Bay Area Guy’s last post raised several interesting points on the pernicious effects of globalisation and I thought I’d add a few more. Despite flowery rhetoric about tolerance and global prosperity, globalization’s end game is essentially globalism, the unhindered movement of capital and labour across the world. This dystopic vision necessitates the dissolving of national borders which in turn requires the destruction of nationalism – this would begin logically with the demolition of the family unit.
We’ve already witnessed an unprecedented propensity to outsource and that propensity seems to be intensifying with the continued evolution of technology. Online platforms like Upwork have made it easy to outsource work to the lowest bidders who typically reside in the third world. I’ve pointed out before that our services based economies require an ever expanding market to sustain them. During the days of old school colonialism where economies were still manufacturing based, western powers conquered foreign countries and turned them into dumping grounds for their economic surplus (captive markets).
Since Western nations manufacture virtually nothing today and have instead foolishly reconfigured their economies along a services based model, they’ve run into a quagmire of declining consumption. Since one cannot export a service (barring some exceptions) it stands to reason that the old school colonialism paradigm no longer suffices. The only way to alleviate the problem of declining consumption is to therefore import consumers within a nation’s borders. Third world immigrants are consumers/employees first and citizens last. The only way to naturalize cultural aliens within ones borders is to do away with the host culture altogether. Thus globalism is the very antithesis of nationalism.
‘People of color’
The term ‘people of color’ succinctly encapsulates the globalist mindset – allotting the masses hollow and artificially constructed identities devoid of any meaning grounded in historical context. It cannot be overstated that this term is essentially a Marxist one. Non-whites certainly do not see themselves as belonging to a monolithic class with common goals and overlapping interests. Persians, Indians, and east Asians have traditionally defined their identities on their own cultural terms as opposed to some hollow alliance in opposition to whitey. ‘People of color’ only makes sense when one views this class as inherently opposed to the class of whites. Only in Marxism do we see artificially created classes pitted against other equally artificially created classes.
In reality, most non whites in North America have extremely weak cultural as well as religious identities. Identities grow organically in their indigenous domains. Divorce the former from the latter and the former is forever compromised. Most second and third generation Asian Americans (and Canadians) have little idea of their cultural heritage. They be able to study their civilisations via textbooks but that is not the same as living the culture. A third generation American Chinese is practically a different species from his counterpart in mainland China. Despite this reality, a North American Chinese person intuitively recognises his gap from the mainstream (ie white) and thus joins the people of colour coalition.
This is primarily why I shake my head in amazement when people think that Islam will take over the west. Such an undertaking would require an enormous act of will and cultural power that North Americans Muslims clearly lack. Muslims have not even been able to implement Sharia law in Pakistan where they are 97% of the population. They double down on their religion because their ethnic identities have become diluted. This is the true reason why our elites don’t fear Islam – they realise that Muslims too can be effortlessly herded into the ever burgeoning POC category alongside Asians and South Americans. While leftists fawn over POC, the category exists for the sole purpose of diluting their identities and hence weaponizing them against whites.