Anti-Globalists Of The World, Unite?

The world has recently entered into a newfound period of destabilization. However, unlike other historical epochs of turmoil where the conflict was traditionally set between two diametrically opposed worldviews, such as Capitalism versus Communism or the Judo-Christian West against the Islamic Caliphate, this conflict can be described as an ideological internal battle between the liberal ethos of the Western world and its Jungian dark shadow, known as Globalism. This struggle originated with the United States achieving the unipolar moment and thus the geopolitical mandate of creating a new world order based on the foundations of international liberalism. However, instead of establishing a liberal world order that was experienced through Westphalian sovereignty, the Western mind found itself seduced by the opportunity to enact its own world revolution by imposing its will across the globe. The brand of liberalism that was enacted within the unipolar era quickly vulgarized itself into a form authoritarianism. In response to this revolutionary force has been the development of a counter-revolutionary international wave of nationalist-populism, which seeks to uphold the notions of a liberal international society via the framework of the nation state.



What is Globalism?


The reason why a new International is needed is due to the fact that the ideology of globalism has been adopted across the entire political spectrum and therefore the traditional political parties, individuals and institutions are no longer a viable option for the public to gravitate towards. This was the result of the Overton Window coming into play. As explained by Gary Allen in None Dare Call It Conspiracy, the traditional explanation of the political spectrum is international socialism known as communism is on the far left and the opposite end is the far right known national socialism. But upon further scrutiny this is not an accurate depiction of politics as it does not include other ideologies and it does not explain how two ideologies that demand total government can be at opposite ends of the spectrum. A more accurate political spectrum would have total government on one extreme, anarchy that advocates no government at the other extreme and the mixed system of constitutional democratic republicanism of limited government placed within the centre ground.[1] What the former spectrum represents is unfortunately the most accurate: the entire spectrum is socialistic, with International Socialism on the left, National Socialism on the right and Fabian Socialism in the middle.[2] The last entry is the most dangerous due to its deceptive nature as it heads towards achieving its goals by creeping normalcy that allows certain ideas and policies, which would normally be resisted, to be accepted as normal due to enacting changes incrementally.[3] As Carroll Quigley said in Tragedy and Hope, ‘The argument that the two parties should represent opposed ideals and policies, one, perhaps, of the Right and the other of the Left, is a foolish idea acceptable only to doctrinaire and academic thinkers.’[4] This is important to understand as it will further explain the functioning of the Third Way and how it relates to globalism below.


However, although it appears that globalism can be viewed as a form of communism due to upholding the principles of post-nationalism, cultural relativism, cosmopolitanism, non-individualism, economic and political integration, class politics and progressivism, I argue that it is a mistake to conclude that globalism equates communism, as globalism also carries the fascistic characteristics of Social Darwinism, corporatism, neoliberalism, monopolistic capitalism, authoritarian democracy and militarism. In order to truly understand globalism, its discrepancies and how it can be adopted across the spectrum, a much more nuanced way of thinking is required. It is more accurate to state that the traditional Left-Right Political Spectrum is now an outdated concept and that the Overton Window has not pushed everything Far Left, but it has pushed the Western World from a position of liberty towards totalitarianism, while confusing and dividing-and-conquering the public. This is achieved by the use of the Third Way, which is the synthesisation of neoliberal capitalism and progressive social policies, while championing an interconnected one world order. This idea was first put into practice by the social democratic Australia Labor Party via the Hawke-Keating Administrations, which oversaw a massive overhaul of the national economy via the reduction of tariffs, tax reform, enterprising bargaining, deregulating the banking system and welfare reform.[5] These ideas also found support with the succeeding Howard government.[6] I would argue that this acted as the beta-test for other Anglo-American Establishment countries such as United States New Democrats, which was enacted under the Clinton Presidency and carried on via the Obama and Biden Administrations and Neocon/Establishment Republicans. Its European variant can be found in French President Emmanuel Macron and les Republicains, the Italian 5 Star Movement along with the current technocratic Draghi government and the Rutte Administration of the Netherlands and Democrats 66, which also upholds the regional attempt of globalism, known as the European Union. As Soviet Dissident Vladimir Bukovsky stated: It is a form of communism given Western guise.[7]


The British Example


This phenomenon is best explained by Peter Hitchens in The Cameron Delusion, where he details the rise of British dialectical politics and how New Labour came to champion this concept and dominate the entire spectrum of the modern era.


The first instance of the left-right collusion can be traced back to post-War period, with the Conservative Party, under PM Harold Macmillan, enthusiastically abandon its long-held principles for traditionalism, pragmaticism and fiscal responsibility to hold a key role in establishing a new Britain, which included increased Commonwealth immigration and the winding up of the British Empire.[8] In response to this development was not only the resignation of not only two prominent Treasury Ministers, Enoch Powell and Nigel Birch, but also the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Peter Thorneycroft, himself. By crushing the powerful expert section within his own ministry, Macmillan was able to govern like a Labour PM and further bring in liberal and social democratic ideas into his government. This would normally be considered a fatal outcome for any British Prime Minister, especially a conservative one, but Macmillan was able to dismiss such walkouts as nothing more than ‘a little local difficulty’ as the remainder of this party wished stay in power and he remained unafraid of the Labour Opposition from taking advantage of such internal strife as they agreed with many of his policies.[9] Furthermore, it guaranteed no return of the Great Britain prior to 1945, as well as little legislative influence by the Tories’ own conservative supporters.[10]


