You are on page 1of 8

Multiculturalism as a Process of Globalisation

K R Bolton
Academy of Social and Political Research
Multi-cultural politics including that concerned with immigration is a method of social
engineering. Whoever raises a voice in public in opposition or even merely of caution
is pilloried as a ‘racist’ and a ‘reactionary’. Conversely, those who champion
multiculturalism are upheld as the paragons of ‘progress’ and humanitarianism. Yet
behind the moral façade multiculturalism is a cynical stratagem, an important part of
the process of globalisation in the interests of a small, self-appointed plutocratic elite.
This essay examines how multiculturalism is an aspect of globalisation.
“See, capitalism is not fundamentally racist -- it can exploit
racism for its purposes, but racism isn't built into it.
Capitalism basically wants people to be interchangeable
cogs, and differences among them, such as on the basis
of race, usually are not functional. I mean, they may be
functional for a period, like if you want a super
Chomsky exploited workforce or something, but those situations
are kind of anomalous. Over the long term, you can
expect capitalism to be anti-racist -- just because it’s
anti-human. And race is in fact a human characteristic -- there's no
reason why it should be a negative characteristic, but it is a human
characteristic. So therefore identifications based on race interfere with
the basic ideal that people should be available just as consumers and
producers, interchangeable cogs who will purchase all the junk that's
produced -- that's their ultimate function, and any other properties they
might have are kind of irrelevant, and usually a nuisance."1 Noam
Chomsky.
It is ironic that an intellectual championed in particular by the anarchist-Left
has given such a cogent definition of the motivating force behind multiculturalism.
Among the numerous references to Chomsky made by the Left his diagnosis of
capitalism as being ‘anti-racist’ because it aims to create a society of humans as
nothing more than ‘interchangeable cogs’, does not receive the same attention as his
other views. As Chomsky states, individuals cannot function at an optimum level as
producers and consumers if there are racial or what we might further categorise as
cultural and national, divisions.
Chomsky is outside the mainstream of Leftist ideology, which sees humanity
and the individual in precisely the same terms as capitalism sees humanity as defined
by Chomsky in the above passage. Both capitalism and Marxism2 are globalist, and
11..
Noam Chomsky, Understanding Power: The Indispensable Chomsky (New York: The New York
Press, 2002), pp. 88-89.
2
2. As for ‘anarchism’ which often refers to Chomsky and which claims to be an alternative to both
capitalism and Marxism, the contemporary anarchist position on demanding ‘open borders’ and
internationalisation is only an extreme variant of the two ideologies it claims to oppose. Likewise, the
Trotskyist faction of the communist Left in particular is a champion of ‘open borders’. (See K R
Bolton, Building the New Babel: Multiculturalism and the New World Order, Paraparaumu, New
Zealand: Renaissance Press, 2006, pp. 65-67). The original anarchist opposition by Mikhail Bakunin
1
both are reductionist in seeing economic factors as the primary determinants of human
behaviour and history.
Marx himself was not adverse to Free Trade capitalism. He supported Free
Trade insofar as he saw it as a dialectical catalyst for the destruction of national
boundaries, which would internationalise ‘the proletariat’ and eventually lead to a
global system. Global capitalists maintain the same outlook today. Marx’s analysis in
regard to Free Trade was correct, although his alternative is nothing more than to
change the ownership of production and distribution. Marx said of Free Trade:
“National differences and antagonisms between peoples are daily more
and more vanishing, owing to the development of the bourgeoisie, to freedom
of commerce, to the world market, to uniformity in the modern of production
and in the conditions of life corresponding thereto. The supremacy of the
proletariat will cause them to vanish faster.” 3
Today’s global corporate executives and planners concur with Marx. Marx
further identified ‘protectionism’ as the conservative position, Free Trade as
subversive and revolutionary. Those – mainly political scientists and journalists,
especially in the English-speaking world – who insist on defining ‘conservatism’ (sic)
as Free Trade liberalism4’, should return to an actual source; in this
instance Marx, to re-evaluate their definitions:
“Generally speaking, the protectionist system today is
conservative, whereas the Free Trade system has a destructive
effect. It destroys the former nationalities, and renders the
Marx contrasts between workers and middle class more acute. In a
word, the Free Trade system is precipitating the social revolution.
