by Kerry Bolton
The process of depopulation and immigration was observed in ages past in other Civilisations that were at the same cycle in which we now exist. The philosopher-historian Oswald Spengler, in his morphology on the rise and fall of cultures, observed on the phenomenon of population decline that birth control was deplored by Polybius as the ruin of Greece. Women were no longer regarded as potential mothers, as the procreator of a family lineage, but only as companions. The ‘emancipation of woman,’ or ‘feminism’ as it is today called, applauded almost universally as ‘progressive,’ is simply another replay of what has taken place in Alexandria, Rome, or Athens thousands of years ago.[7] This ‘feminism’ has ‘emancipated’ women from the family and integrated them into the production process. It is why the globalists are so avid in funding and promoting feminism[8] as they are in regard to multiculturalism and immigration.
‘The father of many children is for the great city a subject of caricature.’[9] This state of ‘appalling depopulation’ ‘lasts for centuries,’ until the Civilisation has collapsed and has become historically passé. Analogous epochs of depopulation in each of the Civilisations are traced by Spengler: the Egyptian New Empire from the XIX Dynasty onwards, the Mayan, the measures to encourage population increase in China in the 3rd century BC, and the emptiness of Samarra by the 10th century BC. Augustus Caesar attempted to reverse the decline of Rome with marriage-and-children laws. Soldiers recruited from the barbarian subject peoples were sought to fill the depopulated countryside.
Here again, we can see the analogy between these Civilisations and our own: while overpopulation effects the non-European states, the ageing populations of Western states (and other White states such as Russia in particular) are being replaced with Asian and Muslim immigrants, whose high birth rates account for their population increases. Spengler concludes from these analogous epochs, writing of the cosmopolitan Cities as symbolic of the Late or senile cycle:
This, then is the conclusion of the city’s history; growing from primitive barter-centre to Culture-city and at last to world-city, it sacrifices first the blood and soul of its creators to the needs of its majestic evolution, and then the last flower of that growth to the spirit of Civilisation—and so, doomed, moves on to final self-destruction.[10]
The Modern Babel
However one relates to the Bible, whether as literal or as allegorical, one of the great lessons relevant to the matter of multiculturalism and the push for ‘one world, one race’ by the lovers of Mammon and the worshippers of the Golden Calf, is the mythic Tower of Babel. It shows how the powerful have been full of hubris since ancient times. They tried to arrogate the powers of God and create, even then, what is today called by friend and foe alike, a ‘new world order.’ This account in Genesis is prescient of modern times:
And they said, go to, let us build us a city and a tower, whose top may reach unto heaven; and let us make us a name, lest we be scattered abroad, upon the face of the whole earth. And the Lord came down to see the city and the tower, which the children of men builded. And the Lord said, behold, the people is one, and they have all one language, and this they begin to do: and now nothing will be restrained from them, which they have imagined to do. Go to, let us go down, and there confound their language, that they may not understand one another’s speech. So the Lord scattered them abroad from thence upon the face of the earth and they left off to build the city. Therefore is the name of it called Babel . . .[11]
Such a work is alluded to in the fragments of Babylonian tablets, of a tower destroyed by the gods and the languages of humanity confounded.[12] Our modern Babel is called ‘globalisation,’ whereby a moneyed elite has arrogated to itself godlike powers to recreate humanity in an image of its choosing and for the sake of its own power. This global Babel requires the deconstruction of identities with the aim of reconstructing a single identity based on the ever-shifting requirements of mass production and consumption.
Perhaps several thousand years from now, a Chinese archaeologist will unearth the remains of a collapsed tower while excavating New Beijing, or what was in ancient times known as New York, and discover torn and scattered fragments of the ‘United Nations Charter,’ and conclude that here was another failed attempt by deluded man to play God and build for himself an edifice to his own glory, only to cause his whole civilisation to collapse as others have before it.
[1] George Orwell, Nineteen Eighty-Four (London: Martin Secker and Warburg, 1949), part 1, ch. 3, p. 32.
[2] Mark 6:4.
[3] Edward Gibbon, The History of the Decline & Fall of the Roman Empire (London: Reprint Society, 1961), vol. II, ch. 24.
[4] C. Northcote Parkinson, East and West (London: John Murray, 1963), 100–101.
[5] I bid., 100.
[6] I Timothy 6–10.
[7] Oswald Spengler, The Decline of the West (London: Allen and Unwin, 1971), 2:105.
[8] For the globalist sponsorship of feminism by the same interests that promote multiculturalism and ‘open borders,’ see K. R. Bolton, Revolution from Above (London: Arktos Media, 2011), ‘New Left from Old’ (Feminism), 160–200.
[9] Spengler, The Decline of the West, 2:105–7.
[10] Ibid., 107.
