Babel Inc

by Kerry Bolton

  While indulging in self-promotion of its humanitarian support for Hispanics in the United States, the previous year (2003) the FBI raided 60 Wal-Mart stores across 21 states and arrested 250 illegal immigrants who had been employed by Wal-Mart as janitors from contractors. The FBI also raided Wal-Mart’s headquarters in Arkansas and removed documents. An FBI official stated that wiretaps had been used to record meetings between Wal-Mart executives and contractors. In 2004 a court ordered Wal-Mart to pay 83 workers unpaid overtime, ‘in the second phase of a trial that highlighted working conditions at the nation’s largest private employer.’ ‘Wal-Mart, the world’s largest retailer, made employees at 18 Oregon stores work unpaid overtime from 1994 to 1999. About three dozen similar suits against the retailer are pending nationwide.’[17] Representative George Miller of the House Education and Workforce Committee, stated after an investigation in 2004 that ‘Substandard pay and health care benefits for Wal-Mart workers allow the firm to charge very low prices that force nearby stores to slash their workers’ pay and benefits in order to compete.’[18] Despite Wal-Mart’s indignation at such accusations and investigations, the complaints persist to the present. At protests outside the annual conference of Wal-Mart shareholders in Arkansas, workers drew attention to grievances not only in the United States, but also the use by Wal-Mart of manufacturers in such states as Bangladesh. One Wal-Mart employee was quoted as stating that,

  irregular hours left her unable to pay for healthcare for her family. One week she could work eight hours, the next 40. ‘Healthcare costs do not change, but my pay and hours do,’ she said. She said the instability left her unable to keep up with her premiums. ‘We need public assistance to survive. Living in low-income housing, relying on food stamps, not being able to afford healthcare, is not my definition of providing a good job,’ she said.[19]

  There are reports that employees who complained about conditions suffered ‘retaliation,’ including dismissal. Representative Miller raised the same matters in 2004. This is the real face of globalisation, behind the donations to ethnic minority lobbies and the eagerness of these corporations to promote ‘open borders.’ What is notable is the zeal by which many ‘ethnic’ leaders, spokesmen, and lobbies accept donations from such corporations, and even award prizes to their directors and CEOs in the cause of ‘minority rights.’ In 2013 the Association of Hispanic Advertising Agencies (AHAA) gave Wal-Mart its ‘first Marketer of the Year’ award at its annual conference in Miami.

  ‘AHAA’s criteria for the award included a top-down commitment to Hispanic and other multicultural marketing, significant spending, and incorporating Hispanic into the company’s overall strategy with measurable accountability. ‘Walmart spent about $60 million on Hispanic marketing alone in both 2011 and 2012. At the ANA conference last October, Mr. Rogers said that 100% of Walmart’s growth in sales is going to come from multicultural customers, leading the company to decide to at least double its spending to reach those customers in 2013.’[20]

  [1] Ibid., MALDEF.

  [2] Joseph Fallon, ‘Funding Hate—Foundations and the Radical Hispanic Lobby—Part III,’ The Social Contract 11, no. 1 (Fall 2000) http://www.thesocialcontract.com/artman2/publish/tsc1101/article_912.shtml.

  [3] Ibid.

  [4] ‘Discover the Network,’ http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/printgroupProfile.asp?grpid=6156.

  The reader is referred to ‘Discover the Network’ as a convenient references for cross-referencing the interconnections and activities of the Foundations.

  [5] William F. Jasper, ‘Silk Hats and Brown Berets,’ The New American 12, no. 4, 1996.

  [6] Ford Foundation Grants, National Council of La Raza, op. cit.

  [7] La Raza, ‘Corporate Champions,’ http://www.nclr.org/index.php/support_us/corporate_champions/corporate_board_of_advisors/.

  [8] La Raza, ‘Corporate Board of Advisors,’ http://www.nclr.org/index.php/support_us/corporate_champions/corporate_board_of_advisors/.

