Babel Inc.: Multiculturalism, Globalisation, and the New World Order
London: Black House Publishing, 2013
The cover design of Babel Inc. suggests conspiracy, with the “eye in pyramid” peering out at the prospective reader. However, this is no paste pudding Alex Jones’ ramble on Bohemian Grove or other such inanities, but an incisive analysis of the cultural and political agenda of the multi-national corporations who pull the strings of the United States’ geopolitical agenda.
The goal is to create a world where no impediments exist to restrict the flow of capital and labor across the globe. Nationalism and rooted cultural identities pose a threat to this goal, and thus an aggressive campaign of multiculturalism has been launched to eliminate them. Citing the work of Howard Perlmutter, Bolton explains that corporations want to create a “geocentric” man, a homo globicus, who can be shifted anywhere on earth where he is needed, residing in “global cities” stripped of national uniqueness and immersed in a deracinated culture. The corporate push for multiculturalism is truly a push for global monoculture.
The book begins by recapitulating the criticisms of capitalism expounded by the New Right, mainly that capitalism knows no loyalty to anything but money, and therefore it seeks to eliminate all rooted identities in pursuit of profit. Moreover, those among us who have been bombarded with endless wailing and gnashing of teeth about the horrors of “white privilege” should take to heart Bolton’s masterful destruction of that notion. In contrast to the propaganda about how all whites, no matter how impoverished and exploited they are benefited from colonialism and capitalism, Bolton shows how the white poor were the original victims of the merchants. He recounts the writings of English minister and labour advocate Richard Oastler, who bemoaned the hypocrisy of the anti-slavery upper class who ignored the conditions in the Bradford woolen mills, “thousands of our fellow creatures are . . . in a state of slavery more horrid than the victims of that hellish system of colonial slavery.” Also he shines light on the trade in white slaves, who could actually be owned by free blacks and Native Americans, from England, Ireland, and Scotland, who were forcibly shipped to plantations, and whose harrowing Middle Passage has been conveniently forgotten by modern academia.
Yet, the heart of this chapter chronicles the struggle of the Australian labor movement against the employers and the British Imperial financial interests who sought to undercut them with immigrant and non-white labor. Their crowning achievement was the White Australia policy. This policy was the result of the common white workers rising up, unionizing, and agitating to prevent coolie labor from destroying their wages and breaking strikes. Founding father of the Australian Labour Federation William Lane stated:
Here we face the hordes of the east as our kinsmen faced them in the dim distant centuries, and here we must beat them back if we would keep intact all that can make our lives worth living. It does not matter that today it is an insidious invasion of peaceful aliens instead of warlike downpour of weaponed men. Monopolistic capitalism has no colour and no country.
Another founding member of the Australian Labour Party, W. G. Spence of the Amalgamated Shearers Union explicitly stated that “True patriotism should be racial.” He fought against the Chinese scabs imported to break the shearers strike of 1891 and opposed free trade policies of Joseph Chamberlain, the Colonial Secretary, who sought free movement of labor from the Indian subcontinent to Australia. In 1900 the Australian Labour Party codified a platform for the 1901 Federal Elections that consisted of three planks:
- Electoral reform, providing for one adult one vote.
- Total exclusion of colored and other undesirable races
- Old age pensions
The Australian labor movement eventually succeeded in adopting a White Australia Policy that was an official ALP stance until 1971, when the policy was attacked by academics from Immigration Reform Group and the white-collar Australian Confederation of Trade Unions.
Yet by the end of the First World War, the internationalizing power of the British Empire was eclipsed by an even greater globalist menace, the United States. The financial interests in the United States saw the European empires of world as antiquated barriers to a truly global economy. Thus Woodrow Wilson advocated within his Fourteen Points proposal free trade, self-determination of the former territories of the colonial empires, and the creation of transnational bodies to regulate international politics. This vision sought to break down the old European powers and assimilate the remnants into the US economic order. In the spirit of the Fourteen Points, the Atlantic Charter that followed the Second World War reiterated America’s hostility to the European colonial powers. Roosevelt stated his hostility to Imperial trade preferences to Churchill bluntly:
Those empire trade agreements are a case in point. . . . The peace cannot include any continued despotism. The structure of the peace demands and will get equality of peoples. Equality of peoples involves the utmost freedom of competitive trade.
American actions in the Cold War demonstrated the US policy of breaking down the former colonial empires and then imposing a US backed elite on the newly liberated nation, often under the guise of preventing Soviet influence in the country. In 1953 the Africa-America Institute was created to train a pro-American leader class for the post-colonial African nations. The AAI has received funding from the US government’s USAID and as of 2008 it counts Citibank, Coca-Cola, De Beers, Exxon Mobil, and Goldman Sachs among its sponsors. The AAI’s East Africa Refugee Program, which ran from 1962-1971, and the Southern African Training Program supported the training of FNLA terrorists against the Portuguese, ostensibly to prevent the Soviet backed MPLA from gaining power. The resulting civil war killed 500,000 over 27 years. With the Portuguese, whose Catholic social policies limited involvement in the global economy, removed from the picture, global corporations were free to strike deals with the newly installed government of Mozambique. Anglo-American Corporation negotiated a sale of chrome loading equipment the day Mozambique’s Samora Machel proclaimed the beginning of nationalization.