[11] Genesis 11:4–9.
[12] George Smith, The Chaldean Account of Genesis (Minneapolis: Wizard Bookshelf, 1977 [1876]), 8, 9, 13, 48, 158–61.
No Colour, No Country:
the Nature of Capitalism
Whoever criticizes capitalism, while approving immigration, whose working class is its first victim, had better shut up. Whoever criticizes immigration, while remaining silent about capitalism, should do the same.[1]
—Alain de Benoist, French philosopher, founder of the Nouvelle Droite
The Old Left knew exactly what the nature of capitalism was and the use of multiculturalism and immigration to expand the labour market. The Old Left was therefore in the forefront of demanding immigration restrictions and ethnic policies that would preserve national identities.
Now, however, the rank-and-file of the Left, whether social democrats, communists, or anarchists, are clueless in regards to the nature of capitalism and multiculturalism, and their leaders exploit what is today called ‘identity politics’ to recruit disaffected minorities in the name of feminism, ‘gay rights,’ ‘human rights,’ ‘children’s rights,’ ‘minority rights,’ ‘majority rights,’ ad infinitum. As IBM’s Jacques Maisonrouge[2] commented several decades ago, ‘Down with borders’ is just as much a corporate slogan as it is a slogan of the New Left youth who were rioting in Paris at the time, and this remains true today.
Today the Left pontificates about the ‘racist’ nature of capitalism. According to Marxist theory, capitalism uses racism to divide the working class, which is supposed to be international and not loyal to country, class loyalty superseding any other loyalty or bond of kinship.
This is nonsense. Capitalism has long used immigration to move different ethnic groups throughout the world according to the needs of production, like pieces on a global chessboard, each with their own functions. Hence, Indians were sent to Fiji to cut sugar cane, and Chinese were sent to South Africa, Canada, the United States, New Zealand, and Australia to work on railways. Now capitalism also uses multiculturalism to create a nebulous class of willing wage slaves without identity other than as units of production and consumption. More recently Polynesians were encouraged to migrate to New Zealand when it was still a manufacturing country, and now the Asian middle and upper classes are encouraged to migrate to New Zealand for their money, since New Zealand is no longer a labour-intensive economy, and is being forced into an Asian economic bloc. While I am not generally given to citing Wikipedia as a reliable source on anything, its entry on ‘Free Migration’ succinctly states of these matters:
Free migration or open immigration is the position that people should be able to migrate to whatever country they choose, free of monetary charge. Although the two are not the same issue, free migration is similar in spirit to the concept of free trade, and both are advocated by free market economists on the grounds that economics is not a zero-sum game and that free markets are, in their opinion, the best way to create a fairer and balanced economic system, thereby increasing the overall economic benefits to all concerned parties. Many libertarians, liberals, socialists, and anarchists advocate open immigration, notwithstanding other noteworthy differences among these political ideologies.[3]
Immigration undermines national identity and national boundaries that are hindrances to global marketing and production. In an analysis reminiscent of Old Labour before it was taken over by Marxists and other internationalist elements, the celebrated American scholar Professor Noam Chomsky, heralded by the Left as a seminal influence, explained the character of capitalism relative to race that is particularly cogent in describing the crux of the issue:
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 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.[4]
The Old Labour movements understood the nature of capitalism. Marx predicted in The Communist Manifesto that capitalism would become international, transcending imperial and national boundaries, and that in so doing the ‘proletariat’ would also become international and an international revolutionary working class would thereby be formed to overthrow world capitalism and establish world communism, stating:
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.[5]
Marx and Engels similarly wrote ‘on the Free Trade question’:
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 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 do I vote for Free Trade.[6]
Where Marxism differs from non-Marxist Old Labour is that Marx regarded the internationalisation of capitalism as a positive part of the dialectical process of history[7] that would break down national boundaries, enabling the working class to also become international. The Old Labour pioneers saw the internationalist character of capitalism as something to be fought. Marx was correct in predicting the globalisation of capital, however his dialectical outlook on history was wrong in seeing this as a step towards socialism. Rather, it is a step towards a world economy ruled by oligarchs, a class that does transcend race, culture, and nation. This has formed a global ‘elite’ or oligarchy that is promoting ‘one world, one race’ in tandem with the bogus Left.
[1] Alain de Benoist, ‘Immigration: The Reserve Army of Capital,’ p. 4, http://www.alaindebenoist.com/pdf/immigration_reserve_army_of_the_capital-anglais.pdf.
[2] ‘Jacques G. Maisonrouge,’ IBM, http://www-03.ibm.com/ibm/history/exhibits/builders/builders_maisonrouge.html.
[3] ‘Free Migration,’ Wikipedia, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_migration.
