by Kerry Bolton
The Transpacific Project makes the intentions for the use of the hypothesis clear by the focus the Project gives to explaining how today’s globalisation is a development of the ‘one race’ hypothesis. Then it explains how genetic and cultural hybridisation are parts of this ongoing process, which is today impelled by global trade. Hence humans are presented as a migratory species without any biological imperative for a fixed territory (i.e., ‘nations’) or permanent abode established in time and space, and should be free to wander the Earth; or at least as ‘free’ as economic considerations allow or demand. Therefore, what is demanded is a constant state of flux that allows humans to be uprooted and transplanted around the world and anyone who objects is damned as a ‘xenophobe,’ a ‘racist’ and an anomaly. As the Transpacific Migrations Project explains, trade generally facilitated migrations; and the process of globalisation today is just the modern version of this perennial phenomenon. Globalisation is hence ‘evolutionary,’ ‘progressive,’ and natural. Cultural anthropology, sociology, and even genetics—once the abode of scientists who asserted that ‘race’ is biologically determined, rather than just a ‘social’ or ‘cultural’ construct that can be deconstructed and reconstructed at will—have been harnessed to the service of globalisation, as the above example of the Transpacific Migrations Project indicates.
As will be seen in a later chapter, transnational corporations have for several decades been heralded by philosophers of globalisation such as Professor Howard Perlmutter as the modern agents for ‘one world,’ and what has been called ‘hybrid capitalism.’ Recent DNA mapping and the ‘Africa Eve’ hypothesis have been enlisted into the globalist ranks to give global slavery a ‘scientific’ façade, reminiscent of the way certain biblical quotes were cited to justify the slavery of Africans. This time the aim is a world plantation, with ‘hybrid’ ‘overseers’ and CEOs and lordship by family business dynasties.
[1] The Geographic Project, National Geographic, https://genographic.nationalgeographic.com/human-journey/.
[2] On the doctrinal and poetic origins of the ‘Noble Savage’ in the 18th century, which continues to inform Western politics and academia, see ‘The Myth of the Noble Savage’ in K. R. Bolton, The Parihaka Cult (London: Black House Publishing, 2012), 23–27.
[3] Allan C. Wilson and Rebecca L. Cann, ‘The Recent African Genesis of Humans,’ Scientific American, no. 266, 1992, 68–73.
[4] Alan G. Thorne and Milford H. Wolpoff, ‘The Multiregional Evolution of Humans,’ Scientific American 1992, no. 266, 76–83.
[5] Pat Shipman, The New Scientist, 16 January 1993.
[6] Carleton S. Coon, The Origin of the Races (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1962), 108–9.
[7] R. R. Gates, Heredity in Man (London: Constable, 1929), 295. Gates was the founder of chromosome genetics.
[8] John Pickrell, ‘Chimps Belong on Human Branch of Family Tree, Study Says,’ National Geographic News, 20 May 2003.
[9] For such convergences, see K. R. Bolton, Revolution from Above (London: Arktos Media, 2011).
[10] K. R. Bolton, ‘Reductio ad Hitlerum as a Social Evil,’ Journal of Inconvenient History 5, no. 2 (Summer 2013), http://inconvenienthistory.com/archive/2013/volume_5/number_2/reductio_ad_hitlerum_as_a_social_evil.php.
[11] K. R. Bolton, The Psychotic Left: From Jacobin France to the Occupy Movement (London: Black House Publishing, 2013).
[12] Arthur Keith, The Place of Prejudice in Modern Civilisation (London: Williams & Norgate, 1931).
[13] See, for example, Richard Dawkins, The Selfish Gene (London: Granada Publishing, 1983).
[14] A. James Gregor, ‘On the Nature of Prejudice,’ The Eugenics Review 52, no. 4 (January 1961).
[15] Transpacific Migrations, http://www.transpacificproject.com/index.php/transpacific-migrations/
[16] Ibid.
[17] Ibid.
[18] ‘Paradigm Shift,’ http://www.transpacificproject.com/index.php/paradigm-shift/.
[19] Ibid.
[20] Ibid.
