Babel Inc

by Kerry Bolton

  While Sutherland is critical of the nation-state and of the petty nationalism that has caused rivalry and wars among Europeans, a critique with which the advocates of a real Europe, such as Sir Oswald Mosley,[11] Otto Strasser,[12] Jean Thiriart,[13] and Francis Parker Yockey[14] would concur, his condemnation of petty nationalism is also a condemnation of its extension as a pan-European nationalism. The globalists who founded the European Union and its predecessor, the European Economic Community, did so not to create a European Nation, but an economic edifice as part of a global economic structure, that includes other regional economic blocs, or ‘free trade areas,’ as they are called, such as the ‘Pacific Rim’ and NAFTA. Indeed, the founding of the Trilateral Commission by David Rockefeller in 1973, of which Sutherland was its ‘Honorary European Chairman’ (2001–10),[15] was to promote these economic regions as part of the globalisation process.[16] These blocs are designed to reflect the convenience of trade, not the unity of a heritage. That is why New Zealand and Australia, both still predominantly of European descent, have over the past few decades, been referred to as parts of Asia, and why advocates of a united Europe from Coudenhove-Kalergi to Sutherland, can refer to a new ‘Europe’ that is based on hyper-individualism rather than any form of collective cultural and ethnic identity, where migrants can be accepted on the basis that they will meld in to a common cosmopolitan Europe-wide milieu. Hence, Sutherland attacks any sense of difference among peoples and cultures:

  A passionate belief in breaking down barriers and borders does not sit comfortably with a sense of identity which, in the last analysis, often stresses a belief in particular national virtues. By implication this stress on the relative strengths of one’s own people often suggests that others do not share them. There is essentially something triumphalist about patriotism.[17]

  By the same measure, the ‘European patriotism’ or nationalism advocated by Napoleon, Mosley, Strasser, Thiriart and Yockey, must be as equally objectionable to the globalist proponents of this ‘European Union,’ as the petty nationalisms of the nation-state. A real United Europe or a European Nation is a higher form of patriotism as Mosley for example, explained in his post-World War II thinking, and is nothing if not having her own sense of identity, difference and barriers. Such a European Nation as proposed by Mosley et al. would mean Europe as a self-contained economic bloc (autarky), in contrast the globalist aim of Europe one of several free trade regions in a global economy.

  Challenge from the Right

  A concern, stated in the introductory remarks of the House of Lords report referred to above, was the rise of radical Rightist parties in Europe in response to immigration from the Third World:

  Whatever the benefits—economic and cultural—of migration, it has frequently proved controversial. Europe in the early twenty-first century is no exception. The rise of far right political parties in many Member States, which reflect and sometimes stoke fears among the electorate about immigration to Europe from the Islamic world among other things, has provoked policy responses from the more mainstream parties in government. Member State concerns and controversies are invariably reproduced at the EU level.[18]

  Immigration is one of the most apparent aspects of globalisation, and the Right would inherently put a break on a major aspect of globalisation, although its economic and financial policies are often woefully inadequate to meet the challenges. The response of the Left, including the extreme Left, to globalisation, regardless of the riots against globalisation summits, etc. means little or nothing in stopping the process. ‘Open Borders’ and ‘One Race: the human Race’ are the facile slogans that are shared by corporate CEOs and Leftists alike.

  Multiculturalism as a social control mechanism was publicly exposed in 2009 by Andrew Neather, a former adviser and speech-writer to British Prime Minister Tony Blair, and Labour Home Secretaries Jack Straw and David Blunkett. Neather stated that: ‘The huge increases in migrants over the last decade were partly due to a politically motivated attempt by ministers to radically change the country and “rub the Right’s nose in diversity.”’ There was a fear however of a backlash, particular among Labour’s working class supporters. Hence, the supposed economic benefits of immigration were focused upon; a key element in globalist propaganda for multicultural immigration.

  Neather wrote in The Evening Standard that the ‘major shift’ in immigration policy was based on a 2001 policy paper by the Performance and Innovation Unit, a think tank based in the Cabinet Office. Neather wrote that ‘the final published version of the report promoted the labour market case for immigration but unpublished versions contained additional reasons,’ according to a report in The Telegraph.[19] Neather wrote:

  Earlier drafts I saw also included a driving political purpose: that mass immigration was the way that the Government was going to make the UK truly multicultural. I remember coming away from some discussions with the clear sense that the policy was intended—even if this wasn’t its main purpose—to rub the Right’s nose in diversity and render their arguments out of date.[20]

  Neather stated that ‘as well as bringing in hundreds of thousands more migrants to plug labour market gaps, there was also a “driving political purpose” behind immigration policy. He defended the policy, saying mass immigration has “enriched” Britain, and made London a more attractive and cosmopolitan place.’[21] Neather stated exactly what the intent of multicultural immigration is: to change the foundations of a society.

  [1] Brian Wheeler, ‘EU should “undermine national homogeneity” says UN migration chief,’ BBC News, 21 June 2012, http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-18519395.