And only in this revolutionary sense to I vote for Free Trade.” 5
South Africa Succumbed to Plutocracy – Not Communism
A classic example of the way by which multiculturalism is sold behind the
moral guise of ‘anti-racism’, ‘equality’ and ‘human rights’ in the interests of
plutocratic exploitation is that of South Africa. Without arguing the merits or
otherwise of apartheid, the salient factor in considering multiculturalism as part of the
globalisation process is that the fall of the Nationalist Government was the outcome of
a nexus between Black communist-inspired terrorists from below and plutocracy

to Marx in the Internationale included a critique of Marx in neglecting ethnological factors in history
in favour of the entirely economic. Bakunin stated of Marxism, again seldom referred to by the
contemporary ‘anarchists’:
“Likewise, Marx completely ignores a most important element in the historic
development of humanity, that is, the temperament and particular character of each race and
each people, a temperament and a character which are themselves the natural product of a
multitude of ethnological, climatological, economic and historic causes...” Sam Dolgoff (ed.),
Bakunin on Anarchy (Alfred A Knopf, 1972), pp. 282-3.
3
Karl Marx, Communist Manifesto (Moscow: Progress Publishers, 1975), p. 71.
4
A more accurate term for today’s so-called “right-wing” capitalists (also misnamed the “New Right”,
the definition in the English speaking countries being again quite different from that applied to the
term on Continental Europe, including the so-called ‘neo-conservatives’ in the USA), would be ‘neo-
Whig’.
5
Karl Marx & Friedrich Engels, “Speech on the question of free trade delivered to the Democratic
Association of Brussels at it public meeting of January 9, 1848”, Collected Works, Volume 6 (London:
Lawrence & Wishart, 1976).
2
headed up by the Oppenheimer interests6 working from above. Here communism and
Big Business served as pincer movements with the ‘Boer’ in between. In eulogising
Harry F Oppenheimer on his death in 2000 Mandela stated: “His contribution to
building partnership between big business and the new democratic government in that
first period of democratic rule can never be appreciated too much.”7
The result has been not been a regime that would deliver South African wealth
to the Blacks in a new utopia of peace and plenty. Rather the African National
Congress (ANC)/Communist Party regime has opened South Africa up to
globalisation and destroyed the remnants of the economic nationalism of the Afrikaner
nationalist governments. It was the Afrikaner nationalists who stood for State
economic intervention and who stood up to monopoly capitalism, since the days of the
old Boer Republics. The Black regime has reversed this economic nationalism in
favour of globalisation and privatisation.
In 1996, according to a Reuters report, Nelson Mandela, heralded as a saint by
the capitalist press and the Left alike, stated that: “Privatisation is the fundamental
policy of the ANC and will remain so.”8 Now the ANC Government is busy
dismantling the state economic structure erected by the Afrikaner nationalists to
safeguard their nation from the incursions of international finance capitalism. The
ANC/CP Government is turning State run utilities over to global corporations, just as
‘privatisation’ and globalisation in New Zealand was originally enacted under a so-
called “Labour” Government. For e.g. the State has divested itself of its 40% share in
South African Airways, once the most profitable airline in Africa. The Johannesburg
municipal water supply has been privatised and is now under the French corporation
Suez Lyonnaise Eaux. Eskom the state electricity producer, was made into a public
corporation to pave the way for privatisation. The ANC stated that: “Eskom is one of a
host of government owned ‘parastatals’ created during the apartheid era which the
democratically elected government has set out to privatise in a bid to raise money.”9
This good comrade, Mandela, nurtured by the Communist apparatus in South
Africa, lauded by the Western media as a saint, paved the way for the privatisation and
globalisation of the South African economy. He has followed the example of the rest
of de-colonised Africa, where the global corporations moved in once the colonial
administrations had pulled out.10
6
The Oppenheimer diamond and gold mining empire, which extends into the mass media and politics,
and has economically and politically permeated South African since the 19th century, is the historic
enemy of the Afrikaner. See: David Palliser, et al, South Africa Inc.: The Oppenheimer Empire
(London: Corgi Books, 1988).
7
“Mandela honours 'monumental' Oppenheimer”, The Star, South Africa, August 21, 2000,
http://www.iol.co.za/index.php?set_id=1&click_id=13&art_id=ct20000821001004683O150279
(accessed September 27, 2009).