The second occurrence of the political right and left merging can found in the continuity between Thatcherism and the Blair-Brown era, which saw the acceptance of the inaccurate belief that New Labour possessed a conservative character. But upon closer examination, regardless of the rhetoric, the Thatcher Government was really just social democratic and Macmillanite and this allowed Blair to peruse an even more interventionist policy once he came to power.[11] The rage at Thatcher from the political left was due to her refusal to raise NHS spending, her apparent social conservatism, stance on education, treatment of unions, Cold War politics and patriotism.[12] But it was really her later conversion to Euroscepticism that saw her rejected and dethroned.[13] This created an unofficial alliance between the two major parties, which came to act as each other’s best line of defence against the development of any successful party or movement that might pursue non-establishment objectives, such as national independence.[14] With the Conservative Party now purging itself of any true opposition, the Global and UK Establishment could relax and eventually hand over office back to the Tories, once the Labour Party overlived its usefulness and/or overstayed their welcome with the electorate.[15] An example of how this led to the deadening of politics was the fall of Gordon Brown in the 2010 General Election. As he was almost politically indistinguishable from his successor, David Cameron or Nick Clegg, the co-ordinated attacks on him were almost completely personal, such as his appearance, demeanour, character or obstinacy.[16] This would prove mission accomplished for the New Labour true objective: the totalization of the entire British political spectrum. As Hitchens explained, it was openly stated in its 1997 Election Manifesto that New Labour saw itself as the political arm the British people itself. And that the public services were Britain’s priority and that never again should any party attempt to lead the country by cutting schools, hospitals or public services and that there will no attempt by anyone to return to the policies of the 1980s.[17] This was essentially a totalitarian declaration of what all other oppositional parties should believe and that no one in the future should be allowed to oppose their ideas. Thus, Great Britain should be unofficially ruled under a one-party state.


This rise of David Cameron saw the acceptance of the Blair legacy, along with the implicant apology of Thatcher’s attempt of reversing some of the 1945 consensus, as being the new political norm.[18] This has seen the Tory Party cease being a legitimate opposition party but now seen as a ‘responsible’ Centre-Left alternative party of government and thus allowed to come to power once again. Being that the UK operates under a two-party system, this development has reduced the power of independence and standing of MPs and of Parliament itself, as it is now the main parties that now act as gatekeepers of Parliament via the candidate selection process.[19] Furthermore, by creating a permanent government of the ‘centre’, politics becomes dead as individuals and polices are now interchangeable.[20] This was exemplified by Cameron publicly praising Labour ministers, Alan Milburn, Stephen Byers and Andrew Adonis. This was reciprocated a few days later with Labour Lord Levy disclosing that Tony Blair did not believe that Gordon Brown should beat Cameron at the 2010 General Election.[21]Once gaining office and gaining the trust of the establishment, Cameron allowed himself to act Macmillanite, without any fear of backlash, by governing autocratically and provoke and condemn the conservative elements within his own party. For instance, he broke a clear promise to the Cornerstone Group, that he would withdraw Conservative Party from a federalist EU political formation.[22] He deliberately went on to provoke conservatives on many touchstone issues, like gay marriage and global warming. If any social conservatives committed the crime of Orwellian Wrongthink, they were simply dismissed as reactionaries and condemned by an approving media. This was to demonstrate that he had been granted power, by election and media canonisation, to take the Tory Party to the Left on social and cultural issues.[23] This saw the two parties converging so much that the British people were now forced to act like the animals in Animal Farm when they gazed through the window, looked from man to pig and from pig to man, and were no longer able to tell which is which.[24]


With Boris Johnson entering Number 10 Downing Street, British politics has experienced a historical realignment. This was made obvious during the 2019 General Election and resulted in a historical landslide win for the Conservative Party, which gained 365 out of 650 seats and left them with an overall majority of 80 seats in the House of Commons. They gained several key seats in Labour Party strongholds that were held for decades, known as the ‘Red Wall’. This was the worst defeat that the Labour Party suffered in 84 years and left them with only 202 seats, which was a loss of 60 seats since the last election.[25]Since the General Election, the Red Wall further crumbled with the 2021 Hartlepool By-Election, which resulted in the biggest swing towards an incumbent government in the post-war era.[26] The Conservative candidate won the contest with 51.9% of the vote and a 16% swing from Labour, and became the first Conservative to win the constituency since its conception in 1974.[27]


This may convince some that Boris has returned the Tory Party back to its conservative roots and thus vanquished its dual rivals of a socialism, New Labour and the populist-nationalist Brexit Party. Although it is true that the Tory government is experiencing unprecedented support, I would argue that it is a mistake to interpret this as Johnson returning the party back to its ideological foundations. In reality, he is simply a much more successful Third Way Blarite than Cameron ever was. This was due to his ability to harness the outsider forces of Euroscepticism and nationalism by mimicking the populism of Nigel Farage and thus incorporate these energies into the political boundaries of the UK Establishment via its Tory Party and offer the public a controlled, artificial version of the Brexit Party for the public to rally behind.


