world nations, most of which are still agrarian or semi-agrarian. If packaged correctly, the political economic ideas of people like, Hillaire Belloc and G.K. Chesterson, could be used as a way to introduce other New Right thinkers to the rest of the world.
Third, there needs to be a paradigm shift wherein Non-whites will recognize that the existing zeitgeist is not about a powerful country oppressing smaller and poor countries, but about powerful elites in one country working with receptive powerful elites in another country to pursue policies which are designed to exploit their respective nations.
The same may also be said among those who advocate white preservation in Western nations. The average peasant in Guatemala, India or the Philippines does not desire the destruction or the extermination of Western Nations. I would even hazzard to guess that some of them will oppose it.
At the moment, there are still a lot of people throughout the world who believe that Western Governments are engaging in wars as well as unfair economic and diplomatic practices on behalf of White/Western peoples. For those who are familiar with the problems faced in the West, that is obviously untrue.
Fourth, in order for Non-whites who adopt these ideas to make an impact, they need to be a visible and recognizable group with the potential to influence public discourse. And it doesn’t matter how the media will spin this type of news. As long as people recognize that there are non-whites throughout the world who are willing to adopt New Right ideas, it can cause a lot of people to rethink certain positions.
So having said all that, the ideas of the new-right being dessiminated to the rest of the world offers many possible implications:
What we have to remember about the left is that it draws its identity partly upon designated victim groups (e.g. women, homosexuals, minorities, labor advocates, environmental issues, etc . . . ). So if a significant and visible group of non-whites throughout the world were to adopt ideas which are rooted from authors and thinkers from “extremist right wing” groups in the west, it will force the leftists to reevaluate their ideological clientele in a way which can have serious and far reaching changes in their ideology.
I’m sure that some people have heard the terms Twinkie and Oreo, both of which are perjoratives used specifically to demonize a person of Asian or African ethnicity (respectively) adopting perceived conservative, right-wing, pro-white or pro-western positions. If the ideas of the New Right were to become popular in non-white nations, the Western mainstream media will be forced to think up ways to demonize these kinds of non-whites.
This is where it gets a little tricky. Obviously, most of the people who immigrate into the West do so, because they want better jobs and a better life, consequences be damned. If they announce their love for the “old country,” it’s typically in a very superficial way. After all, they didn’t love their country enough to stay in it.
If cultural, ethnic and racial preservation becomes adopted in unbiased way, and if non-whites recognize certain facts about the goals and incentives which drive global capitalism and neo-liberalism, they will also need to recognize that mass immigration into Western Nations as something to be opposed in principle. Such a recognition can potentially cause friction among non-whites whose sensibilities are more favorable to Leftist internationalism and non-whites who are geniunely nationalistic.
For quite a long time now, right wing movements in the west—in whatever form they take—are portrayed as hate-filled reactionaries. So it goes without saying that if non-whites were to adopt the ideas of the New Right, they will give their white counterparts a certain degree of legitimacy, not to mention devalue the misconception that Right wing movements in the West are inherently anti-non-white.
The ideas of Distributism, Social Credit, Productionism and other Third Postition Economic ideas can potentially offer solutions to the poverty of the Third World. Of course, getting tangible results will take a while, but what matters here is the perception that the New Right offers ideas which are potentially beneficial to the rest of the world.
There are other implications, but I will leave that for people to ponder, but as the old concept of nationalism (e.g. economic independence, anti-colonialism, nativism) is replaced by post-nationalist globalism, a new form of nationalism will become necessary, one which needs to be rooted in ideas which transcend the old left-right divide, and which offers actual independence of culture and of mind, as opposed to the negative identities used by old forms of nationalism, many of which were based on enlightenment ideals.
And this is what I like about the New Right. It is an attempt to change the cultural and moral landscape as a means of reinvigorating national and ethnic identity. So in my opinion the intellectual revolt of the New Right in the US and in Europe can act as prelude for the rest of the world to rethink itself in relation to modernity and the post-post-colonial world.
So do the various Right-Wing movements in the West have something beneficial to offer to the rest of the World?
In my opinion, they have a lot to offer. And although there may be the lack of a common cause, every true nationalist throughout the world, regardless of his or her background, has common interests to promote a new and radical form of universal nationalism. After all, the Left had been spreading its ideas for centuries now. It’s about time the Right did the same.
Spanish language version here
However, there is also a paradox involved in the sense that the development of modern economic, technological and, to a lesser extent, political institutions are also synonymous with the concept of Westernization. For if truth be told, the White/Western World invented most of what people would now call modernity. In other words, the White/Western World was the template for what the rest of the world wanted to be, despite negative attitudes to Western projections of power.