8
Lynda Loxton, , "Mandela: We are going to privatise," The Saturday Star, May 25, 1996, p.1.
9
ANC daily news briefing, June 27, 2001. See also “Eskom”, ANC Daily News Briefing, June 20,
2001, 70.84.171.10/~etools/newsbrief/2001/news0621.txt
10
Soviet Foreign Minister Andrei Gromyko relates in his Memories (London: Arrow Books, 1989) that
“Washington tended to view colonial empires as a anachronism and made no secret that it would shed
no tears were they to be dismantled… In any case it was time for the old masters to move aside.” The
alleged communist menace from the USSR served as a diversion while the ‘new masters’ of global big
business moved in to fill the vacuum left by the departure of the colonial powers. The primary
instrument in this process was the Africa-American Institute, which serves to train new African
politicians and bureaucrats. The institute is staffed, led and funded from the usual sources for such
endeavours: Ford Foundation, Coca Cola, Merrill Lynch, et al. (Bolton, op.cit., 2006, pp. 48-51).
3
Global Capitalism and Cultural Identity
It is with the view to destroying national, cultural and ethnic boundaries that
global capitalism promotes open immigration.
In their study of global corporations based on interviews with the corporate
elite, Barnet and Muller state that both Adam Smith, theorist of Free Trade, and Marx,
predicted that capitalism would become international, which has been pointed out in
the opening passages of this essay. 11 Barnet and Muller write that, “The world
managers are the most active promoters of this Marxist prediction” of globalisation12,
of which we have previously quoted from The Communist Manifesto.
Barnet and Muller state that Jacques Maisonrouge, president of the IBM World
Trade Corporation “likes to point out that; ‘Down with borders’, a revolutionary
student slogan of the 1968 Paris university uprising – in which some of his children
were involved – is also a welcome slogan at IBM.”13 Maisonrouge states that the
“World Managers” (as Barnett and Muller call the corporate executives) believe they
are making the world ‘smaller and more homogeneous”; that the “global corporation is
‘the great leveller’”, or as Chomsky puts it, everyone is being levelled down as an
“interchangeable cog” in a world economy.14 Maisonrouge approvingly describes the
global corporate executive as “the detribalised, international career men.”15 It is this
‘detribalisation’ that is the basis of a “world consumer culture” required to more
efficiently create a world economy.
These “detribalised, international career men” were more recently described by
G Pascal Zachary, financial journalist, as being an “informal global aristocracy”,
recruited over the world by the corporations, depending totally on their companies and
“little upon the larger public”, a new class unhindered by national, cultural or ethnic
bonds. They are without nationality, and are quite literally ‘interchangeable cogs’.16
Creating The World Consumer
National, cultural and ethnic boundaries hinder global marketing. Barnett and
Muller quote Pfizer’s John J Powers as stating that global corporations are “agents for
change, socially, economically and culturally.”17 Barnett and Muller state that global
executives see “irrational nationalism” as inhibiting “the free flow of finance capital,
technology and goods on a global scale.” A crucial aspect of nationalism is
“differences in psychological and cultural attitudes, that complicate the task of
homogenising the earth into an integrated unit…. Cultural nationalism is also a serious
problem because it threatens the concept of the Global Shopping Center.”18
Barnet and Muller cite A W Clausen of the Bank of America as stating that
national, cultural and racial differences create “marketing problems”, lamenting that
there is “no such thing as a uniform, global market.” 19 Harry Heltzer, Chief Executive
Officer of 3M stated that global corporations are a “powerful voice for world peace
11
R J Barnet & R E Muller, Global Reach (New York: Simon & Schuster, 1974), p. 77.
12
Ibid.
13
Ibid., p. 19.
14
Barnett & Muller, ibid., p. 62.
15
Ibid.
16
G Pascal Zachary, The Global Me (New South Wales: Allen & Unwin, 2000).
17
Barnett & Muller, op.cit., p. 31.
18
Ibid.,p. 58.
19
Ibid.