This analysis seems to find agreement with Hitchens, who reported in the aftermath of Johnson’s 2019 landslide victory over the socialist Jeremy Corbyn, it was a passing-of-the-torch moment for the political Left. That the socialist revolution is no longer thought achievable by storming the barracks and railroad stations, but by the Gramscian long march into the TV studio, schools and universities. Therefore, it is now the patrician Tory leader Boris Johnson that is the revolutionary, the harbinger of the future and the militant Corbyn is the relic of a dead past.[28] Due to Johnson’s staunch social and moral liberalism, his nominal Tories now support tax cuts for the poor, offer a strong program for climate change, a proposed Australian-style immigration policy akin to the Brexit Party manifesto and has essentially moved his party back to the economic and social centre.[29] This was achieved by Johnson transforming himself into the new Blair, a friendly, smiling figurehead, unthreatening, accessible and charming while concealing a vast agenda of change. Since the downfall of Blair, many others sought to replicate his political magic and it seems that Johnson has finally done it. This is exemplified with his New Tories winning many Labour-held Parliamentary districts, most notably Sedgefield, which was held by Blair in person since 2005, with a majority of 18000 and now the Tories hold it.[30]


The adoption of the globalist Third Way, which was produced in Australia and later perfected in Britain, had a domino effect that affected nearly all political parties, governments and institutions, including Internationals. Due to its all-encompassing nature, members of governments across the world now view themselves as being akin to Platonic Philosopher Kings and are now not only unwilling to heed the concerns and dictates of their domestic populations, but condemn them as being unenlightened, isolationist, xenophobic and reactionary. It is due to these reasons that a new anti-authoritarian International, consisting of moderate outsiders from across the world, is now required.


In order to argue my proposition, I will first explore what the history and workings of an International and how previous examples succeeded and failed. Secondly, I will explore the Steve Bannon attempt of creating a European grouping of anti-globalist Eurosceptics and how it not only rightly failed, but how it differs from my own ant-globalist project. And finally, I will provide the ideological pillars, the structure and proposed membership of my own Anti-Globalist International.


Workers of the World, unite!


The origins of a political international can be traced back to the revolutionary movements of 19th century, which were primarily shepherded by socialist and anarchist movements that operated under the banner of The International Workingmen’s Association (IWA), commonly known as The First International. This organization sought to champion the goals of universalism, anti-capitalism, class struggle, antiestablishmentarianism, post-nationalism and labourism.[31] It was due to these principles that the IWA attracted such historical figures of various persuasions, albeit at different stages of their careers, such as Giuseppe Mazzini, Giuseppe Garibaldi, Mikhail Bakunin, Karl Marx, Fredrich Engels and Louis Augste Blanqui.[32] However, despite the possessing a shared vision of manifesting a world revolution in order to create a one world order, not all members of the IWA agreed on the principles to which to base their globalized world. This argument is best exemplified by the rivalry between Karl Marx and Giuseppe Mazzini.


The Mazzinian Conception and The Spectre of Communism


It was the unification of Italy that saw the rise of Mazzini to historical greatness. Being a revolutionary nationalist, he foresaw a united, independent Italy that operated under the republican system. In wanting to conquer the great challenge of achieving social justice, he called for embracing Christian deism, patriotism, democracy, the emancipation of women, anti-clericalism, along with cultural and social conservatism. However, this did not indicate that Mazzini was inspired by the ‘Rights of Man’ that was created during the Age of Enlightenment. He abandoned such ideals like as classical liberalism and individuality as they presupposed either metaphysical materialism or political atheism and that individual rights are to be won through hard work, sacrifice and virtue, as opposed to them being simply inalienable.[33] Therefore, he sought to offer an alternative creed, known as the Mazzinian Conception, where he argued that ‘thought and action’ must be joint together, where every thought must be followed by action and thus intellectualism and the separation of theory and practice must be rejected.[34] However, he was deeply hostile to the worldview advocated by Marx as it was a ‘dreadful perversion of utilitarianism’.[35] Upon hearing about the establishment of the 1871 Paris Commune, Mazzini came into direct contact with the radical Marxist doctrines of class struggle, materialism and internationalism and he came to describe it as ‘a socially divisive mistake’.[36] In response to such criticisms, Marx condemned Mazzini as a ‘reactionary old ass’ who represented ‘nothing better than the old idea of a middle-class republic’.[37] In reply to Marx, Mazzini declared that he possessed a ‘destructive spirit whose heart was filled with hatred, rather than love of mankind’ and ‘that despite the communist egalitarianism that he espouses, Marx is the absolute ruler of his party and is the only gives orders and tolerates no opposition’.[38]


However, it would be Marxism that would come to eclipse the Mazzinian Conception and dominate the socialist ideology. The reasons for this occurrence were for multiple reasons. For example, the death of Mazzini in 1872 gave a signal that his ideas and influence had passed. Furthermore, Giuseppe Garibaldi, Mazzini’s fellow nationalist-republican revolutionary, had come to break with Mazzini and moved to the left of him and supported the Paris Commune and internationalism. Other reasons for the dissipation of Mazzinian influence over radical left politics were due to the radical youth saw him injecting religion into their secular worldview and with the erection of the Paris Commune, the majority of the political youth initially converted to Bakunin and then later to Marxism, due to many seeing the majority of the Mazzini Doctrine to be compatible with Marxism and thus an alliance with the Left to be legitimate and desirable.[39]


The Black Hand crushed by the Dictatorship of the Proletariat


Although Marx had won his rivalry with Mazzini, he still had to contend with another alternative ideology that also threatened his domination of left-wing politics: The Anarchy of Mikhail Bakunin. Unlike his intellectual contest with Mazzini that occurred in the early days of the IWA, which saw Marx purge Mazzini without much consequence to the fledgling organization, the tensions with Bakunin came to manifest themselves into two ideological factions that threatened to tear the International apart.


