Babel Inc

by Kerry Bolton

  The conservative response to the liberal and globalist agendas is muddled, conservatism having long lost its direction epically in the Anglophone world. They have insisted on maintaining the old patronising attitude of assimilating non-White migrants into White society, on a premise that is really the same as that of the liberal and the globalist: that culture can be changed like clothes. Hence, all migrants, no matter how diverse their origins, can be welded together into a common citizenship. The conservative seeks conformity with a nation, the globalist, conformity over the entire Earth. Unfortunately, the values of the ‘West’ maintained by ‘conservatives’ have for several centuries at least, undergone such subversion from a variety of political, economic, and religious sources, that little remains, and what remains is little more than a defence of ‘free enterprise economics’ and individualism which are not traditionally conservatism, but Whig liberalism. The ‘conservatives’ have for decades not often known what they are trying to conserve. What emerges from today’s conservatives, for example, in opposing ‘special rights and privileges’ for ethnic minorities, is an attitude that every individual has the same chance to economically prosper in a free market society, if they work had enough. That is why, for example, conservatives will welcome Chinese and other Asian immigrants, because they ‘work hard’ and their children study hard at school. They want to ‘make it’ in the consumer society.

  The conservative of this type no longer considers questions of culture and identity. Identity to this bogus ‘conservatism’ is shaped in the crucible of the consumer society; an attitude that is similar to the corporate globalists in trying to create one world, one race. The conservative instead tries to create ‘one people, one nation,’ but on the same faulty premises that individuals are infinitely malleable, according to dogma. A manifestation of this ‘conservative’ position is the One Nation Party that was founded in Australia, and the same attitudes in New Zealand, with a tentative new party forming in 2013, called the ‘One Law4All’ Party based on eliminating the increasingly intrusive demands of the Treaty of Waitangi and ‘Maori separatism.’ This is condemned as ‘apartheid’ in favour of the Maori, as distinct from the apartheid in favour of the Afrikaner. The National, New Zealand First, and Act parties, as well as a now defunct One New Zealand Party, have also expressed similar ‘one law’ ideas. In the year 2000 Winston Peters, leader of the New Zealand First Party, and of Maori descent, condemned the ‘social apartheid’ of certain state programmes exclusively for Maoris, while The Dominion newspaper alluded to such policies as ‘having no place in a multi-racial society.’[11]

  While European-New Zealanders are right to object to the manner by which they are being perpetually conned into granting billions in money and assets to Maori, with so-called ‘final settlements’ under the Treaty of Waitangi that have been ongoing for over a century, the ‘One Law’ advocates assume that separatism per se is wrong, whether of the ‘White’ or ‘Brown’ variety. Hence, they claim to be the genuine ‘anti-racists,’ because they do not believe in any race-based law, either for Maori or White, or that New Zealand needs any political party based on race, such as the Maori or Mana parties. This approach harks back from the mid-1800s to the mid-1970s when the old British colonial attitude of trying to make the Maori into ‘brown-skinned whites’ was the policy; that is, a policy of the ‘Melting-pot.’ Indeed, when Maori chiefs signed the Treaty of Waitangi in 1840 they were each greeted by Governor William Hobson with a handshake and the declaration ‘we are now one people,’ as all denizens of New Zealand now came under the protection of the British Monarch. Hence, the nation-building exercise of the British Empire was based on legalistic contractualism, and this remains so in New Zealand, although the interpretation of this 1840 contract has for decades been hotly disputed, invariably to the disadvantage of the Whites.

  As the demographics changed with a large Polynesian population and now more specially, Asians and Africans, the policy became one of multiculturalism, within the context of giving the Maori privileged recognition as the ‘indigenous people’ through modern reinterpretations of the Treaty. The ‘conservative’ reaction is to reinforce the idea of New Zealand as a multicultural society rather than a bicultural one, and hence claim again that in opposing Maori privileges under the Treaty of Waitangi they are promoting New Zealand’s diversity.[12] They thereby hope to avoid, albeit unsuccessfully, accusations of ‘racism.’

  It is not really surprising then when the embryonic ‘One Law4All’ party quotes the communist dupe and rabble-rouser Martin Luther King, the Rastafarian musician Bob Marley, and the free market philosophers Ayn Rand and Thomas Sowell, all condemning ‘racism.’[13] Such ‘conservatives’ also applaud the ‘rainbow nation,’ South Africa, because its post-apartheid economy has been put on the course to globalisation and privatisation, albeit one that is in a shambles and will remain so. The conservative answer is that ‘we are all New Zealanders.’ Like ‘American,’ the definition means little other than as citizens in a piece of real estate. There is no real identity with which to resist globalisation.

  The answers to the problems of immigration and race relations are neither multiculturalism nor assimilation. The system politicians have been swinging between the two while none work. The answer will not be found among the run-of-the-mill ‘conservative’ assimilationists or the Far Left whose principles of ‘open borders’ and ‘one race, the human race’ are no different from that of the oligarchs they think they are opposing.

