Wednesday, September 10, 2008
Posted by Daniel Greenfield 0 Comments
Initially Western companies harnessed resources and then opened up markets by leveraging the colonial and military powers of their native countries. While that is not entirely a thing of the past, modern corporations have come to view military power and national defense as actually inimical to their interests. That is the irony behind the left wing's continuing reliance on terms such as Military-Industrial Complex, aside from a handful of overmerged defense contractors, the military stands alone.
The industrial complex has long since discovered that it's more profitable to move the industries abroad and in some cases their headquarters too. As America and Europe become nothing more than markets and places to keep some remaining production and service facilities, their importance dwindles. Corporations are less likely to think of themselves in national terms and more likely to think of themselves in multinational terms, and that drives the problem, because corporations and the men and women who run them continue to remain very politically influential, and their influence is leveraged toward keeping things running smoothly and quietly so the import and export chain remains unbroken. Appeasement is the order of the day to keep the world undisturbed.
Nations once viewed their businesses as an extension of their own strength. That is no longer really the case. While America focused on winning the Cold War by opening up markets and ensuring the triumph of Capitalism, it is Capitalism that is now causing many of the West's and Israel's problems.
Many conservatives viewing the scale of business donations to liberal candidates wonder why corporations and key business figures are acting seemingly contrary to their own interest. The answer is that they aren't. They are promoting their own interests, unfortunately those interests have become destructive.
Companies require a cheap, mobile and disposable workforce which means easy immigration. Even in the aftermath of 9/11, tech companies continue to lobby for easily available HB-1 visas and corporations push for "immigration reform". This allows companies to undercut domestic labor with cheap imported labor which when jettisoned become the problem of social services.
Of course promoting liberal candidates also means higher taxes, but that is less of an issue for corporations which are increasingly bypassing their home countries maintaining less and less infrastructure and funds there anyway. It is small to mid size businesses, their competitors, who bear the brunt of high taxes, not the multinationals whose creative accounting and lobbying insures they will come out on top anyway. And if they don't, the lobbying will assure them a government bailout.
The problem is that as corporations began thinking globally, what was "good for Detroit" was no longer necesarily "good for America". Corporations had forgotten that they could not exist without a national base in a free country, as Russia's Putin has demonstrated for us. They have come to take nations for granted and to be uncomfortable with nationalism. The man in the grey flannel suit is more and more likely to wear a turban these days when he visits abroad and when the company winds up being bought up by an emirate flush with oil profits.
The problem is serious for America and Europe, where corporations increasingly play the role of devil's advocate, tearing down barriers and eagerly "accomodating" immigrants, speaking their language and celebrating their holidays, until of course they move to China, leaving the immigrants as social services' problem.
It is outright critical for Israel where powerful businessmen, particularly foreign businessmen, have driven much of the culture of appeasement that has overtaken Israel. Israel's business successes and reforms away from socialism attracted a great deal of interest and investment and many of those investors and businesses are determined that the pesky business of Israel defending its citizens from terrorism not interfere with the value of their investments. On top of that emigre Israeli millionaires abroad continue to serve as their conduit for promoting investment while elevating corrupt governments willing to sell out the state for their own bottom line.
These are the forces behind Kadima to a large degree, the figures who heavily bribed Sharon and Olmert with money that will never be truly investigated, to insure that they would follow a policy of appeasing rather than fighting terrorism. These businessmen see a Palestinian state as a promising way to create a business friendly environment in the Middle East and to fuse Israel's high tech with cheap labor for an industrial center in the Palestinian Authority, along the lines of America and Mexico or Germany and Portugal.
This was the ideal sold to them by Shimon Peres back in the 90's as the New Middle East and it's one they are set on making sure that Israel follows through on. Israeli security from terrorism or national integrity is of absolutely no interest to them. Profits are.
So too in America, corporations don't care about the impact of uncontrolled immigration from Mexico. They care about having cheap labor. Disposable mobile cheap labor. The shift to third world immigration was not purely the product of liberal idealism, but also of corporate cynicism, preferring cheap uneducated third world labor to educated more expensive European labor. And of course leaving the social problems for someone else to deal with. And as Mexican immigration actually begins to fall, corporations turn to recently Al Queda ruled Somalia and Muslim Africa to create all the ingredients for a domestic Jihad. Which they also consider not to be their problem.
A similar situation is underway in Australia and Europe with immigrants being brought in to fill jobs at companies that may choose to vanish over to Eastern Europe when the money that has been lavished on them expires, leaving the immigrants and their social problems and their large scale riots, behind.
To change the situation it's time to differentiate between loyal companies and disloyal ones. Between businesses working to destroy their home countries and those working in their interest. Between those who serve something beyond their bottom line and who see a common interest in the prosperity of their home country and those who are nothing more than Dhimmism, Inc.