One of the perennial problems within the Western mind is the embedded notion of ‘fairness.’ This notion of ‘fairness’ has been a catalyst for revolutions and wars. Applied to society the task of statesmanship becomes one of maintaining a system in which everyone agrees to operate within the boundaries set forth on equal terms. Viewed from this pragmatic positionality; even within Catholic Europe, the notion of ‘fair play’ is rendered as equality before the homogenizing edifice of faith – thus economic and class inequalities may be prevalent but at least we are all equal within Christ – rendering unto Caesar. This notion of fairness cannot be reduced or separated from the power politics of institutional control (Foucault), or the hegemonic interplay between the base and the superstructure (Marx-Gramsci), it is an essential component to keep one from going mad, without it life is merely reduced to the Nietzschean struggle of wills and groups. The homogenizing edifice then is always present as a principle of grounding meaning, which simply must exist, thus even within a liberal framework in which for example multiculturalism and other forms of disunity are championed, the homogenizing edifice presents itself in the guise of tolerance and is no less totalitarian than other earlier forms – to be intolerant is to be outside, is to be a pariah. Also the idea is expressed as equality before the impersonal mechanisms of the market, of the law and of the land. Such ideas are no more true than the notion of equality before Christ, but they do placate just as well.
In fact such modern notions of ‘fairness’ are demonstrably less true. The net effect of viewing society in such terms is to determine who ‘wins’ and who ‘loses’ by this game theory approach. Who is put outside by the supreme values of the homogenizing edifice and who is brought within? Hence within a nation operating under the homogenizing edifice of Christian universalism, the Jews are potential losers by being potentially marginalized for their particularity. While under the contemporary edifice of liberal-democratic-laissez-faire-multiculturalism-mass-immigration-globalism, the lower classes of the old stock are potential losers by being subsumed under progressive waves of competition into an economy and country built by and for them – invasive species into a habitat. The big winners are those upstart immigrants and PoC and the global elites who own stocks in factories in China and who own real estate in cities like Vancouver and Toronto. Furthermore, those groups who are more adept at operating as collectives will have comparative advantages over the native stock which has been fostered under notions of individualism. In effect multiculturalism is a betrayal of the Enlightenment ethos, by promoting cultures instead of individuals. As the market becomes globalized, immigrants from major economically booming nations, like China and India, will have the comparative advantage of potentially easier access to those markets and prospects as bridges between cultures and markets and often immigrate with more capital than the lower working class native whites themselves. In effect, the recent phenomenon of mass rich non-white immigration is a fundamental betrayal of (mostly) working class white ethnics, who built the infrastructure. Old Stock immigrants who were brought up under the values of explicit or illicit assimilation, in contrast will find themselves at a comparative disadvantage as cosmopolitanism goes full global. People who are easily able to navigate between cultures and languages, not only non-Europeans, but even peripheral groups within Europe, mostly in the ex-communist East, will also attain this advantage; not merely due to the upward mobility so desired by members of marginal groups, as a means to status and wealth, but also in their relatively higher rates of transnational outlook. Global cosmopolitanites, will be less ideological or concretely patriotic, their home is where the bread is, the values they espouse will be the values that make them triumph they will be the most loyal and devote subjects of the homogenizing edifice.
At the height of Empire, whether Roman, or English or French, the idea of a foreign office with a transnational diplomatic class, meant that the West was creating these hybrid creatures within herself, able to transcend cultural particularity, but never losing their sense of self and loyalty to their people (Kipling comes to mind). These men were to open up markets and roads between Hispania and Rome, or the Indian subcontinent and England – this meant that the nation still maintained a sense of its own in-group preference to a point. But the numbers of foreign students coming to the West along with non-Western immigrants and labourers has created a reverse tendency in the healthy expansion of a people. Viewed as it was during the process of Empire and colonialism, one must infer from these trends of globalized cosmopolitanism that non-Western groups are in the ascendant. Turks in Germany. Algerians in France. Chinese in Canada. All this points to the West and Europe as in decline as a cultural organism and the ascendancy of Other groups. The big losers in such a complex scenario are the displaced classes of Westerners who are facing a globalized form of (reverse)colonization – their grievances are legitimate and yet they are told that they are privileged?