4
because their allegiance is not to any nation, tongue, race or creed but to one of the
finer aspirations of mankind, that the people of the world may be united in common
economic purpose.”20
Global Cities
Since Barnet and Muller wrote their book, the internationalising and levelling
tendency of global capitalism has become evident in New Zealand with our malls and
the way our towns and cities now look much the same in whatever part of the country
one may visit. Of course, the trends towards globalisation and the ‘global consumer
culture’ including the ‘global shopping mall’ are even more evident throughout the
Western world, with increasing encroachment on the former Eastern bloc and the
Third World by global corporations.
In the 1970s Howard Perlmutter and Hasan Ozekhan of the Wharton School of
Finance Worldwide Institutions Programme prepared a plan for a “global city”. Prof.
Perlmutter is a consultant to global corporations. His plan was commissioned by the
French Government planning agency on how best to make Paris a “global city.”
Perlmutter predicted that cities would become “global cities” during the 1980s. For
Paris this required “becoming less French” and undergoing “denationalisation.” This,
he said, requires a “psycho-cultural change of image with respect to the traditional
impression of ‘xenophobia’ that the French seem to exclude.” Perlmutter suggested
that the best way of ridding France of its nationalism was to introduce
multiculturalism. He advocated “the globalisation of cultural events” such as
international rock festivals, as an antidote to “overly national and sometimes
nationalistic culture.”21 Of course such modernist music has from the start been a
means by which a ‘global culture’ can be imposed from above, whilst simultaneously
making large profits, and breaking down cultural and ethnic barriers among the
generations of youth, until everyone has become “detribalised”. In more recent years
we have witnessed the phenomenon of the young, right down to toddlers, being
targeted by corporate advertising as consumers in their own right.
This “global city” concept being discussed three decades ago is interesting for
New Zealanders at the moment considering the current Government enactment that
made Auckland a “super city” by centralising the various district council’s into a single
entity. Such super-cities are panned for Wellington and elsewhere. A World Bank
report for ‘reshaping geography’ according to global economic requirements has
recently been issued which would appear to be a globalist blueprint for the increasing
absorption of townships into the type of “super city” now being proposed for New
Zealand, being undertaken under the demand for ‘economic efficiency’ and
condemning any opposition as ‘parochial’. 22
Funding the Multicultural Revolutions
Multicultural agendas throughout the world are the recipients of much largesse
from the global corporations channelled through tax-empts foundations such as the
Ford and Rockefeller Foundations.
The currency speculator George Soros, whose foundations and networks have
been particularly active in fomenting ‘colour revolutions’ around the world under the
auspices of his Open Society Institute, specialise in the subverting of traditional
20
Ibid., p. 106.
21
Ibid., pp. 113-114.
22
World Bank, Reshaping Economic Geography 2009.
5
institutions and customs especially in the Middle Eastern and former Eastern bloc
countries. Feminist issues are particularly high on the agenda. In the area of
multiculturalism Soros set up the Emma Lazarus Fund to dispense funds for
immigration lobbying.
Emma Lazarus was the 19th Century poet, novelist and critic, and an early
proponent of Zionist colonisation of Palestine, whose words from her poetic tribute to
the Statue of Liberty, The New Colossus, adorn the statue:
"Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door!"
The Fund was set up by the Open Society Institute spanning 1996-1997 for the
sole purpose of dispensing grants totalling $50,000,000 to pro-immigration lobbies and
projects. 23
La Raza: How the Ford Foundation Created a New Ethnic Group
Until the 1960s the problem of Mexican migration was economically based, and
involved the demand for cheap labour by the giant agricultural combines in the USA.
However, during the 1960s, with the rise of “identity politics”, “black power” and the
well-funded “civil rights” movement, the Ford Foundation expanded its ethnic
outreach to Mexican migrants. The aim was to begin a process of forming previously
diverse nationalities into a unified “Hispanic” ethnic movement intended to further
erode any vestiges of an American nationality, identity or culture. The Ford
Foundation, through its grant-making strategies, formed a new “race” (La Raza) that
threatens to secede parts of the USA to Mexico or at least declare a separatist Hispanic
nation.
Until the creation of MALDEF (Mexican-American Legal Defense and
Education Fund) by the Ford Foundation, Mexican Americans regarded themselves as
“whites” who aimed to completely assimilate into White America. Joseph Fallon24,
writes:
“The League of United Latin American Citizens (LULAC), the nation's
oldest and largest ''Hispanic'' organization, was established on February 17,
1929 ...