  [9] NCLR President and CEO, http://www.nclr.org/index.php/about_us/leadership/.

  [10] Rockefeller Foundation, ‘What we fund,’ http://www.rockefellerfoundation.org/grants.

  [11] LULAC, ‘Corporate Alliance,’ http://lulac.org/about/corpall/.

  [12] Bolton, Revolution from Above, 222–27.

  [13] Siskin and Susser Immigration Lawyers, ‘Non-Profit corner—The Emma Lazarus Fund,’ http://www.visalaw.com/98dec/31dec98.html.

  [14] K. R. Bolton, ‘The Globalist Web of Subversion,’ Foreign Policy Journal, 7 February 2011, http://www.foreignpolicyjournal.com/2011/02/07/the-globalist-web-of-subversion/.

  [15] James C. McKinley Jr., ‘No, the Conquistadors Are Not Back. It’s Just Wal-Mart,’ The New York Times, 28 September 2004, http://www.nytimes.com/2004/09/28/international/americas/28mexico.html?_r=0.

  [16] ‘Wal-Mart Creates Fiesta Guide to Help Customers Celebrate the Flavor and Fun of Cinco de Mayo,’ HispanicBusiness.com, 2 May 2004.

  [17] ‘Judge: Wal-Mart Must Pay 83 for Overtime,’ Houston Chronicle, 18 February 2004.

  [18] Charles Burress, ‘Wal-Mart foes detail costs to community Public subsidizes workers, study says,’ San Francisco Chronicle, 17 February 2004.

  [19] Dominic Rushe and Paul Harris, ‘Walmart workers speak out: “I do not earn enough. I cannot survive like this,”’ The Guardian, 6 June 2013, http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2013/jun/06/walmart-workers-speak-pay-conditions.

  [20] Laurel Wentz, ‘Walmart Is First Marketer of the Year at AHAA Conference,’ AdAge/Hispanic, 1 May 2013, http://adage.com/article/hispanic-marketing/walmart-hispanic-group-s-marketer-year/241243/.

  Conclusion:

  The Multicultural Dilemma

  The Stranger within my gate,

  He may be true or kind,

  But does not talk my talk—

  I cannot feel his mind.

  I see the face and the eyes and the mouth,

  But not the soul behind. . . .

  —Rudyard Kipling, The Stranger

  The agenda of the globalists is to use multiculturalism as a transition phase towards the melting-pot of an integrated global workforce and consumer market. Multiculturalism implies ‘diversity,’ but the melting-pot in what Emma Lazarus and Israel Zangwill termed a ‘crucible’ implies a nebulous mass. It is akin to alchemy where various substances are placed into a crucible to make something entirely new; in this instance a new human being: what I have here called Homo globicus. It is a dialectical tactic of using the pretence of ‘diversity’ and of supposed ‘respect’ for all the cultures of the world, to impose a standardised global system.

  A multicultural world is the polar opposite of a ‘multicultural nation’ or ‘society.’ The latter is a misnomer.[1] A nation or society implies a community of shared heritage and a common outlook. A nation and a society are founded on a dominant culture. Where there is more than one culture within a territory, there exists in embryo the potential for another nation and another society. The apartheid system developed by Dr. Verwoerd was designed to work as a number of semi-independent culture-nations existing within a South African confederation; apartheid meaning ‘separate development,’ or ‘apartness.’ It was a noble experiment, but flawed insofar as it could not proceed to fruition as long as South Africa relied on Black labour. Segregation in the Southern states of the United States had the same flaw. While both systems were imperfect, they were better than what has resulted in either the United States or South Africa.