The beginnings of the feud came in the aftermath of the defeated Paris Commune and the analytical conclusions that were reached by the two ideologues. As he stated in The Civil War in France, Marx argued that the Commune failure proved that it was imperative that the Proletariat to create its own political party by taking control of both, the International and the State itself.[40] Bakunin countered by stating in Letters to a Frenchman on the Present Crisis, that the most important aspect of the Commune experiment was the Parisian Workers utter repudiation of the State and therefore an alliance of workers and peasants was essential in the creation of a stateless society and that system of elected militias was required to police the self-governing communes via a socialist revolution.[41]  Although he did agree with Marx on such issues as class struggle and anti-capitalism, it was his methods that Bakunin disagreed with. He argued that Marx’s idea of the ‘dictatorship of the proletariat’ would inevitably result in a form of authoritarian socialism by stating ‘If you took the most ardent revolutionary, vested him in absolute power, within a year he would be worse than the Tsar himself.’[42] It was this particular criticism that ultimately led to his expulsion.


It was decided at an 1871 London conference that the General Council of the International would pass Resolution No. 9 which fundamentally changed the very constitution of the International’s General Rules itself: That this constitution of the working class into a political party is indispensable in order to ensure the triumph of the social resolution and its ultimate end – the abolition of classes.’[43] This resolution caused many of the internal factions of the International much concern, as it would result in the elimination of autonomy and see to the centralization of power under the General Council.[44] It was decided that the decision would be reviewed at the 1872 Congress in The Hague in The Netherlands. It was here where Marx dictated that the proletariat would have to dominate the state in order to oversee a socialist revolution. The anarchists influenced by the leadership of Bakunin, condemned such actions saw thus themselves expelled from the International, after the Congress adopted the Marxist agenda. Bakunin himself was not present at the conference and was expelled in absentia.


Despite a membership of 5-8 million members, a cosmopolitan character, possessing Great Men of History in its ranks and an international reach, the internal conflicts between different groupings as to how to best accomplish their historical mission, ideologies and personality cults, the inevitable dissolvement of the IWA eventually came to fruition.


The International Democrat Union


It is a mistake to see the construction of a supranational political organization as exclusively belonging to the Political Left. This is important to acknowledge this in order to avoid adopting a false perception of having nation states banning together into an International would result in the end of their autonomy, sovereignty, values and culture. Nor would it be an example in falling into the Nietzschean abyss by fighting the monster of totalitarianism and becoming a monster of a similar monolithical ideological structure.


There was the British Commonwealth of Nations which even proceeded the International itself and there are many other officially non-Leftist global federations that currently exist. The most credible non-socialist International was the centre-right International Democrat Union (IDU). Being forged during the Cold War, the IDU was created during the early-1980s which associated over twenty conservative political parties from across the world. Its founding included such conservative champions such as: Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher of Great Britain, Chancellor Helmut Kohl of West Germany, then-Paris mayor and later French President Jacques Chirac, Australia’s Liberal Party leader Andrew Peacock and Vice-President George H.W. Bush who represented the United States.[45]


The IDU operated as a forum for conservative political parties to exchange views on matters of concern, policy and information. By doing so, they present a united front that promotes the centre-right principles of liberal democracy, freedom of the individual and free trade capitalism. This was codified in their Declaration of Principles that stated the commitment to the convictions of a free and open society, regard the family unit as has a fundamental social and cohesive force, uphold the basic personal freedoms of human rights as defined within the Universal Declaration of Human Rights; right to free speech and to assemble, freedom of religion, equality before the law, free and independent media, the right to dissent, equality before the law and individual opportunity and prosperity. Furthermore, the IDU condemns extreme Left and Right politics, reject any form of totalitarianism and dedicate to the just and lasting peace and freedom throughout the world.[46]. The conservative international existed to exchange policies, ideas, experiences, encouragement and advice to each other to win political arguments and thus ultimate electoral success.[47] This is achieved by organizes campaigning seminars for politicians and party workers, exchange information on campaign technology, fund-raising techniques, opinion polling, advertising and campaign organization.[48]. I would argue that even though The International Democrat Union acts as the official right-wing counterpart to the IWA along with its predecessors, The Socialist International and the Progressive Alliance, the political-right has also been infected with the ideology of globalism via the Third Way, thus the IDU itself had devolved into yet another outlet for totalitarianism, albeit in liberal/conservative disguise. It appears that the opportunity to dominate the post-Cold War world had proven to be too strong for the West, and ultimately the IDU, to resist and had ultimately fell into the Nietzschean abyss of becoming a monster of a similar impulses. This outcome had turned both, the International Democrat Union and the Progressive Alliance, into mirror-images of each other, which only offered token resistance and acted as way to promote controlled opposition while forever advancing the totalitarian one-world agenda. It is due to this reason an independent anti-globalist/establishment International is needed in order to promote the actual moderate values and principles that can be found across the political spectrum.


The Bannon Movement


An anti-globalist International is not an original concept. The most recent attempt was conducted by former Trump White House chief strategist Steve Bannon in his 2017 plan in wanting to create a global supergroup of various populist political parties. Although this proved to be a failure and was initially was to be implemented on a European level, I submit that it stills acts as a prototype to my proposed International.