In Rhodesia, various international financial figures opposed the Smith led regime, including Lord Soames of N. M. Rothschild’s and National Westminster Bank, “Tiny” Rowland, CEO of Lonhro, and Lord Carrington, who was involved with Hambros Bank and ANZ bank. In Zimbabwe today, the largest landholder is English businessman Nicholas Hoogstraten, who bankrolled Mugabe, and is now the majority shareholder in Zimbabwe’s major coal company and a controlling stakeholder in the National Merchant Bank.
In South Africa, the idea of a multiracial nation was supported by the Oppenheimer dynasty. The mining industry stood in opposition to the miners, who notably revolted against the use of black scab labor in 1922, with radical labor forces establishing a “White Workers Republic.” This revolt, which had to be put down with brutal force, led to the foundations of Apartheid, beginning with laws to protect the white workers. Thus it should come as no surprise that diamond magnate Harry F. Oppenheimer funded anti-Apartheid organizations from the 1950s onward. Following the collapse of Apartheid, the Helen Suzman Foundation was established to promote “liberal democratic values” including privatization of South Africa’s quasi-public parastatals. The financial backers of this enterprise include Soros Open Society Foundation, HSBC, and Oppenheimer Memorial Trust among others. In the ruins of South Africa the vulture capitalists swooped down to claim the industries of the nation, under the guise of promoting the brotherhood of man. Bolton states clearly, “behind the mask of ‘Black Power’ stands ‘Money Power.’”
In the aftermath of the Cold War, Money Power’s blatant aggression was displayed in the NATO intervention against the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia and the subsequent fall of the Milošević regime. Here Bolton exposes the real reasons behind NATO’s support for Kosovar mujaheedin’s ethnic cleansing of the Serb population in the guise of opposing ethnic cleansing and supporting “internationalism.” NATO commander Wesley Clark proclaimed that, “There is no place in modern Europe for ethnically pure states” to justify the creation of an Albanian ethnic enclave.
The real result of the formation of an independent Kosovo was the privatization of its Socially Owned Enterprises and the right to exploit the mineral wealth of the region. Serbia’s refusal of the Rambouillet Agreement triggered the NATO intervention. One of the proposals stipulated the privatization of government owned entities. The extant 1997 privatization law limited foreign intervention and stated that workers should hold a 60% share in the newly privatized company. Following the independence of Kosovo, this law was repealed and aggressive privatization followed, sponsored by the UN backed Kosovo Trust Agency, which was later renamed the Privatization Agency of Kosovo.
Moreover, following the fall of Milošević, Serbian involvement with the World Bank began. In addition to the financial manipulation, Bolton highlights the NATO support of radical Islamists in Kosovo as indicative of a greater pattern towards radical Islam. The grand strategy of the US foreign policy has been to use radical Islam to attack any regime, like Russian, Libya, or Syria, that rejects the US dominated global order. Thus we see American support of jihadis in Syria against President Assad and the involvement of prominent neoconservatives like William Kristol in the pro-Chechen American Committee for Peace in the Caucasus.
In addition of money and guns, the soft power of consumerism acts as a tool of cultural imperialism. Incidentally, this technique serves the geopolitical aims of the American elite quite well, as Major Ralph Peters noted in the US military journal Parameters, “Secular and religious revolutionaries in our century have made the identical mistake, imagining that the workers of the world or the faithful can’t wait to go home at night to study Marx or the Koran. Well Joe Sixpack, Ivan Tipichni, and Ali Quat would rather Baywatch. . . . Our cultural empire has the addicted–men and women everywhere–clamoring for more. And they pay for the privilege of their disillusionment.”
Hence the United States engages in “Hip-Hop Diplomacy,” advertising American pop culture to the youth of the world. This policy is officially sponsored by the State Department, which sent “hip-hop envoys” to Africa and Asia to promote American culture. Consequently, this played a role in fomenting the “Arab Spring” uprisings. Hirshaam Aidi, a fellow of the Open Society Institute stated, “as security forces rampaged in the streets, artists in Tunis, Cairo, and Benghazi were writing lyrics and cobbling together protest footage, beats, and rhymes, which they then uploaded to proxy servers. These impromptu songs . . . were then picked up and broadcast by Al Jazeera, and played at gathering and solidarity marches in London, New York, and Washington.”