  [2] Ibid.

  [3] Cited by Professor Kenneth J. Costa, introducing Peter Sutherland at the Gretham College Lectures, 8 March 2011, http://www.gresham.ac.uk/lectures-and-events/leadership-at-a-time-of-transition-and-turbulence-a-conversation-with-peter.

  [4] Wheeler, BBC News, op. cit.

  [5] The Trilateral Commission is a globalist think tank founded by David Rockefeller, head of the famous globalist dynasty, which aims to bring together political and business interests across Europe, North America and Asia.

  See also: ‘Peter Sutherland,’ Vox, http://www.voxeu.org/person/peter-sutherland.

  [6] Costa, op. cit.

  [7] ‘Peter Sutherland,’ Vox, op. cit.

  [8] Peter Sutherland, ‘Values and Leadership in Europe,’ 2008, http://petersutherland.co.uk/tag/nationalism/.

  [9] Hilaire Belloc, Europe and the Faith (London: Black House Publishing, 2012).

  [10] Sutherland, ‘Values and Leadership in Europe.’

  [11] Oswald Mosley, Europe: Faith and Plan (Euphorion Books, 1958). See also: ‘Oswald Mosley’ at Black House Publishing, http://blackhousepublishing.co.uk/index.php?route=product/category&path=62.

  [12] K. R. Bolton, ‘Otto Strasser’s New Europe,’ Counter-Currents Publishing, http://www.counter-currents.com/2011/05/otto-strassers-new-europe-part-one/.

  [13] Jean Thiriart, ‘Europe as Far as Vladivostok,’ http://www.amerika.org/texts/europe-as-far-as-vladivostok-jean-thiriart/.

  [14] Francis Parker Yockey, Imperium (Wermod and Wermod, 2013 [1948]), http://shop.wermodandwermod.com/books/philosophy/imperium-the-philosophy-of-history-and-politics.html.

  [15] ‘Leadership,’ The Trilateral Commission, http://www.trilateral.org/go.cfm?do=Page.View&pid=32.

  [16] ‘The Trilateral Commission,’ http://www.trilateral.org/.

  [17] Peter Sutherland, ‘Being Irish—A Personal Reflection,’ 3 August 2000, http://petersutherland.co.uk/article/ireland-articles/global-agenda-world-economic-forum-magazine-5/.

  [18] ‘Summary,’ House of Lords, European Union Committee, ‘The EU’s Global Approach to Migration and Mobility,�
�� 18 December 2012, http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld201213/ldselect/ldeucom/91/91.pdf.

  [19] Tom Whitehead, ‘Labour threw open Britain’s borders to mass immigration to help socially engineer a “truly multicultural” country, a former Government adviser has revealed,’ The Telegraph (London), 23 October 2009, http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/6418456/Labour-wanted-mass-immigration-to-make-UK-more-multicultural-says-former-adviser.html.

  [20] Ibid.

  [21] Ibid.

  ‘Hip Hop Diplomacy’

  Hip hop is America

  —U.S. Secretary of State

  Hillary Clinton

  There’s a youth culture in the country that is large, very different and transcends ethnic cultures.

  —Gregory Fortuin,

  New Zealand Race Relations Commissioner, 2006.

  The use of Afro-American ghetto subcultures in the promotion of globalisation has already been referred to in the promotion of hip hop by the U.S. State Department among youth of the migrant communities in France and elsewhere in Europe. While hip hop, rap, and other subcultures are promoted as expressions of ‘revolt’ by disaffected and alienated youth, ‘revolts,’ including feminism, the New Left, and psychedelia, and the current ‘colour revolutions,’ they are bogus and fermented, directed and funded by the corporate globalists.[1]

  A well documented account on the corporate takeover and use of hip hop and rap has been written by Lewis Weaver, who states that hip hop, created by coloured youth in the Bronx, New York in the 1970s, was taken over by the large corporations from the early 1990s and ‘infused with messages of materialism.’[2] He writes:

  Hip Hop is currently being used by large corporations to be exploited for profits, reinforce capitalistic ideals as well as a tool to adversely effect Black and Latino Youth. Once corporations began to see the earning potential of rap music, the exploitation began.[3]

  Since the time Rapper’s Delight by the Sugarhill Gang sold million of records, corporations began to see the potential of hip hop not only in terms of profits, but as a means of promoting and selling their products. Referring to Budweiser’s sponsorship of Jay-Z as an example of hip hop artists as marketing tools, Weaver states:

  Corporations realize this influence artists have, and use them as ‘guinea pigs’ to promote their products and make millions in revenue. Jay-Z being endorsed by Budweiser was a tactic to promote and build a new consumer base for profits. These corporations do not care about the underlying effects of their messages. Alcoholism is a problem in the African American community. Someone who is influential in the black community like Jay-Z, is not helping this problem by endorsing a beer company.