As Bannon expressed to The Daily Beast, he envisioned a global NGO dubbed ‘The Movement’ that could function as a counterweight to George Soros’ globalist Open Society, but would champion populist-nationalism instead of globalism.[49]The mission of Bannons’ Movement was to promote rule of law, free initiative, national borders, oppose Islamic extremism and defend the sovereignty of the State of Israel and champion a scientific and non-dogmatic approach in fighting climate change.[50] This would be achieved by conducting research and writing policy proposals, commission polling, target data, share information and messaging techniques.[51]


Although Bannon wanted to use the energy of the America First agenda and create a geopolitical interconnective tissue of recruiting members from the political power capitals of the world, such as Pakistan, Japan, Australia, Brazil, Singapore, Israel and Egypt, he first wanted to concentrate on European continent.[52] Being that the European Union was to be the first target for The Movement, its headquarters was to be based in Brussels, which also hosts the headquarters of NATO and the EU, and he sought to unite right-wing national conservative parties across Europe before the 2019 European Elections.[53] After decades of European integration, Bannon stated that ‘right-wing populist nationalism’ was the future, but he did cede that there was a danger of a resurgence of ethno-nationalism and therefore such parties must be condemned and avoided.[54]


It was the rise of the Swedish Democrats, a political party which originated in the far-right politics of fascism and white nationalism that slowly reformed and moderated itself into a nationalist, social conservative, Eurosceptic party and found itself rewarded in 2018 when liberal Sweden voted for it in record numbers that convinced Bannon of the support for his Movement across the European continent. Since creating The Movement, Bannon recruited the Belgian right-wing politician Mischael Modrikamen and approached the Swedish Democrats, Spanish Vox, the Freedom Party of Austria, the Polish National Movement, the Swiss People’s Party, Alternative for Germany, Hungary’s’ Fidesz, the Flemish Vlaams Belang and the Brothers of Italy. [55]


Interestingly, the reaction from his potential recruits have ranged from warm to viewing him as nothing more than a huckster.[56] The most receptive towards the concept of The Movement has been found in The Netherlands, Hungary and Italy. When meeting Dutch nationalist Geert Wilders, who at the time led the second-largest party in Dutch politics, he had expressed an interest to join Bannon’s project.[57] Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban has also expressed interest in championing his national interests. But it was the former Italian Interior Minister Matteo Salvini, who has been dubbed ‘the Italian Trump’ and co-leader of the antiestablishment 2018 Italian Government that has shown the most willingness to join such a geopolitical coalition.[58] However, the reality seems to dictate that this concept is destined to fail. For instance, despite the surge of support for the Sweden Democrats, they have stated that they were not interested in following Bannon’s political work and that he is no interest to them.[59] Furthermore, while Salvini and Orban hold strong Eurosceptic views, they seek to reform the European Union but not leave it. Even Marine Le Pen, leader of the then-Front National of France seeks to reform the EU before putting French membership to a referendum.[60] Furthermore, we already are offered a glimpse of what such a Bannon grouping could look like, albeit on a regional level, where Wilders and Le Pen belong to an EU parliamentary group, without Salvini and Orban, and amounts to being the smallest grouping with just 35 out of 751 seats.[61]


The failure of the Bannon Movement does not dictate that all attempts for an anti-globalist superorganization will be destined to fail. I argue that a major reason as to why Bannon failed was due to the fact that he is politically biased, and all his potential members were all right-wing leaning. Furthermore, in his quest to defeat globalism Bannon was willing to approach far-right political parties, such as Geert Wilders and downplay their unfashionable policy positions and past in operating within the far-fridges of right-wing politics. In order to create a functioning International, we must avoid the infighting of the original IWA and create the bond found within the IDU, yet it must consist of moderate parties from across the spectrum that are united upon certain values and principles.


Towards an Anti-Globalist International


My proposed Anti-Globalist International would need to model its structure after the IDU as they were the initial anti-Communist/globalist counterweight of its day. This would mean that it will function to exchange policies, ideas, experiences, encouragement and advice to each other to win political arguments and thus ultimate electoral success.


But what is truly important is the anti-establishment ethos that will set this International as the only legitimate international institute that will be advocating anti-globalism: classical liberalism, civic nationalismcultural conservatism/traditionalism, a non-interventionist foreign policy, mutual support for the twin schools of capitalism of free trade & economic nationalism and championing the centrist English School of International Relations as a world system.


Although the following does not possess candidates that can be considered all ideal, it still functions as a preliminary draft of what a membership list of potential political parties, movements and individuals from across the world would look like:



Northern America

Leader/Individual Political Party Country
The People’s Party Maxime Bernier Canada
Jordan Peterson Independent Canada

North America  

Leader/Individual Political Party Country
Tulsi Gabbard Democrat Party United States
Dennis Kucinich Democrat Party United States
Pat Buchanan Republican Party United States
Thomas Massie Republican Party United States
Ted Cruz Republican Party United States
Ron Paul Republican Party United States
Rand Paul Republican Party United States
Donald Trump Republican Party United States
Ron DeSantis Republican Party United States
Cynthia McKinney Green Party United States
Ralph Nader Independent United States