  One does not solve any problem by trying to change or suppress ‘human nature.’ Ethnos is at the foundations of human consciousnesses and subconsciousness. It forms our identity, our sense of who we are, where we have come from, where we belong, and where we might be going. To muddle this in the cause of an ideology or to expand global markets is the type of hubris that will lead to a fall.

  We are now beginning to understand very much more about human motives having a biological basis, although this is regarded as heresy by liberals and Leftists, and is in general antithetical to the very premises of sociology. Among the innate characteristics of humans is that of a preference for what is most like oneself that has a biological, including an ethnic, basis.

  According to a study headed by Dr. Elizabeth Phelps of New York University, published in Nature Neuroscience, a review of previous brain scanning studies show that the same circuits in the brain that allow one to recognise which ethnic group a person belongs to overlap with others that drive emotional decisions. The result is that even the most self-consciously liberal and egalitarian of people will unconsciously possess an innate tendency to make decisions based on another’s race, and therefore people will harbour so-called ‘racist’ views without being conscious of it. The research shows a network of brain regions, the amygdala, dorsolateral prefrontal cortex, and the anterior cingulate cortex, are important in the unintentional implicit expression of racial attitudes. These brain areas together the functional connectivity among them, are critical for this processing of ethnic recognition. Dr. Phelps states:

  Evidence from neuroscience has been vital in clarifying the nature of how intergroup cognition unfolds. Moreover, the neuroscience of race has been useful in pointing the way toward the type of new behavioural evidence needed to answer questions of not only what happens when intergroup cognition is at stake, but whether and how change is possible in real human interactions. How to use this knowledge from brain and behaviour to further extend basic knowledge and to drive applications is the obvious next generation of questions that we must pose. If good people who intend well act in a manner inconsistent with their own standards of egalitarianism because of the racial groups to which ‘the other’ belongs, then the question of change takes on new and urgent meaning. This urgency requires that we attend to the evidence about how our minds work when we confront racial and other group differences. Thus far, we have obtained modest evidence about these processes as they operate in our br
ains, unbeknownst to our conscious selves. The question of what we will do with these insights awaits an answer.[14]

  It is notable that Dr. Phelps, even when confronted with hard science, maintains an ideological bias, not in regard to how such innate characteristics should be recognised as a positive when formulating social policy, but as to how they might be repressed or eliminated in order to follow the same ‘egalitarian’ policies and dogmas regardless of the new findings of science. It is assumed by Dr. Phelps that it is the ‘egalitarians’ who are the ‘good people.’ This liberal pantheon of the ‘good’ must include those who slaughtered millions in the name of ‘equality,’ from Jacobin France to Bolshevik Russia to Jonestown.

  Rather than the guillotine, firing squad, concentration camp, and ‘re-education’ labour battalion, it has been suggested that such reshaping of the human conscious and unconscious can be accomplished through medication. Recent research has suggested that a common blood pressure drug can reduce ‘inbuilt racism.’ An Oxford University study has found that Propranolol, which blocks the peripheral ‘autonomic’ nervous system, ‘reduces racial bias because such subconscious thoughts are triggered by the autonomic nervous system.’ Sylvia Terbeck, lead author of the study, published in the journal Psychopharmacology, states,

  Our results offer new evidence about the processes in the brain that shape implicit racial bias. Implicit racial bias can occur even in people with a sincere belief in equality. Given the key role that such implicit attitudes appear to play in discrimination against other ethnic groups, and the widespread use of propranolol for medical purposes, our findings are also of considerable ethical interest.[15]

  The obvious point has arisen as to the possibilities of being able to medicate ‘racism’ out of existence. It is not for a moment entertained even by those involved in the hard, physical sciences, who should know better, that perhaps such ‘inbuilt racism’ and the innate neurological basis of recognising differences, has evolved over millennia as an essential survival mechanism, like the ability to recognise snakes as dangerous without the need to learn each time from first-hand experience. This is what is meant by instinct, but intellectuals, communists, and CEOs think that instinct can and should be overridden for the sake of achieving an ideological aim.

  Political scientist Dr. Robert D. Putnam of Harvard University has argued that ethnic diversity causes a decrease in community trust. His studies refute the assumption that inter-ethnic relations will engender better understanding among diverse ethnic groups. His study is based on 40 communities and 30,000 individuals in the United States. The results include less interest in local politics with an increased perception that one’s vote and views do not matter, less likelihood of working on community projects, of giving to charity or of volunteering, fewer close friends, more time watching television as the prime source of entertainment, etc.[16] This indicates empirical evidence for the contention that multiculturalism destroys the cohesion of a society and undermines community, which is based on commonality of outlook, shared experiences, and customs.

  Despite attempts at criticism and claims that the findings of Putnam only apply to the United States because of the legacy of Black slavery, the research on the ‘hardwiring’ of so-called ‘racism’ in the brain indicates that something more far-reaching is at work in the development and maintenance of a community, a society and a nation, that are partly formed by recognising one’s differences from outsiders. There seems to be a convergence of evidence that ‘diversity’ engenders distrust and lack of community spirit.