So when white people created modern society, the rest of the world wanted copies of those societies for themselves. When white people embrace “Democracy,” the rest of the World sort of embraced “Democracy.” When white people created the internet, cars, and the bourgeois lifestyle, the rest of the world also adopted the internet, cars, and the bourgeois lifestyle. And when white people embraced multiculturalism and mass immigration, the rest of the world em . . . eh . . . we’re still deliberating that one.
So Nationalism in the traditional sense of the word, as perceived by a person of a non-western background, like myself, is something which is intertwined with both the rejection of the West, and the paradoxical imitation of the intellectual and technological achievements of the West.
I call this the “Go Home Yankee, And Take Me With You” Syndrome.
Now, there are many accounts on how this particular phrase developed here in the Philippines, but the most common among them was that back in the nineties, one of the protesters of Uncle Sam’s foreign policy was holding up a sign that said, “Go Home Yankee and Take Me With You.” And though it was taken to be a joke, it’s implications are much more serious than what some people think.
Of course, the Philippines is not the only country to have this kind of mentality. This type of intellectual dissociation exists among different nations all over the world, particularly in relation to the Western World. What this means, in my estimations, is that the concept of nationalism, which most non-white nations still adhere to, is largely outdated and is incapable of meeting challenges that the intellectual and economic proponents of globalism and modern soft-marxist liberalism put forth.
So what I am saying is that what is happening in the West (e.g. Hate Crime Legislation, Political Correctness, Deindustrialization, Mass Immigration and Multiculturalism) is a prelude to what may happen to the rest of the world. Already there are small indications that the rest of the world may also end up following the same path as the Western World if present trends continue.
The value of the New Right in both the US as well as in Europe is that it offers a serious intellectual critique of the modern zeitgeist which goes beyond the post-nationalist paradigm. So even if the goal of these movements is the preservation of the white race, the restoration of national sovereignity in Western Nations and an intellectual revolt against the established intellectual dogma, it also offers the intellectual template for many non-white nations to resist the globalist agenda, and to offer new ideas in relation to government and society.
And there is a need for such a template. Most non-white opposition to the international establishment is framed in the context anti-globalization, cultural and linguistic preservation, environmental protection, opposition to economic exploitation or simply, opposition to neo-liberalism. However, this opposition is expressed in a much different context than the traditional left/right dichotomy found in Western nations. For one thing, the metapolitical and historical narrative of the rest of the world is radically different from that of the West.
Despite these differences however, most of non-white opposition to ideas of the internationalist/globalist left lack the sophistication and complexity of New Right thinkers as well as their predecessors. That is not to say that there are no non-white thinkers who have put a lot of time or effort in opposing the Internationalist aspirations of the world’s various political, economic and intellectual elites.
However, what the New Right can offer is a different set of perspectives and alternatives. For even though identifying problems are easy, the New Right in the West is on ground zero of the globalist/internationalist project, and therefore have had more time forming their metapolitical and ideological solutions.
At this time, it’s impossible to tell just how many non-whites throughout the rest of world are aware of the ideas and positions of people like, Alain De Benoist, Tomislav Sunic, Joe Sobran, Pat Buchanan, Paul Gottfried, Alexander Dugin, etc . . . So even though a certain degree of commonality exists, the problem remains that people in the rest of the world are not aware of the existence of the New Right.
This problem – as I percieve it – is largely because the New Right in the West expresses itself in terms of pursuing and defending the rights of white and western nations. This is, of course, a good thing. However, unlike the Right, the Left (and this includes those the global capitalist Left) express themselves not in terms of any single group’s interests, but of humanity as a whole. And although the Left has had a terrible record in representing humanity’s interests, the fact remains that the Right is typically lacks an the percieved openess of their opponents. One need not look farther than the rhetoric of the Occupy Wall Street Protests.
So now the question is how can the ideas of the New Right be shared with the rest of the world?
In my view, there are certain prerequisites which have to be in place before Non-White Nationalists can begin adopting New Right ideas into the context of their respective nations.
First, there needs to be organization. Historically speaking, anti-colonial revolution has been organized by an intellectual elite which expressed and translate Western Nationalist (and Enlightenment) Ideas into the context of their own respective nations and peoples. So in order for non-whites to adopt the metapolitical discourse of the New Right, a receptive intellectual community from non-white countries must first be found and organized.
Second, there needs to be an incentive for Non-whites to adopt New Right Ideas. A good example of this would be to present political economic systems which can act as an alternative to the old capitalist/socialist dichotomy. I am confident that economic systems commonly associated with the right, such as Distributism, Productionism, Social Credit and Localized Economics, will be quite welcome to the rest of the world, and not just in the US and Europe.