Latin America 

Leader/Individual Political Party Country
Andrés Manuel López Obrador


National Regeneration Movement Mexico 


Northern Europe

Leader/Individual Political Party Country
Kristian Thulesen Dahl Danish People Party Denmark
Jussi Halla-aho The True Finns Finland
Jimmie Akesson Sweden Democrats Sweden

 Central Europe

Leader/Individual Political Party Country
Vaclav Klaus Jr. The Tricolour Citizens’ Movement Czech Republic
Matej Gregor Odchod Czech Republic
Andrej Babis ANO Czech Republic
Viktor Orban Fidesz Hungary
Andrzej Duda Law and Justice Poland

Southeast Europe 

Leader/Individual Political Party Country
Raicho Markov Bulgaria of Labour and Reason Party Bulgaria

 Western Europe

Leader/Individual Political Party Country
Sebastian Kurz Austrian People’s Party Austria
Charles-Henri Gallois Generation Frexit France
Nicolas Dupont-Aignan


Debout la France France
Tino Chrupalla Alternative for Germany Germany
Joost Eerdmans JA21 The Netherlands
Rutger van Noort Nexit Denktank The Netherlands
Macro Chiesa The Swiss People Party Switzerland
Richard Tice Reform UK United Kingdom – England
Laurence Fox Reclaim Party United Kingdom – England
William Clouston


Social Democratic Party United Kingdom – England
Peter Hitchens Independent United Kingdom – England
Michael Portillo Conservative/Independent United Kingdom – England
Hermann Kelly Irish Freedom Party United Kingdom – Ireland
George Galloway


Workers Party of Britain United Kingdom – Scotland

Southern Europe 

Leader/Individual Political Party Country
Panos Kammenos Independent Greeks Greece
Gianluigi Paragone Italexit Party Italy
Stefano D’Andrea Reconquer Italy Italy
SOMOS Espana

(We are Spain)

Pablo Iglesias Turrión Podemos Spain


West Asia

Leader/Individual Political Party Country
Seyed Mohammad Hosseini Restart Iran

 South Asia

Leader/Individual Political Party Country
Arvind Kejriwal Aam Aadmi Party (Common Man Party) India
Imran Khan Pakistan Movement for Justice Pakistan

 East Asia

Leader/Individual Political Party Country
Shinzo Abe Liberal Democrats Japan
Lo Kin-hei Democratic Party Hong Kong
Johnny Mak Democratic Alliance Hong Kong
Tsai Ing-wen


Democratic Progressive Party


Moon Jae-in The People Power Party South Korea


Leader/Individual Political Party Country
One Nation Pauline Hanson Australia
Cory Bernardi Independent Australia
Lloyd Russell Liberal Democrats Australia
John Anderson National Party/Independent Australia
Darroch Ball New Zealand First New Zealand


Honorary/Patrons Members –



Liberal Protectionist Prime Minister Edmund Barton

Liberal Protectionist Prime Minister Alfred Deakin

Labor Minister for Veterans’ Affairs Frank Anstey

Labor Premier of New South Wales Jack Lang

Labor Prime Minister John Curtin

National Prime Minister John McEwen

Labor Prime Minister Gough Whitlam

Labor Minister for Minerals and Energy Rex Connor

Liberal Prime Minister Malcolm Fraser



Union for the New Republic President Charles de Gaulle



Soviet Dissident Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn

Soviet Dissident Vladimir Bukovsky

Soviet KGB Defector Yuri Bezmenov


United Kingdom

Conservative Prime Minister Winston Churchill

Conservative MP Enoch Powell

Labor MP Tony Benn

Referendum Party Founder Sir James Goldsmith

Philosopher Roger Scruton


United States

American Founding Fathers

Republican Senator Robert A. Taft

Democrat Vice President Henry Wallace

Major General Smedley Darington Butler

General MacArthur

Democrat President John F Kennedy

Democrat Senator Robert F Kennedy

Democrat Senator Eugene McCarthy

Republican Senator Barry Goldwater

Democrat Congressman Lawrence Patton McDonald

Republican President Ronald Reagan

Independent Presidential Candidate Ross Perot


Coincidentally, it appears that something like my own International is already beginning to organically take shape on a European regional level, in the form of two simultaneous independently growing coalitions known as the Euroexit Movement and the Orban-led Christian-Democratic bloc:


The membership of the former, as of this writing, consists of moderate Eurosceptic parties such the Brexit Party, Generation Frexit, Italexit Party, Bulgaria of Labor and Reason, Irish Freedom Party, SOMOS Espana (We are Spain), Odchod (For Czexit).[62] According to its manifesto they seek to re-establish their sovereignty as a nation state, accept the reality that the European Union is now beyond reform, reject nationalism for the civic nationalism of patriotism, exit from the Euro and reassert the principle of democracy.[63]


The membership of the ladder consists of the more hardlined Eurosceptic parties of Hungary, Poland and Italy. Hungry and Poland has already pushed back against EU dictates can now formally support each other. Although Salvini has damaged some of his legitimacy by supporting the technocratic Draghi Government, by joining such a group will repair the damage to his reputation and can even assist him wining government in the next Italian Election. This membership would exclude presidential contender Marie Le Pen, as she will wish to keep to the French tradition of nationalistic republican secularism but can very easily act as an ally. If Len Pen and Salvini become leader of their respective countries, along with German Chancellor Merkel stepping down and Dutch Prime Minister Rutte collapses under yet another scandal, then the EU will be at its very weakest and can very realistically implode and thus return the Europe back to its natural form of being a continent of nation states.[64]




In conclusion there appears to be fertile ground for a new anti-globalist International as the geopolitical interconnective tissue seems to already be forming across Europe with the abovementioned Euroexit Movement and Orban bloc. If this can be further extended from the European continent and take a global approach, then an Anti-Globalist International is a very real possibility.




