Globalists Should Join the Far Right

this train is unstoppable.

Globalism is the free movement of goods, people, and ideas, dissolving old borders and creating new nations. The history of Europe for the last 3,000 years has been a continuous increase in this freedom, with brief interruptions during times of war or political instability.

In the last 500 years, the discovery of the Americas and the confiscation of English monasteries removed the last economic restrictions of the feudal era. By allowing real estate to move freely from one owner to another, Europe ennobled its merchant class to rise above the aristocracy, leading to democracy, secularism, and universalism.

The three most global powers (the Netherlands, Anglo-America, and France) saw the earliest revolutions in favor of religious freedom, legal equality, and republican government. Globalism and leftism are one in the same.

Out of this fantastic liberation of the human spirit came an unfortunate regressive mutation: National Bolshevism.

Russia’s National Bolsheviks.

National Bolsheviks fetishize the working class, so that progressive ideas are swamped under the guise of a “dictatorship of the proletariat.” North Korea and China are not progressive in any meaningful sense. As MTG and Tucker point out, Venezuela is relatively conservative.

National Bolsheviks reduce leftism to “the cannibalization of elites by the mob.” They divorce leftism from its progressive, globalist, and internationalist foundations. This leads to the rise of a new class of cynical bureaucrats who place themselves on top of a superficially “leftist” caste system. Eventually, this caste system becomes hereditary, re-inventing feudalism. The worst victims are the middle classes, the Kulaks, who are squeezed from above and below.

Stalin, through his monarchical cult of personality, overpowered the neoliberalism of the New Economic Policy established by Lenin and Trotsky. Since 1928, Stalinist “socialism in one country” reinvented the Tsardom. Nationalism gained a “leftist” veneer, but its essential nature was reactionary and conservative. This is no where more apparent than in the promotion of Socialist Realism and the communist [denunciation] of “degenerate art.” It was a hollow shell of an ideology, filled with the backwards prejudices of the peasantry.

The assassination of Trotsky in 1940 made apparent the end of “progressive communism.” By the 1980s, the Soviet Union was, on every conceivable issue, more conservative than America.

So-called “National Bolsheviks” believe that leftism is reducible to a guarantee of employment. But if leftism is so defined, it becomes a feudal state, a ridiculous contradiction. What is more absurd: the claim that the bishops and nobles of the 11th century were “leftists,” or that woke capital is “leftist”? This is a question which my critics cannot answer, because they are motivated by resentment and fear. They hate progress and change above all other things.

Leftism is the revolutionary progressive liberation of humanity from tradition and custom. That “the workers” experience improvements along the way is a consequence of leftism, but not its origin point or its final destination. To strip leftism of its progressive, revolutionary, globalist spirit in the name of “the working class” is the reactionary subversion of neo-Stalinism.

The [deep left] is progressive, elitist, revolutionary, and globalist. By contrast, the “[mob left],” fetishizes the xenophobic prejudices of “the working class” with industrial neo-feudalism. National Bolsheviks like Pol Pot attack academia and genocide the intelligentsia. The whole nation is reduced to slaves on an assembly line making toasters, “in the name of equality.” This is then presided over by a bureaucratic mafia who claim to rule in “the name of the people.”

The destiny of deep leftism is to open up a space beyond humanity, where genes flow freely in a biological market. The conservative masquerading as a “leftist” opposes this future as new, strange, and unusual. They claim to be leftists, but psychologically and spirituality, they adhere to reaction, statis, and fear of change.

Superficial issues like “tax rates” and “welfare policy” are merely pragmatic. The objection that “neoliberalism is not true leftism” is just Stalinistic propaganda. It is an attempt to cover Pandora’s Box, to crucify Prometheus, to melt the wings of Ikarus, and to suppress the infinite Faustian spirit in the name of “the working class” mob.