“From 1929 through the 1950s, LULAC was a middle-class, patriotic
organization of U.S. citizens of Mexican descent whose activities centered
primarily on education. Its agenda was traditional ''Americanism'' — Mexican-
Americans must assimilate to the ''Anglo'' culture of the United States and
acquire proficiency in the English language. It stressed ''Mexican-Americans''
were ''Americans,'' not ''Mexicans.'' An integral part of its activities was the
promotion of U.S. citizenship and loyalty to the United States. LULAC rejected
the idea the U.S. Southwest should be returned to Mexico and opposed
establishment of Spanish-language enclaves in the United States. Because
illegal aliens from Mexico were violating U.S. laws and posing an economic
23
Details of Fund spending are no longer available from the Open Society Institute website. Many
details can be read in Bolton, op.cit., 2006, pp. 31-33.
24
Joseph Fallon, Funding Hate - Foundations and the Radical Hispanic Lobby- Part III,
http://vdare.com/fallon/index.htm
6
burden on Mexican-Americans by lowering wages, LULAC endorsed
immigration control and supported President Eisenhower's ''Operation
Wetback'' which deported a million illegal aliens back to Mexico.”
This orientation among Mexican –Americans changed when the Ford
Foundation promoted the formation of MALDEF, whose founder Peter Tijerina, had
been an official of LULAC.
“MALDEF was a creation of the Ford Foundation in more ways than just
funding. The Ford Foundation soon took control of virtually all important
matters from where the headquarters should be located, to the appointment of
its executive director, and the type of legal cases it should pursue.”
MALDEF was created to establish a separate identity for Latin American
immigrants, which would undermine the cohesion of the USA by, of example,
demanding legal status for the Spanish language on par with English.
In addition to largesse from the Foundations, MALDEF also receives funds
from globalist corporations including AT&T and IBM. Joseph Fallon25 writes:
“MALDEF obtains the funding to support its activities primarily from
corporations in particular AT&T and IBM, and philanthropic foundations. For
the period 1991-1995, the total amount of ''gifts, grants and contributions'' to
MALDEF was over $17 million. Between 1996 and 1998, MALDEF received
over nine million dollars from just three foundations the vast majority, over six
million dollars from the Ford Foundation, $1,200,000 from Carnegie
Corporation, and another $1,525,000 from the Rockefeller Foundation. The
National Council of La Raza was established in 1968 with support from the
Ford Foundation and was originally called the Southwest Council of La Raza.”
Hence a new ethnicity was formed in the USA through the largesse of Ford,
Rockefeller AT&T and IBM, a new ethnicity which moreover has become a
significant factor in the breaking down of an American national identity. It is relevant
to conjecture as to what extent the creation of this Hispanic ethnicity will serve as a
leeway for pushing the American Free Trade Agreement that includes Mexico, as one
of many such regional economic groupings that, like the EU, and the projected
Trilateralist26 Asia bloc, serve as a further step towards a global economic system
where there is a free flow of labour, resources, money and goods unhindered by
national, cultural and ethnic boundaries and traditions. The end product will not be the
individual living in peace and harmony with everybody else across the world, but a
rootless serf: Homo Economicus, the ‘interchangeable cog’ referred to by Chomsky.
K R Bolton, is a Fellow of the Academy of Social & Political Research
(http://www.academy-of-social-and-political-research.com). Published works include:
Thinkers of the Right, England, 2003; “Russia and China: An Approaching Conflict?”,
Washington: The Journal of Social, Political and Economic Studies, Vol. 34, No. 2,
Summer 2009; “Trotskyism and the anti-family agenda”, CKR, Sociology Dept.,
Moscow State University, October 2009, and Geopolitika, Moscow, November 2009.
The article “Multiculturalism as a Process of Globalisation” originally appeared in the
25
Fallon, ibid.
26
The Trilateral Commission, established in 1973, was one of several think tanks created at the behest
of David Rockefeller, the purpose of the Trilateralists being to create an economic bloc comprising
North America, Europe and Asia (originally Japan). http://www.trilateral.org/
7
peer reviewed quarterly journal of the Academy of Social and Political Research, Ab
Aeterno, No. 1, November 2009.