Distributism, for example, may have its limitations as a practical economic system in industrialized societies, but it can be reasonably adapted to the needs of third world nations, most of which are still agrarian or semi-agrarian. If packaged correctly, the political economic ideas of people like, Hillaire Belloc and G.K. Chesterson, could be used as a way to introduce other New Right thinkers to the rest of the world.
Third, there needs to be a paradigm shift wherein Non-whites will recognize that the existing zeitgeist is not about a powerful country oppressing smaller and poor countries, but about powerful elites in one country working with receptive powerful elites in another country to pursue policies which are designed to exploit their respective nations.
The same may also be said among those who advocate white preservation in Western nations. The average peasant in Guatemala, India or the Philippines does not desire the destruction or the extermination of Western Nations. I would even hazzard to guess that some of them will oppose it.
At the moment, there are still a lot of people throughout the world who believe that Western Governments are engaging in wars as well as unfair economic and diplomatic practices on behalf of White/Western peoples. For those who are familiar with the problems faced in the West, that is obviously untrue.
Fourth, in order for Non-whites who adopt these ideas to make an impact, they need to be a visible and recognizable group with the potential to influence public discourse. And it doesn’t matter how the media will spin this type of news. As long as people recognize that there are non-whites throughout the world who are willing to adopt New Right ideas, it can cause a lot of people to rethink certain positions.
So having said all that, the ideas of the new-right being dessiminated to the rest of the world offers many possible implications:
Leftist Identity Will Be Put Into Crisis
What we have to remember about the left is that it draws its identity partly upon designated victim groups (e.g. women, homosexuals, minorities, labor advocates, environmental issues, etc . . . ). So if a significant and visible group of non-whites throughout the world were to adopt ideas which are rooted from authors and thinkers from “extremist right wing” groups in the west, it will force the leftists to reevaluate their ideological clientele in a way which can have serious and far reaching changes in their ideology.
The Establishment Will Be Forced to Attack Non-Whites Who Adopt New Right Ideas
I’m sure that some people have heard the terms Twinkie and Oreo, both of which are perjoratives used specifically to demonize a person of Asian or African ethnicity (respectively) adopting perceived conservative, right-wing, pro-white or pro-western positions. If the ideas of the New Right were to become popular in non-white nations, the Western mainstream media will be forced to think up ways to demonize these kinds of non-whites.
Non-White Mass Immigration Will Be Put Into A New Context
This is where it gets a little tricky. Obviously, most of the people who immigrate into the West do so, because they want better jobs and a better life, consequences be damned. If they announce their love for the “old country,” it’s typically in a very superficial way. After all, they didn’t love their country enough to stay in it.
If cultural, ethnic and racial preservation becomes adopted in unbiased way, and if non-whites recognize certain facts about the goals and incentives which drive global capitalism and neo-liberalism, they will also need to recognize that mass immigration into Western Nations as something to be opposed in principle. Such a recognition can potentially cause friction among non-whites whose sensibilities are more favorable to Leftist internationalism and non-whites who are geniunely nationalistic.
The Adoption of New Right Ideas Will Give Legitimacy to the New Right Movement in the West
For quite a long time now, right wing movements in the west—in whatever form they take—are portrayed as hate-filled reactionaries. So it goes without saying that if non-whites were to adopt the ideas of the New Right, they will give their white counterparts a certain degree of legitimacy, not to mention devalue the misconception that Right wing movements in the West are inherently anti-non-white.
New Economic Systems
The ideas of Distributism, Social Credit, Productionism and other Third Postition Economic ideas can potentially offer solutions to the poverty of the Third World. Of course, getting tangible results will take a while, but what matters here is the perception that the New Right offers ideas which are potentially beneficial to the rest of the world.
*************
There are other implications, but I will leave that for people to ponder, but as the old concept of nationalism (e.g. economic independence, anti-colonialism, nativism) is replaced by post-nationalist globalism, a new form of nationalism will become necessary, one which needs to be rooted in ideas which transcend the old left-right divide, and which offers actual independence of culture and of mind, as opposed to the negative identities used by old forms of nationalism, many of which were based on enlightenment ideals.
And this is what I like about the New Right. It is an attempt to change the cultural and moral landscape as a means of reinvigorating national and ethnic identity. So in my opinion the intellectual revolt of the New Right in the US and in Europe can act as prelude for the rest of the world to rethink itself in relation to modernity and the post-post-colonial world.
So do the various Right-Wing movements in the West have something beneficial to offer to the rest of the World?
In my opinion, they have a lot to offer. And although there may be the lack of a common cause, every true nationalist throughout the world, regardless of his or her background, has common interests to promote a new and radical form of universal nationalism. After all, the Left had been spreading its ideas for centuries now. It’s about time the Right did the same.
Spanish language version here