  A ‘multicultural world’ is the Earth in its natural state of being: different cultures, peoples and ethnicities existing within their own territories, inter-relating but not amalgamating, under the popular saying: ‘good fences make good neighbours.’ They can trade peac
efully, exchange ideas, and provide assistance, without the need for some hegemonic world state. Alternatives to the present concept of the nation-state, which is based on 18th-century notions of legal contacts between individuals in the form of constitutions and the like, on the ruins of the traditional social nexus of Church and Monarch, might include what the Russian geopolitical analyst Professor Alexander Dugin has called ‘vectors,’ or geopolitical blocs of nations with common interests. Such geopolitical blocs would be more suitable for world order and cooperation than the one-size-fits-all universalism of the United Nations Organization, or globalist regional groupings such as NAFTA or the European Union, again based on legalistic economic contracts. Such new blocs moreover would recognise the status of more rather than fewer nation-cultures. For example, in Europe there are many stateless peoples such as the Flemish, Bretons, and Basques, who have been incorporated into artificial state constructs devoid of historical basis. The Afrikaner remnant in South Africa could be accorded status within a European confederation in such a new European geopolitical bloc. The Bolivarian concept inaugurated among South American republics by the late Hugo Chávez is an example of an already functioning bloc that resists globalisation.[2]

  However, the globalists see economics rather than blood ties and shared heritage and similarity of outlook as the basis for both regional groups and a ‘new world order.’ When they impose multiculturalism upon a state it is done with the intention of wrecking the foundations of that state for the purpose of fitting it into a global economic structure. It is designed to wreck, not to ‘celebrate diversity’ or any other such claptrap.

  Liberal apologists of multiculturalism and conservative antagonists both begin from faulty and contradictory foundations. As politicians they are caught in a trap of trying to make systems promoted by globalists workable.

  The liberals acclaim multiculturalism as a ‘celebration of diversity’ and use nonsensical terms such as ‘unity in diversity.’ The mental rationalisation requires ‘doublethink.’ When an organism attempts to ‘celebrate unity in diversity’ the result is cancerous. The result in a liberal society is that the host culture—most likely Christian and European at root—is forced to retreat into oblivion in the name of ‘tolerance,’ and enforced where necessary by draconian laws, which include imprisonment for sceptics. Therefore, for example, chapels in hospitals will become religiously neutral, Christian holidays will be renamed, and Christmas decorations, prayers in schools, and public nativity scenes will become passé. A report on the situation in the United States stated:

  Frosty the Snowman is tolerable, but the ACLU[3] has threatened to sue a school in Colorado for permitting Jingle Bells, which makes Jewish students no longer feel welcome. In New York City public schools, menorahs and Islamic symbols are acceptable, but not nativity scenes. Teachers in Sacramento have been forbidden to use the word Christmas in the classroom, Illinois state government employees forbidden to say ‘Merry Christmas’ on the job.[4]

  However, the particularly awkward factor of maintaining a multicultural society for liberal politicians is that many of the imported cultures are extremely illiberal, and in recent years, to preserve the liberal secular humanism of the West, the politicians are abandoning multiculturalism and returning to the old policy of assimilation or the ‘melting-pot.’ The problems with illiberal cultures particularly focus on the attitudes of some forms of Islam towards women, and hence this affronts feminist sensibilities. Therefore, when Muslims settle in a typically liberal state, multicultural tolerance and ‘respect for differences’ does not extend to their treatment or attitude toward women, including their own wives and daughters. If the liberal society was truly multicultural then it should ‘celebrate’ such differences. They are expected to conform to the laws of the land in this respect. It is here that the real intent of multiculturalism is shown to be a sham. The liberal expects the migrant to become liberalised and secularised, and this is a reason why the U.S. State Department focuses on transforming Muslim youths in France and other states, so that a generation emerges that has rejected the traditions of their elders, under the pretence of ‘respecting different cultures.’ As we have seen, globalist values are imparted through the contrivance of bastardised cultural forms such as ‘Muslim hip hop’ (sic). Professor Lauchlan Chipman pointed out the liberal quandary when he wrote:

  . . . here’s the rub. In many cases these values are neither liberal nor pluralist. Support for the values of some communities means support for a sheltered, separate, limited and thoroughly sexist upbringing for daughters, for example. It means, for some communities, inculcating racial and ethnic mythologies theoretically irrelevant to the future of Australia, but politically, and literally, explosive if developed here . . .[5]