  You can see how and why companies use these artists as exploitation tools to promote their products, they will not only attract a new consumer base but they will also increase sales of their products. Adding an artist as the face of a corporation’s product adds instant credibility to the mind of consumers. Companies like Adidas backed by Run-DMC and Nike backed by Spike Lee and Michael Jordan, turned into hip hop branding.

  Hip Hop culture and corporate America have basically become business partners. This partnership is in the form of paid product placement. This paid product placement is used to influence music listeners by the forced entry or obtrusion of the product in a song or video.[4]

  [1] Bolton, Revolution from Above.

  [2] Lewis Weaver, ‘Corporate Exploitation of Hip Hop,’ 15 May 2013, http://itzarap.wordpress.com/2013/05/15/corporate-exploitation-of-hip-hop/.

  [3] Ibid.

  [4] Ibid.

  Hip Hopping Over the World

  While hip hop is used as a corporate advertising gimmick, is there a broader agenda in which it is used to subvert nations, peoples, and cultures in what Ralph Peters called the United States’ ‘lethal culture’? The question can be answered with a definitive ‘yes.’ As indicated by the sponsorship of hip hop by the U.S. Embassy in Paris, this product of deracination and alienation within the United States is particularly well suited as a social control mechanism to recruit deracinated and alienated youth to the ‘American Dream’ from around the world. Something similar had already been undertaken during the Cold War with the use of jazz and abstract expressionism, sponsored primarily through the CIA front, the Congress for Cultural Freedom.[1]

  The campaign is called ‘Hip Hop Diplomacy’ and is officially sponsored by the U.S. State Department.

  Hishaam Aidi, a Fellow of the Open Society Institute in New York, and therefore close to the centre of the globalisation offensive, writes of the use of hip hop:

  The State Department began using hiphop as a tool in the mid-2000s, when, in the wake of Abu Ghraib and the resurgence of the Taliban, Karen Hughes, then undersecretary of state for public diplomacy, launched an initiative called Rhythm Road. The programme was modelled on the jazz diplomacy initiative of the Cold War era, except that in the ‘War on Terror,’ hip hop would play the central role of countering ‘poor perceptions’ of the US.

  In 2005, the State Department began sending ‘hip hop envoys’—rappers, dancers, DJs—to perform and speak in different parts of Africa, Asia and the Middle East. The tours have since covered the broad arc of the Muslim world, with performances taking place in Senegal and Ivory Coast, across North Africa, the Levant and Middle East, and extending to Mongolia, Pakistan and Indonesia.[2]

  The hip hoppers not only stage performances but hold workshops. The aim is stated to be not just to be as a propaganda outreach to Muslims, but as a means of selling the ‘American Dream’ around the world and therefore has the potential to create dissent; again in line with what Ralph Peters explained about the lethality of ‘American culture.’ ‘The tours aim not only to exhibit the integration of American Muslims, but also, according to planners, to promote democracy and foster dissent.’[3] How ‘democratic’ a state is, is literally rated by globalist organisations such as Freedom House and the National Endowment for Democracy. A low rating is liable to get one bombed.

  This ‘hip hop diplomacy’ acts in tandem with another global programme fostered by the U.S. State Department in association with social media giants such as Google, Facebook, and Twitter. This is the use of social media among youth, which has played an important role in the ‘colour revolutions’ in ex-Soviet bloc states and elsewhere, including the recent ‘Arab Spring.’[4]

  Secretary of State Hillary Clinton stated during a CBS News interview that, ‘Hip hop is America. You know it may be a little bit hopeful, because I can’t point to a change in Syrian policy because Chen Lo and the Liberation Family showed up. But I think we have to use every tool at our disposal.’ She was referring to a rap group sent by the State Department in April 2010 to perform in Damascus, Syria.[5]

  Noting that rap and hip hop provided the lyrics and music of the revolts throughout North Africa in 2011, Aidi states that ‘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—such as El General’s Rais Lebled—were then picked up and broadcast by Al Jazeera, and played at gatherings and solidarity marches in London, New York and Washington.’[6]

  Referring to the use of jazz during the Cold War, Aidi draws parallels with the present use of hip hop and rap:

  The jazz tours of the Cold War saw the U.S. government send integrated bands led by Dizzy Gillespie, Louis Armstrong, Duke Ellington and Benny Goodman to various parts of Africa, Asia and the Middle East to counter Soviet propaganda about American racial practices, and to get people in other countries to identify with ‘the American way of life.’

  The choice of jazz was not simply due to its international appeal. As historian Penny Von Eschen writes in her pioneering book Satch
mo Blows Up the World, in the 1950s, the State Department believed that African-American culture could convey ‘a sense of shared suffering, as well as the conviction that equality could be gained under the American political system’ to people who had suffered European colonialism. Similar thinking underpins the current ‘hip hop diplomacy’ initiatives. The State Department planners who are calling for ‘the leveraging of hip hop’ in U.S. foreign policy emphasise ‘the importance of Islam to the roots of hip hop in America,’ and the ‘pain’ and ‘struggle’ that the music expresses.[7]