Jihad versus McWorld

‘Jihad versus McWorld’ is the title given to an interview given from the founder the French ‘New Right’ Alain de Benoist to the Italian newspaper ‘La Padania’ on 19th September 2001 in the wake of the destruction of the World Trade Centre on 11th September 2001. (1) This name is in turn taken from Benjamin Barber’s 1995 book of the same name deriving from a 1992 article of the same name in ‘The Atlantic’ (2) arguing there was a coming conflict between the different tribes of humanity and that the traditional religious views prevalent in – but not exclusive to - the Islamic world were fundamentally at odds with the increasingly godless and soulless materials of the newly unipolar world that was run by the United States and its various corporate appendages and clients.

And that such a clash was fundamentally a test of the ‘democratic’ system advocated by the United States in that a democracy only maintains its democratic status by allowing opponents of that democracy – such as jihadis but also National Socialists – to act as – to quote historian Michael Burleigh – ‘rational political people’. ‘Democracy’ could only win if it was democratic enough to allow itself to be abolished by the people as if it could not be abolished by the people by voting then it was not a democracy.

The United States has since proved time and time again that it adheres to Carl Schmitt’s argument in the late Weimar Republic that sovereignty overrides democracy as the democracy must be able to ‘save itself’ which then formed the basis for Karl Popper’s attempt to argue the same thing albeit more systematically in ‘The Open Society and Its Enemies’. This is nonsense of course as I have pointed out above; an ‘open’ (= ‘democratic’) society is not ‘open’ if it doesn’t allow opponents of itself to have say as otherwise it should be labelled ‘open only if you agree with me’ society which is a ‘closed’ not an ‘open’ society.

This idea of the superiority of the ‘open’ versus the ‘closed’ society formed the basis for Barber’s work – which was prescient but not unique as Lothrop Stoddard’s ‘The New World of Islam’ had predicted the same thing 70 years earlier but Stoddard was a nasty Nazi as well as a Harvard scholar so he ‘doesn’t count’ in today’s ‘open’ society – which de Benoist’s interview riffed off. In it de Benoist takes a contrarian approach for the days just after 9/11 and argues that the ‘Open’ versus ‘Closed’ society dynamic represented in the idea of ‘McWorld’ and ‘Jihad’ colliding in our time is not very helpful precisely because it assumes without stating it that either one of these visions is correct when neither are.

He writes that:

‘In the long run there is the risk of ending up in a planetary and military version of the scenario, “Jihad vs. McWorld”. My feeling is that we must reject the Jihad without being the tools of “McWorld.”’ (3)

In this he is echoing the idea put forward for a time by the International Third Position movement which held that we must find an alternative that is not just capitalism or communism and applying it to civilizational conflict. De Benoist certainly doesn’t provide an answer but just asks the question almost rhetorically because he simply doesn’t know.

The answer to that question is remarkably simple: National Socialism.

Why is this the case?

Because National Socialism is a direct break with the logic of both Jihad and McWorld by getting rid of the theologically derived world of Jihad and the economically derived world of McWorld by substituting them with philosophy or some other vacuous bag of air but with nature itself in the form of biology.

The multiple of problems with both Jihad and McWorld – that even they recognize - are that they are trying to implement ideas based on assumptions from times before Darwin let alone Mendel and modern genetics that have had their conclusions kept but their justifications reworked to try and make them valid in an ever-changing world that has long since proved their assumptions wrong.

Jihad is based on theological views from the Arabian Peninsula – or more probably modern-day Jordan – in the seventh century, while McWorld is based on views of 18th century philosophers trying to grapple with the increasingly thorny issue of trying to keep ‘Free Will’ from Christian theology and transposing it into a secular philosophy which in turn became the infamous concept of ‘Liberty’ upon which McWorld is largely based.

National Socialism by contrast argues that to try and smuggle in theological concepts into secular philosophy and then once again into modern political philosophy is not only dishonest but is dangerous. Ideas can and do changes but if those ideas result in the categorical destruction of a biological people, then that is not only dangerous but disgusting.

Out with all the intellectual junk of centuries past says National Socialism. Let us have a true spring cleaning of our minds and let us only base our ideas on what is found in nature and thus what actually works and has an impact on the world around us.

This is a true Nietzschean transvaluation of all values and also why National Socialism is so hated because all of a sudden ideas and actions have very real consequences rather than just being taken in the abstract with no test as to their realistic application or intellectual vigour in reality.

This is why – to use Savitri Devi’s model – National Socialism is so unique because it stands against time and is in essence timeless, while McWorld is focused purely on the now and is this in time in contrast to Jihad which is stuck in an endless time loop of seventh century Arabia is above time.

Thus, National Socialism – and only National Socialism – can save the world from the destruction ‘Clash of Civilizations’ between Jihad and McWorld.


(1) The original interview is reproduced here: https://www.centrostudilaruna.it/jihadvsmcworld.html

(2) https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/1992/03/jihad-vs-mcworld/303882/

(3) https://www.centrostudilaruna.it/jihadvsmcworld.html