After surviving two world wars, both of which were instigated by petty nationalists, Europe implemented a Schengen Zone to erase the borders that separate people. The Erasmus Program promotes study abroad, which helps students make cross-cultural connections. English as a lingua franca has made Europe more united today than ever before. There’s just one small catch.

Europeans do not like Muslims. There are two possible responses to this fact:

1. Mitigation: you could try to reduce the number of Muslims, or force them to assimilate, or police the bad ones harder.

2. Suppression: you could allow the Muslims to run buck-wild and throw anyone who complains in jail.

Suppression is not working. My own Substack has been subjected to this chilling effect: British readers send me screenshots of my articles which are locked by decree unless the user provides proof of ID. Suppression creates a Streisand Effect, polarizes moderates, and gives the far right the claim to martyrdom.

The only question, then, is how we should mitigate the Muslim problem.

Here would be my preferred outcomes, in order of desirability:

1. The Bukele Solution:

At least 100,000 fighting age Muslim men with criminal records, pro-Sharia social media, or chronic welfare dependence are placed in work camps. [Contrary to my highly imaginative (or absurdly duplicitous) critics, these would be humane and contain no elements of “torture.”] The inmates are given the choice between indefinite detention or deportation.

2. The Chechnyan Solution:

Each European country selects a moderate “Grand Imam” who is responsible for keeping the country’s Muslims in check. This what the Romans did with Herod the Great, and this is what Putin has done with Russia’s Muslims.

3. The Bismarck Solution:

Europe launches a Kulturkampf against Islam, where Mosques and Hijabs are banned.

4. The Feminist Solution:

3 million Muslim men are deported from Europe, leaving behind only the women.

5. The Remigration Solution:

6 million Muslims are initially deported from Europe, perhaps followed by 40 million non-whites.

The Bukele Solution would minimize the number of innocent people harmed and the number of rights violated. The men in question would be anyone previously arrested or convicted, those who support Sharia, and the chronically welfare dependent.

Far right voters seek law and order, and the swift removal of criminals, Sharia-supporters, and welfare users would satisfy them.

Unfortunately, centrists are not going to do this. Since the centrist parties are unwilling to mitigate Islam, the far-right will win in Europe in 2029, even as the American left has a positive outlook for 2028.

This is unfortunate for three reasons:

1. The far-right is funded and deeply infiltrated by Russia. They will destroy the Schengen Zone, the EU, and eventually, the NATO alliance.

2. Without aid from the west, Ukraine will collapse. If there is a ceasefire in place by 2029, Russia will relaunch the war and conquer the remainder of Ukraine. Without aid, Poland will collapse even more quickly than Ukraine. No country in Europe can resist Russia alone -- it is only as a united front (with America) that Europe can resist Russian aggression.

3. Because Russia is dominated by China, the decline of NATO will result in a Chinese-dominated Europe. This increases the likelihood of a world war between America and China on European soil.

The breakup of NATO, followed by a Chinese-American power struggle within Europe, would be disastrous. It would undo all the progress after 1945, and return Europe to the bloodbaths and genocides of the first and second world wars.

I would love to be wrong. Maybe Macron will surprise me and to begin sending SWAT teams into the suburbs of Paris. Or maybe Europeans will suddenly learn to love Muslims. Or maybe Muslims will spontaneously assimilate without any pressure.

Eventually, Muslims will assimilate. But that process would take decades, and the far right is on course to take power by 2029.

Hopefully I am wrong and none of this happens. Muslims calm down, no more terrorist attacks occur, rape gangs disappear, and everyone gets along. The far right stops gaining in the polls with each passing year (a trend that has been steady for the last decade). Unfortunately, that’s all wishful thinking.

Therefore, globalists must join the far right.

The leader of the AfD and her Sri Lankan girlfriend.

This may be already occurring. The head of the AfD is a lesbian in an interracial relationship, and Eric Zemmour is Jewish. All we need now is for some kind of ex-Muslim, like [that one Somali atheist woman], to step up and join one of these parties.