  By now it will hopefully be apparent to the reader that multiculturalism and immigration are symptoms rather than causes of decline. These symptoms can only be halted and reversed by addressing the root cause: the rise of plutocracy (rule by money). Many of the parties that oppose immigration and multiculturalism have economic policies that do not get to the root of problems, and at most see import controls as a panacea.[17] Globalisation, and all of its symptoms, such as immigration, multiculturalism, and the debasement of youth and tradition, cannot be treated unless the foundation of this power is eliminated. That power emanates from the international economic, trade, and banking system.[18]

  The bottom line is that the fight against ethno-cultural debasement is a fight against globalisation. The Left, regardless of its vehement anti-globalisation rhetoric, and even its violent anarchist protests, is not only useless, but often serves as the foot soldiers of international capital by confronting the Right, and giving the ‘Establishment’ the excuse to delegitimise Rightist debate.[19]

  Opposition to multiculturalism, immigration, and other globalist agendas must be aspects of a holistic Rightist opposition to globalisation. This might require re-evaluating the present conception of the ‘nation-state’ and the types of ‘nationalism’ being promoted by the Right. The centralised ‘nation-state’ in large part derives from the anti-Rightist, that is to say anti-Traditionalist, ideas of the 18th-century Enlightenment, culminating in the American and French revolutions, and rests on legalistic concepts that define ‘citizenship’ and ‘nationhood’ as ‘social contracts’ designed to ensure harmonious relations between individuals.[20] States based on this 18th-century political legacy are adjudicators between individuals rather than guardians of a community, and are not conducive to building real national identities.

  Nations might have to readjust their present boundaries to reflect ethnicity rather than economics, to decentralise rather than centralise power, as well as seek out new confederations based on geopolitics rather than trade. Within multicultural states there exist by definition a multiplicity of embryonic nations and peoples. These might maintain a confederation of ethno-cultural communities like the ethnic cantons of Switzerland. Other states are artificial constructs that do not reflect historical realities. In a genuinely organic European confederation based on a sense of destiny rather than a fixation on economics, new nations would emerge with the break-up of such artificial state constructs, granting autonomy to stateless peoples such as the Tyroleans, Basques, Burgundians, Lombards, Flemish, Bavarians, Saxons, et al.[21] Others, especially those that are beleaguered, such as the Afrikaners, might retreat into more defensible enclaves, such as Orania, which has achieved remarkable degree of self-sufficiency, based on permaculture and has its own local currency, while having a population of only 1,000. Most importantly the Afrikaners at Orania do their own labour, and are not at all reliant on non-Afrikaner workers. It can only be hoped that Orania will serve as the basis for a new Afrikaner republic.[22] The United States adopted a more realistic approach to the Indian nations than to its African population, and subsequent immigrants. Despite its moral posturing against apartheid and its multicultural offensive around the world, the United States has maintained its Indian reservations as a more effective form of apartheid than the Afrikaner model.

  In New Zealand, while we have the anomaly of ‘conservatives’ opposing Maori separatism as ‘apartheid,’ and the liberal-Left supporting Maori separatism due to its reliance on ‘identity politics,’ such separatism is more realistic than trying to make ‘one people’ out of ‘two,’ although the sharing of an island land-mass in the face of common—albeit as yet unperceived—challenges from Asia—provide the basis for a return to a bicultural state, the sound foundations of which were destroyed from the 1960s with a deliberate government policy to urbanise the rural-based Maori communities. The possibilities for a Maori renewal that need not encroach upon the European New Zealander exists by encouraging a resurgence of Maori tribal authority that is rural based. Again, much that is presently problematic between the two peoples could be cleared away by addressing the financial and economic system that burdens both peoples, rather than basing such relations on the red-herring of ideology-driven reinterpretations of history based on an anti-White guilt complex.[23]

  Another factor is the need for all those who are called

  ‘
Identitarians’ in Europe to unite against the common enemy: the global oligarchy, and to put an end to its power before the multitude of problems it has caused can be solved. One such form of cooperation is the Unrepresented Nations and Peoples Organization, which includes the Afrikaners represented by the Rightist ‘Freedom Front Plus’ party.[24] Again, the Orania Afrikaners are conscious of what is required:

  We simply believe in the right of all cultural groups to practice their own culture, language, religion and traditions in a fair way. We also strongly believe in self-determination and therefore support the efforts by the Flemish people in Belgium, the German speaking people in South Tyrol (Italy), the Catalans in Spain and the French speaking people in Quebec (Canada) as they strive for greater self-determination.[25]

  Once the edifice of plutocracy is demolished, including the eclipse of hegemonic powers such as the United States and China, the way can be cleared for all peoples around the world to reorient their relations on the basis of mutual good will, rather than being used as both economic cogs and cannon fodder in globalist schemes for a new world order.