Allen, G (1972) None Dare Call It Conspiracy, GSG & Associates Publishers, United States.


Anonymous (2018) Steve Bannon plans Brussels-based foundation ‘The Movement’ for EU far-right, Deutsche Welle


Anonymous (2018) The movement: How Steve Bannon is spreading populist Trump-style politics across Europe, Independent


Anonymous (2019) Election results 2019: Boris Johnson returns to power with big majority, BBC News,


Bendeich, M (2018) ‘Steve Bannon hopes to unite Europe’s populists under ‘The Movement’, The Christian Science Monitor


Brown, S (2021) ‘Time has come to end the EU!’ Anti-Brussels forces urged to form new Brexit-style party’, Express


Bukovsky, V (2006) Vladimir Bukovsky: EU = USSR, YouTube Interview


Flahert, S (2020) Marx, Engels and Modern British Socialism: The Social and Political Thought of H. M. Hyndman, Palgrave Macmillan, United Kingdom.


First International, History of the International Workingmen’s Association, viewed 15 March 2021


Halliday, J (2021) ‘Labour crashes to humiliating byelection defeat in Hartlepool’, The Guardian


Hitchens, P (2010) The Cameron Delusion, Continuum UK, United Kingdom.


Hitchens, P (2003) Peter Hitchens – New Labour has not failed 2003, YouTube Interview.


Hitchens, P (2019) ‘Boris: The New Blair’, First Things


IDU History, International Democratic Union, viewed 8 April 2021,


IDU Principles, International Democratic Union, viewed 8 April 2021,

International Workingmen’s Association (1968) Resolutions of the Congress of Geneva, 1866, and the Congress of Brussels, 1968, United Kingdom.


Kelly, P (2011) March of Patriots, Melbourne University Publishing Ltd, Australia.

Manifesto for Sovereignty, Democracy and Self-Determination, Eurexit, viewed 14 April 2021,


McCann, A (2019) ‘Election Results Map: How Conservatives Won in a Landslide’, The New York Times.


Megalogenis, G (2008) The Longest Decade, Scribe Publications Pty Ltd, Australia.


Mercouris, A (2021) Orban forms coalition with Poland’s Morawiecki & Italy’s Salvini to fight Globalist agenda, The Duran, YouTube Interview


Moss, M (2004) Mussolini’s Fascist Philosopher: Giovanni Gentile Reconsidered, Peter Lang Publishing, Switzerland.


Quigley, C (1966) Tragedy & Hope, The Macmillan CompanyUnited States.


Raddatz, F (1975) Marx: A Political Biography, Little Brown Publishing, United States.


Stubley, P (2018) ‘Steve Bannon to set up ‘The Movement’ foundation to boost far-right across Europe’, Independent


[1] Gary Allen, None Dare Call It Conspiracy (GSG & Associates Publishers, 1972), p.29.

[2] Gary Allen, None Dare Call It Conspiracy (GSG & Associates Publishers, 1972), p.29.

[3] Gary Allen, None Dare Call It Conspiracy (GSG & Associates Publishers, 1972), p.28.

[4] Carroll Quigley, Tragedy and Hope (The Macmillan Company, 1966), p.1247.

[5] Paul Kelly, March of Patriots, (Melbourne University Publishing Ltd, 2011), p.266-268.

[6] George Megalogenis, The Longest Decade, (Scribe Publications Pty Ltd, 2008), p.367-368.

[7] Vladimir Bukovsky, Vladimir Bukovsky: EU = USSR, 2006, YouTube Interview

[8] Peter Hitchens, The Cameron Delusion, (Continuum UK, 2010), p. 38.

[9] Peter Hitchens, The Cameron Delusion, (Continuum UK, 2010), p. 39.

[10] Peter Hitchens, The Cameron Delusion, (Continuum UK, 2010), p. 39-40.

[11] Peter Hitchens, The Cameron Delusion, (Continuum UK, 2010), p. 36.

[12] Peter Hitchens, The Cameron Delusion, (Continuum UK, 2010), p. 37.

[13] Peter Hitchens, The Cameron Delusion, (Continuum UK, 2010), p. 37.

[14] Peter Hitchens, The Cameron Delusion, (Continuum UK, 2010), p. 41.

[15] Peter Hitchens, The Cameron Delusion, (Continuum UK, 2010), p. 40.

[16] Peter Hitchens, The Cameron Delusion, (Continuum UK, 2010), p. 7.

[17] Peter Hitchens, Peter Hitchens – New Labour has not failed 2003, 2003, YouTube Interview

[18] Peter Hitchens, The Cameron Delusion, (Continuum UK, 2010), p. 32.

[19] Peter Hitchens, The Cameron Delusion, (Continuum UK, 2010), p. 43.

[20] Peter Hitchens, The Cameron Delusion, (Continuum UK, 2010), p. .

[21] Peter Hitchens, The Cameron Delusion, (Continuum UK, 2010), p. 46.