[4] Noam Chomsky, Understanding Power: The Indispensable Chomsky (New York: The New Press, 2002), 88–89.
[5] Karl Marx, The Communist Manifesto (Moscow: Progress Publishers, 1975), 71.
[6] Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, ‘Speech on the Question of Free Trade Delivered to the Democratic Association of Brussels at Its Public Meeting of January 9, 1848,’ in Collected Works, vol. 6 (London: Lawrence & Wishart, 1976).
[7] For an explanation of dialectics and how both Capitalism and Marxism use it, see K. R. Bolton, Revolution from Above (London: Arktos Media, 2011), ‘Capitalist and Marxist Dialectics,’ 9–14.
The Fallacy of ‘White Privilege’
The grassroots worker’s movement opposed the internationalising tendencies of capitalism, and their demands included immigration restrictions. Marxism undermined this basic feature of the struggle against international capital. The most extreme positions today on the issue are those of the anarchists and the Trotskyites, both of whom align themselves with international capitalism in their call for ‘open borders.’ For example, Latino communist Eduardo Martínez Zapata stated to the Freedom Socialist Party in the United States:
Humanity needs to move to our next stage—not corporate globalization, but collective globalization, in which the needs of all will be met. We will have no use for national borders; people will not be forced to uproot their entire families from their homelands just to survive. Movement from place to place will be the free choice of free people.[1]
Zapata’s statement is representative of the Left of many different types. Note that he calls for ‘globalisation’ in which the free movement of people across the world is advocated as a ‘choice,’ while paying a passing reference to the rootedness of homeland, presumably to appeal to the diehard nationalistic sentiments among Latinos while standing for something quite different: ‘collective globalisation.’ The difference between ‘corporate globalisation’ and ‘collective globalisation’ is that in the former CEOs rule in the name of shareholders, while in the latter commissars’ rule in the name of ‘the people.’ The ‘identity politics’ of the Left are expressed in the statement of the Freedom Socialist Party in trying to appeal to sundry disaffected minorities: ‘The Freedom Socialist Party is a working class organization composed of women and men of many races, nationalities, sexual orientations and ages who are fighting for a new, just social order that will serve the majority of the human race.’[2]
The Freedom Socialist Party follows the Trotskyite line of Marxism.[3] The appeal for support is to ‘Women, particularly working-class women of color,’ ‘The revolt of sexual minorities,’ ‘The struggles of oppressed minorities and immigrants.’[4] This is the line followed by Trotskyism throughout the world, as well as by anarchist factions. It is contrary to the original position of the Labour movement and how the pioneers of that movement understood capitalism.
Immigration restriction was and is a workers’ cause. Real socialists, real anti-capitalists, before the labour movements were taken over by internationalist doctrines, recognised this. Old Labour would have spat on today’s Left-wingers as lackeys of global capitalism. The absurd notion of the contemporary Left that racism and immigration restrictions are capitalist tools to divide the international working class is refuted by the fact that it was the Labor Party and trades unions which fought for the introduction of the ‘White Australia Policy’ against global capitalism. Now the Left, having become obsessively anti-White in the quest to lead what Spengler termed the ‘coloured world-revolution,’[5] have identified the ‘White working class’ with White oligarchy, having common interests and privileges vis-à-vis ‘coloured’ peoples. The ‘coloured’ people
s thus enjoy a special position of esteem within the Left:
Non-ruling class white people are both oppressed and privileged. They are oppressed most significantly on the basis of class, gender and sexuality, and also on the basis of religion, culture, ethnicity, age, physical abilities and politics. At the same time, they are privileged in relation to peoples of color.[6]
White indentured servants enjoyed a privileged position over Black slaves, according to this mythology: ‘English or “white” servants were granted specific forms of privilege or preferential treatment which was specifically denied to slaves, or “Negroes.”’
In summary, the system of white privilege for non-ruling class whites reinforces the system of racial oppression against people of color. And the complementary systems of white privilege and racial oppression maintain the system of white power for ruling class whites.[7]
Hence, to the Left, and to liberal academics, the ‘white race’ is not a biological entity but a political construct created to perpetuate oppression, and the ‘white’ workers—including indentured servants sent to the colonies, children working down coal mines, and families separated and put into workhouses, etc.—enjoyed privileges as part of the ‘white oppressor’ construct. This is part of a post-colonial narrative that serves political and racial agendas in demonising the European heritage. Today, all Whites, whatever socio-economic class and whatever their deprivation, are regarded in the post-colonial narrative as beneficiaries of the colonial exploitation of coloureds. One can however redeem oneself by becoming a Communist and violently rejecting one’s European heritage and identity. Before the days of post-colonial academic discourse, or what is commonly referred to now as ‘political correctness,’ the pioneers of the Labour movement held different views.