If the victory of the far right is inevitable, then globalists must infiltrate these parties to water them down, dilute them, and prevent a return of Nazism. The Reform Party in Britain is a good example of what this could look like.

Nigel Farage is a neoliberal who supports immigration — but he is perceived as far-right, so he absorbs all the votes of those who hate immigration. Farage has repeatedly bragged about stopping the BNP, which openly embraced white nationalism and Holocaust denial.

The situation is different in America, because immigrants here have far fewer problems. If Biden was able to deliver a stronger economy and better geopolitical outcomes, he could have won even with record immigration. Ukraine, Gaza, and inflation (caused by Trump’s COVID money-printer) all came together in a perfect storm.

Biden was a million years old, and Kamala was a uniquely bad replacement. Given these unlucky handicaps, it’s conceivable that a normal Democrat under an average economy with no new wars could have won in 2024, even with high levels of immigration.

Democrats in America can win in 2026 and 2028 by being more normal on trans issues and by running white males. In Europe, things are different. European immigration has been [reduced] since 2021, and yet, the far right continues its meteoric rise.

Immigration is not the killer issue in America that it is in Europe. I continue to support the Democratic Party in America, but the situation in Europe is lost. Globalists have no recourse but to infiltrate the far right to lessen the blow.

The ideal outcome for Europe is that the far right stops Muslim immigration, but then increases immigration from majority non-Muslim countries, like India, China, the Philippines, Vietnam, Russia, and Brazil. To make that transition possible, the party leadership of the far right must be infiltrated with globalists.

I call upon gays, Jews, and liberals to infiltrate the far right. Join the AfD, stop Muslim immigration, and then pivot to Chinese, Indian, and Filipino immigration. Above all, maintain the NATO alliance, the Schengen Zone, and defend Ukraine. We cannot allow the Russians (and their Chinese handlers) to threaten world peace with a great power conflict.

Hopefully, when far right parties win in 2029, centrist parties will wake up to reality and quickly adopt anti-Muslim policies. Then, in 2030, centrists can force new elections, kick the far right out of power, and resume the path to globalism, just without Muslims.

CONCLUSION

There was a brief period between 1928 and 1989 where Stalinist ideas obscured the link between capitalism and social progress. However, if we widen the scope of our analysis to the last 500 years of history, then there is no fundamental contradiction between capitalism and progressive internationalism. Progressivism was born in capitalism, and can only persist in capitalism.

Everywhere that goods, people, and ideas move freely, progressivism follows. This is a stronger version of the weak Fukuyama thesis, which underestimated the power of “National Communism.” China retarded progress by restricting the flow of ideas through mass censorship and state control of media. “Open markets” are, in themselves, not enough to defeat nationalism.

Whether in China or America or Europe, “Nationalist Leftism” is a dark bargain. It promises improved working conditions for the poor and middle classes, while saber-rattling against “foreign enemies.” Progressive leftism cannot persist under these conditions, and all such regimes degenerate into monarchical neo-feudalism.

International, progressive, globalism is the cure for xenophobic and reactionary backwardness.

Unfortunately, history is not a story of linear progress, and there are complications to this simplified heuristic. Muslim immigrants to Europe are the most conservative, reactionary, retrograde, and right-wing people on the planet. Naturally, they come into conflict with the progressive spirit of the European, and this produces an internal crisis.

Since suppression has already been attempted to an absurd degree, the only option left is mitigation. As centrist parties refuse to act swiftly and decisively to resolve the Muslim problem, it is incumbent upon far-sighted globalists to join and subvert the European far right for our own purposes.

Whether or not this can be accomplished is uncertain, but the attempt is worthwhile. If the far right wins in its “pure” (Russian) form, the consequences for Europe will eventually lead to a third world war, much worse than the first two. If the far right can be diluted, then the Schengen Zone, EU, and NATO can be preserved, and a Chinese-America confrontation on European soil will be avoided.