[21] ‘Welcome to the Transpacific Project,’ http://www.transpacificproject.com/index.php/2011/06/05/enricos-test/.
[22] K. R. Bolton, Geopolitics of the Indo-Pacific, op. cit.
[23] Transpacific Project, http://www.transpacificproject.com/.
[24] Ibid., ‘The Importance of Transpacific Trade.’
[25] Ibid.
[26] Ibid.
[27] Ibid.
[28] K. R. Bolton, Revolution from Above (London: Arktos Media, 2011).
Multiculturalism as a Process of Globalisation
The movement of people across borders is essential in today’s globalised world. International business depends on an international labour force, and the ability of people to move around the world with ease.
—Brunson McKinley[1]
Multicultural agendas, including those concerned with immigration, are methods 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 an oligarchy.
Ironically, as we have already seen in the chapter ‘No colour, no country’, an iconic intellectual of the contemporary Left, Professor Noam Chomsky, provided one of the most cogent explanations on the character of international capitalism visà-vis race and immigration, echoing sentiments that, as seen previously, were once common among the Left, before being taken over by Marxists and other internationalists. The reader is referred again to the Chomsky passage quoted in the previous chapter, ‘No colour, no country.’
In terms of globalisation, Chomsky explains alot in one paragraph. He repudiates the now prevalent notion among the Left that capitalism is inherently racist. As seen previously, the Left now generally explains capitalism as a means of exploitation by ‘White’ oligarchs in a system of supposed ‘White supremacy’ that places even the White indentured servants of prior centuries in a ‘privileged position’ vis-à-vis coloured slaves and coloured colonial subjects. The Left completely fails to understand the nature of capitalism. this is not surprising because Marxism and other forms of Leftism derive from the same 19th-century economic outlook as their supposed enemy—free-trade capitalism. We have previously noted Marx’s endorsement of free trade as a dialectical phase. As for Chomsky’s statement, what we can note further on this is that:
• Chomsky states a heresy in saying that ‘race is in fact a human characteristic.’
• Chomsky states that ‘race’ interferes with the aim of recreating humans as ‘consumers and producers, interchangeable cogs.’
However, most of the Left has precisely the same aim as capitalism, and that is to refashion humans as cogs in an economic process.
Chomsky was answering a question on anti-apartheid demonstrations and the good press they received. The rest of Chomsky’s statement that deals with apartheid was discussed in the previous chapter, ‘Apartheid: Lest we forget (or never knew).
Despite the veneration that Dr. Chomsky receives from extreme Leftists, such as the cowardly ‘anarchists’ who wear black balaclavas (the ‘Black Blocs’) and riot against any manifestation of nationalism, you will not hear Chomsky’s views on race and capitalism from such people because they are at root children of the Establishment they think they are fighting.[2] Also, you are not likely to hear the statements on Marxism, capitalism, and race by one of the original founders of anarchism, Marx’s arch-rival Mikhail Bakunin wh
o, unlike Marx, was a real revolutionary:
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 . . .[3]
For example, in semi-literate agonising over the ‘racism’ of Bakunin and the anarchist theorist Proudhon on an ‘anarchist’ website, one reads among others:
What they wrote and how they lived their lives were as progressives, free-thinkers and libertarians, and any racist/prejudiced elements to their character were small in comparison to their overall philosophy. We’d all quickly reject such prejudices as incomptable [sic] with anarchism.[4]
‘. . . Incompatible with anarchism’ because ‘anarchists’ today are just another Left-wing reflection of the Establishment they think they are opposing, but can more often be seen opposing genuine opposition to globalisation led by the Right. The Right opposes globalisation regardless of its being undertaken in the name of the ‘proletariat’ or in the name of business efficiency. Both lead to the convergence of humanity as a singular glob without identity and a real sense of community. Hence once distinctions are broken down, whether by socialism or by free trade, the social engineers in the service of the ‘World Socialist State’ or the ‘New International Economic Order,’ are able to reconstruct humanity into what Chomsky calls an ‘economic cog.’