Furthermore, a similar program of cultural imperialism is played out against France. As far as Western European nations go France is a target because of the traditional Gaullist scepticism of US hegemony over Europe and the rise of far-right parties like Front National in the face of rising tensions between immigrants and the native French. Charles Rivkin, US ambassador to France invited a delegation from the Pacific Council on International Policy to generate some policy recommendations on Islamic-French relations, more precisely on how to advertise American style multiculturalism to the Islamic immigrant inhabitants on France’s banlieues, specifically the younger generation. Thus the United States sponsored a French Black History Month in February 2013 and encouraged Islamic students to join the US sponsored International Visitor Leadership Program. In 2010 the US Embassy sponsored a symposium featuring the head of the “Black Paris” travel agency, Monique Wells, who noted the popularity of rap music among France’s youth. The European Institute, a think tank co-chaired by former Lehman Brother’s executive Yves-Andre Istel, praised Rivkin’s work in undermining France’s traditional social order:
Charles Rivkin isn’t your traditional American ambassador in Paris: a political appointee with a career background in entertainment, he is regularly spotted doing things like this: hosting hip-hop artists and ethnic-minority politicians at embassy receptions; inaugurating a large art mural in Villiers-le-Bel, the site of major urban riots in 2007; visiting a youth cultural center and engaging in debates with the audience; dropping in on embassy-sponsored seminars on social issues and engines of change; or surprising French high school students by bringing along Hollywood star Samuel L. Jackson for a discussion about his growing up in the segregated American South. These are but a few of the initiatives taken by the Obama envoy. Since taking up his post in summer 2009, Rivkin has pursued a vigorous public effort to connect with the poorer, multiracial suburbs of major French cities. Les banlieues, as they are called in French, have become a code word for largely unassimilated, mainly Muslim immigrant communities. Too often feeling ignored or mishandled by local authorities, by the central government and by mainstream political parties, these marginalized groups often become resentful, socially explosive sources of the ethnic tensions that roil France. Now the U.S. government is trying to help France defuse these changes by providing encouragement and real-life models for minority activists to learn how to use American techniques and help their communities succeed, integrate — and who knows? — perhaps one day lead their nations.
The program of the globalists is laid bare, use American pop culture to destroy the culture of an uncooperative nation and replace it with something that marches to the tune played in Hollywood and Washington. Bolton pulls no punches in identifying the Jewish role in the formulation of the global American dream. He critiques Israel Zangwill’s play The Melting Pot, which proclaimed America a fusion of races, “Here shall they all unite to build the Republic of Man and the Kingdom of God.” While Zangwill advocated multiculturalism for America, he was also a staunch Zionist, who formed the Jewish Territorial Organisation. This double-standard of multiculturalism for the gentiles and nationalism for the Jews was also supported by Emma Lazarus, whose poem is inscribed on the base of the Statue of Liberty. This policy is standard among organizations like the Anti-Defamation League, The American Jewish Committee, and the American Jewish Congress. Moreover, the Jewish conception of the melting pot plays to the Puritan roots of America, who had a messianic vision pulled straight from the Old Testament, as Zangwill notes himself. At its root, the American dream is a global dream.
In concluding his work, Bolton discusses the inherent contradictions of multiculturalism and the possibility of resistance. A truly multicultural world respects the separateness and integrity of peoples and cultures. Under globalism, we are now faced with the prospect of seriously illiberal people in liberal nations, which poses a threat to the agenda of turning the world into a copy of America’s consumer society. This threat is recognized by the multicultural elite, who spend countless dollars on outreach to Muslims and promoting liberal values in the “Third World.” At the same time, it forces liberal societies to suppress dissent and impose Draconian speech codes on the critics of their agenda, further de-legitimizing them in the eyes of their critics. Furthermore, citing the work of Robert Putnam, the lack of homogeneity reduces trust between neighbors and weakens the social institutions required for society to function. In addition to the fundamental instability of the globalist project, there still exist people and regimes who reject it outright, be they Russia or Venezuela. Bolton also looks approvingly to the Afrikaner Orania community and Europe’s Identitarians as movements which challenge the liberal consensus.
Thus Bolton ends the book with a ray of hope, a hope that will no doubt be strengthened as this essential piece of literature’s audience grows. Babel Inc. has the strength to alter the discourse about the “New World Order” in a constructive direction. It manages to replace the “tin-foil hat” conspiracy-mongering with a cogent array of facts and arguments detailing the corporate and political agenda to destroy any hint of a rooted identity on earth. I would recommend giving it to anyone who has become awakened to the evils of this brave new world, but who has yet to develop insight into the players behind it. Any conspiracy buff with the proper mental machinery will develop an understanding of the global agenda far beyond the dregs of talk radio after reading this book, perhaps opening to the deeper currents of the New Right and its critique of modernity, capitalism, and globalization.