[22] Peter Hitchens, The Cameron Delusion, (Continuum UK, 2010), p. 45.

[23] Peter Hitchens, The Cameron Delusion, (Continuum UK, 2010), p. 45.

[24] Peter Hitchens, The Cameron Delusion, (Continuum UK, 2010), p. 45.

[25] Allison McCann. ‘Election Results Map: How Conservatives Won in a Landslide’, The New York Times. Last Modified December 2019,

[26] Anonymous. ‘Election results 2019: Boris Johnson returns to power with big majority’, BBC News. Last Modified December 2019,

[27] Josh Halliday, ‘Labour crashes to humiliating byelection defeat in Hartlepool’, The Guardian. Last Modified May 2021,

[28] Peter Hitchens. ‘Boris: The New Blair’, First Things. Last Modified December 2019,

[29] Peter Hitchens. ‘Boris: The New Blair’, First Things. Last Modified December 2019,

[30] Peter Hitchens. ‘Boris: The New Blair’, First Things. Last Modified December 2019,

[31] International Workingmen’s Association, Resolutions of the Congress of Geneva, 1866, and the Congress of Brussels, 1968, (London, 1968) p.2-15.

[32] History of the International Workingmen’s Association, ‘First International’, viewed 15 March 2021

[33] M. E. Moss, Mussolini’s Fascist Philosopher: Giovanni Gentile Reconsidered, (Peter Lang Publishing, 2004), p. 59-60.

[34] M. E. Moss, Mussolini’s Fascist Philosopher: Giovanni Gentile Reconsidered, (Peter Lang Publishing, 2004), p. 59-60.

[35] Fritz J. Raddatz, Marx: A Political Biography, (Little Brown, 1975), p. 66.

[36] Fritz J. Raddatz, Marx: A Political Biography, (Little Brown, 1975), p. 66.

[37] R. Landor. ‘Interview with Karl Marx, head of L’Internationale’, New York World. Last Modified December 1871,

[38] Fritz J. Raddatz, Marx: A Political Biography, (Little Brown, 1975), p. 66.

[39] Seamus Flahert, Marx, Engels and Modern British Socialism: The Social and Political Thought of H. M. Hyndman, (Palgrave McMillian, 2020), p.29-30.

[40] Friedrich Engels, ‘On Authority’, viewed 12 May 2021.

[41] Mikhail Bakunin,‘The Paris Commune and the Idea of the State’

[42] G. P. Maximoff, ‘Conspectus of Bakunin’s Statism and Anarchy’, The Political Philosophy of Bakunin, viewed 8 April 2021.

[43], ‘Resolution of the London Conference on Working Class Political Action’

[44], ‘Resolution of the London Conference on Working Class Political Action’

[45] IDU, ‘History’, viewed 8 April 2021,

[46] IDU, ‘Principles’, viewed 8 April 2021,

[47] IDU, ‘History’, viewed 8 April 2021,

[48] IDU, ‘History’, viewed 8 April 2021,

[49] Anonymous. “Steve Bannon plans Brussels-based foundation ‘The Movement’ for EU far-right”, Deutsche Welle. Last Modified July 2018,

[50] Anonymous. “Steve Bannon plans Brussels-based foundation ‘The Movement’ for EU far-right”, Deutsche Welle. Last Modified July 2018,

[51] Anonymous. “Steve Bannon plans Brussels-based foundation ‘The Movement’ for EU far-right”, Deutsche Welle. Last Modified July 2018,

[52] Anonymous. “Steve Bannon plans Brussels-based foundation ‘The Movement’ for EU far-right”, Deutsche Welle. Last Modified July 2018,

[53] Anonymous. “Steve Bannon plans Brussels-based foundation ‘The Movement’ for EU far-right”, Deutsche Welle. Last Modified July 2018,

[54] Mark Bendeich. ‘Steve Bannon hopes to unite Europe’s populists under The Movement’, The Christian Science Monitor. Last Modified September 2018,

[55] Mark Bendeich. ‘Steve Bannon hopes to unite Europe’s populists under The Movement’, The Christian Science Monitor. Last Modified September 2018,

[56] Mark Bendeich. ‘Steve Bannon hopes to unite Europe’s populists under The Movement’, The Christian Science Monitor. Last Modified September 2018,

[57] Anonymous. ‘The movement: How Steve Bannon is spreading populist Trump-style politics across Europe’, Independent 2018,

[58] Anonymous. ‘The movement: How Steve Bannon is spreading populist Trump-style politics across Europe’, Independent 2018,

[59] Anonymous. ‘The movement: How Steve Bannon is spreading populist Trump-style politics across Europe’, Independent UK. Last Modified September 2018,

[60] Mark Bendeich. ‘Steve Bannon hopes to unite Europe’s populists under The Movement’, The Christian Science Monitor. Last Modified September 2018,

[61] Mark Bendeich. ‘Steve Bannon hopes to unite Europe’s populists under The Movement’, The Christian Science Monitor. Last Modified September 2018,

[62] Eurexit, ‘Manifesto for Sovereignty, Democracy and Self-Determinati  on’, viewed 14 April 2021,

[63] Eurexit, ‘Manifesto for Sovereignty, Democracy and Self-Determination’, viewed 14 April 2021,

[64] Alexander Mercouris, Orban forms coalition with Poland’s Morawiecki & Italy’s Salvini to fight Globalist agenda, 2021, The Duran, YouTube Interview