Global Capitalism and Cultural Identity
. . . both CEOs and Ph.D.s insist more and more that it is no longer possible to speak in terms of the United States as some fixed, sovereign entity. The world has moved on; capital and labor are mobile; and with each passing year, national borders, not to speak of national identities, become less relevant either to consciousness or to commerce.
—David Rief[5]
It is with the aim of destroying national, cultural and ethnic boundaries that global capitalism promotes open immigration. As seen above, the Left believe in the same aims.
In their study of global corporations based on interviews with members of the corporate elite, Richard J. Barnet and Ronald E. Muller state that both Adam Smith and Karl Marx predicted that capitalism would become international.[6] Barnet and Muller wrote that, ‘The world managers are the most active promoters of this Marxist prediction’ of globalisation.[7]
Barnet and Muller stated that the previously cited 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.’[8] Maisonrouge stated that the ‘World Managers’ (as Barnet and Muller called the corporate executives) believe they are making the world ‘smaller and more homogeneous’; that the ‘global corporation is “the great leveller.”’[9] Maisonrouge approvingly describes the global corporate executive as ‘the detribalised, international career men.’[10] It is this ‘detribalisation’ that is the basis of a world consumer culture, and is described with such terms as ‘hybrid capitalism,’ and the ‘interchangeable cog’ is heralded as the next stage in human evolution. These ‘detribalised, international career men’ have been described by financial journalist G. Pascal Zachary as being an ‘informal global aristocracy,’ recruited over the world by the corporations, depending totally on their companies and ‘little upon the larger public,’[11] a new class unhindered by national, cultural, or ethnic bonds. They are without nationality, and are quite literally ‘interchangeable cogs.’ We will return to Zachary in the next chapter.
Creating the World Consumer
National, cultural, and ethnic boundaries hinder global marketing. Barnet and Muller quoted Pfizer’s John J. Powers as stating that global corporations are ‘agents for change, socially, economically and culturally.’[12] Barnet 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.’[13]
Multiculturalism is used as a battering ram against this ‘cultural nationalism’ that ‘complicates the task of homogenisation.’ This is where the technique of dialectics comes in, of using multiculturalism, which implies literally a multiplicity of cultures that are being maintained, to deconstruct cohesive, culturally homogeneous societies in the name of ‘diversity,’ with the aim of reconstructing society by using the common denominator of money. Culture, citizenship, and nationality therefore become questions of how one fits into a consumer society. The culture that results is bland because everything is reduced to being a commodity to be mass-produced for quick profits. New mass markets are formed by reconstructing individuals as cogs in the mass consumption society, which does not have cultural, linguistic, or ethnic barriers. The point is most readily illustrated by observing that McDonald’s, for example, is much the same whether in Europe, Asia, Africa, the United States, or Latin America. Coca-Cola is a global beverage, ‘pop’ a form of music that can be marketed to youth in any part of the world. This is the meaning of globalisation and the purpose of multiculturalism, as a prelude to world monoculturalism. In order to operate such a global market there must be globalised workers, executives, and technicians: the purpose of multiculturalism is to destroy the ethnic, national and other organic and historic boundaries that hinder the development and mobility of human cogs in a world economy. Hence, when the Left demands ‘open borders’ and states that the ‘working class has no country,’ they serve the aims of international capitalism, which also wants open borders to move labour, technology, and capital across the world as marketing requires.
Barnet and Muller cite A. W. Clausen when he was the head 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.’[14] It is this ‘uniform global market’ that is being pushed ahead at speed through what is now call globalisation. Harry Heltzer, the CEO of 3M, stated that global corporations are a ‘powerful voice for world peace 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.’[15] The globalist elitists back movements for ‘human rights,’ civil rights’ ‘open borders,’ ‘anti-racism,’ ‘immigrants rights,’ etc., with the type of moral posturing referred to by Heltzer, and they view the noblest aspiration of humanity to be nothing other than a ‘common economic purpose,’ whereby all sense of organic identity and community can be obliterated and a new form of identity can emerge on the basis of buying and selling.
Global Cities
In the 1970s Howard Perlmutter and Hasan Ozekhan of the University of Pennsylvania’s Wharton School of Finance Worldwide Institutions Programme prepared a plan for a ‘global city.’ Professor 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.’[16]