  Hence, in this central problem of feminism and illiberal migrants, a particularly large amount of money is spent, especially by the Rockefeller, Ford, and Soros funds, on promoting feminism, including liberalised abortion laws, within the Third World. Feminism, which was funded and fostered in the West by the global oligarchy and CIA as part of an agenda to use the anti-Soviet Left, has been just as useful in subverting traditional societies as multiculturalism.[6]

  One can see the dilemma of multicultural for liberal societies when, for example, President Sarkozy pushed for the banning of the burqa in France in 2011, describing the traditional dress as an affront to the principles of the French Republic, which is to say liberal-humanist principles. Among the results of the burqa ban, a riot broke out in June 2013 in a Paris suburb after police tried to arrest a woman for wearing the burqa, with 60 people attacking the police. Forty riot police were required to restore order.[7] The dilemma is the conflict between Muslim tradition and Western liberalism. Liberal societies are increasingly deciding that this type of multiculturalism is unworkable and that there now has to be a reversal of policy, to return to the old method of assimilating migrants into the mainstream of liberal society rather than, as hitherto, avidly promoting the continuation of ethnic enclaves.

  In 2011 Britain’s David Cameron, Germany’s Angela Merkel, and France’s Nicolas Sarkozy made a public confession of the rather obvious, that multiculturalism has failed. Sarkozy stated: ‘My answer is clearly yes, it is a failure. . . . Of course we must all respect differences, but we do not want a society where communities coexist side by side.’ Referring specifically to the Melting-pot idea, Sarkozy added: ‘If you come to France, you accept to melt into a single community, which is the national community, and if you do not want to accept that, you cannot be welcome in France. The French national community cannot accept a change in its lifestyle, equality between men and women and freedom for little girls to go to school.’ Around the same time, David Cameron ‘called for an end to the “passive tolerance” of divided communities and said members of all faiths must integrate into wider society and accept core values.’ ‘German Chancellor Angela Merkel, Australia’s former Prime Minister John Howard and former Spanish Prime Minister José Maria Aznar have also said in recent months that multicultural policies had not successfully integrated immigrants.’[8]

  The Russian president, Vladimir Putin, who is the only White politician coming close to the conception of a White statesman, has also expressed Russia’s repudiation of multiculturalism, but Putin is likely to have a far more profound understanding of the dynamics involved than that his lesser counterparts in Western Europe. Russia has its own traditional national idea and even its own sense of mission that is of a religious character[9] and contra the United States’ ‘manifest destiny.’ Putin has said of multiculturalism:

  In Russia live Russian. Any minority, from anywhere, if it wants to live in Russia, to work and eat in Russia, should speak Russian, and should respect the Russian laws. If they prefer Sharia Law, then we advise them to go to those places where that’s the state law. Russia does not need minorities. Minorities need Russia, and we will not grant them special privileges, or
try to change our laws to fit their desires, no matter how loud they yell ‘discrimination.’ We better learn from the suicides of America, England, Holland and France, if we are to survive as a nation. The Russian customs and traditions are not compatible with the lack of culture or the primitive ways of most minorities. When this honourable legislative body thinks of creating new laws, it should have in mind the national interest first, observing that the minorities are not Russians.[10]

  Note the focus on the requirement of migrants to now ‘integrate’ into the mainstream, which is to say, the liberal, globalist consumer society culture that now dominates the West and is continually spreading. The globalists seek a common cultural, moral and social denominator. The hope of the globalists is in the youth who can all be melded into one nebulous mass around the nexus of MTV, Twitter, hip hop, and Coca-Cola. The potential for this has already been seen by the way Muslim youth were manipulated by globalists during the so-called ‘Arab Spring,’ and the way the poorest and most alienated of France’s Muslim youth are embracing the ‘American Dream’ courtesy of the U.S. State Department.