There is a need to be direct and specific. Multicultural globalism has failed. But a form of national globalism could emerge to take its place.
Decades of one-sided cultural acceptance policies are coming to an end. The flood of immigration into the Western world from the third world and emerging nations has created a disproportionate multiculturalism. This one-way mass migration of people has not been bi-directional and has in fact been a form of simulated multiculturalism. The demand to come west has stood in contrast to a complete lack of desire for those in the West to migrate eastward.
The acceptance policies of the multicultural mandates were predominantly focused on transforming the culture and heritage of the West to accommodate this demand and endless supply of migration and immigration. Based on the low West to East migration levels there was little demand on the cultures of the origin nations - those third world and emerging countries - to embrace the idea of multiculturalism and accept the Western heritage.
It can be argued that even if a larger West to East migration existed, the willingness in the Eastern host nations to transform their own cultures to accommodate the incoming Western culture would not be a priority. It could even be violently resisted.
Even though Western commercialism has been exported around the world, the receiving nations have integrated those brands and styles into their own cultural identity and have discarded the Western specific ancillary side effects associated with unbridled consumerism, though they do have their own version of these human character deficiencies.
The mass multiculturalism which has held a grip on Western nations for five decades has not strengthened Western culture as it was originally sold. The migrating cultures settled in the Western nations and did little to take on the characteristics and ideals of acceptance which those in the West were told to embrace.
Migration has been taking place since there have been humans. But most past migration has taken place through war and the need to secure resources. The abundance in the West supports the lack of eastward migration and in turn the westward migration of those in the East.
The migration of Chinese into the West began before most other cultures. There is hardly a large city in North America which doesn’t have a China Town. These ethnic areas were embraced by Westerners and became popular weekend destinations for fine cuisine and shopping. The Chinese culture, and other Asian cultures, was somewhat natural in aligning with the morals and ethics of the West.
This set the stage for further migration and multiculturalism. But the expanding migration was not specific to the makeup and character of the West. Those migrating were seeking abundance as opposed to wanting to embrace the ideals and nature of Western heritage and culture. It would be a mistake to generalize the need for human resources and abundance with the want to embrace the identity of another culture. Television and movies are quick to show us actors portraying immigrants who are longing for American freedom. Though this may be true in some cases, making a broad statement regarding all immigrants should be avoided. The lack of opportunity and abundance in the home nation is the number one cause of emigration from those nations.
The idea that the West is a culture of immigrants is true in that the immigration to the new world was predominantly sourced from Western nations throughout Europe. Each independent migrating culture had its own specific identity depending on the nation source, but also shared the one root culture.
As an example, those emigrating from Ireland shared the same Christian root culture as those emigrating from Ukraine, even though both cultures were different and unique.
This shared root culture migration served to strengthen the developing culture in North America. In this regard multiculturalism did strengthen the Western culture. But what we have now is mass migration taking place where different root cultures are flooding into the West and causing fragmentation and cultural segregation.
As in previous times, those who are migrating into the West are bringing their home culture with them and are segmenting off into non-diverse regions and areas much like the China Towns of old, or even Irish Boston. But where the China Town effect seemed to work and be accepted, the new form of cultural segregation is causing increased tension and growing violence.
The Chinese did not immigrate and start demanding that the host nations and cultures begin adapting to their ways and customs. They were content with having their own unique areas which were looked upon fondly by the majority of those in the host culture. As such those in the West embraced the Chinese culture.
Now we have cultures with no shared roots coming into the West, segmenting of regions for themselves, and demanding that the host culture change and adapt to the incoming culture. There are endless examples of this, but I will use a few specific to Canada.
The Hindu (edit: Sikh - as per the polite reference from Nanook in the comments section) population demanded and received the right to alter the traditional RCMP (Royal Canadian Mounted Police) uniform to accommodate both religious headdress and ceremonial daggers. Also within the Hindu (Edit: Sikh) population is a movement in British Columbia to change the motor cycle helmet law to accommodate the religious headdress turbans. This would in effect create a dual-law system for those who are Hindu (Edit: Sikh) and those who are not. A non-Hindu (Edit: Sikh) would be pulled over by the police for not wearing the legally mandated helmet, while the Hindu (Edit: Sikh) would be allowed passage for not wearing a helmet.
This brings into question the very purpose of why the helmet law was passed in the first place decades ago. Personal safety and health care costs associated with head injuries caused by motor cycle accidents provided the core rationalization and legal argument. Are these concerns no longer relevant? Should the original law be retracted? Or do we allow for a dual legal system which can accommodate the demands of a non-Western culture?
This also brings into question the growing demands for Sharia Law in Western nations. This is more prevalent in European nations but will become more vocal in North America as the migration of Islamic root cultures increases further. In some areas already, in Britain and elsewhere, makeshift systems of Sharia Law are now functioning alongside the Western legal system.
The cultural segregation this creates is both destructive and unsustainable. Those who think otherwise are misleading themselves into believing the manufactured false-truth that all those who oppose mass migration from non-Western root cultures are racists and xenophobes who hate all other people. I can assure you this is not true. Most of the people I talk with in our culture have a lot of interest and compassion for other cultures and look forward to experiencing interaction with those other cultures in their travels.
To suggest that those who want to maintain the Western cultural identity are somehow wrong and vile is one of the greatest travesties to come out of decades of left-leaning socioeconomic and cultural conditioning. Those in the West who are attempting to protect our cultural identity are doing the same as people all around the world. This includes the home nations of those who are migrating into the West and demanding that the culture change to accommodate them.
The labels of sexist, racist, bigot, xenophobe, and white supremacist which are thrown at those in the West who want to maintain the culture they have grown up in, are tired smears which no longer reflect the truth on the ground. This is one of the main reasons why the left agenda is losing momentum around the world and Trump is now the American President.
Whether it’s Trump in America, BREXIT, Le Pen in France, or those right-leaning leaders who are beginning to emerge everywhere, a new modern nationalism is taking hold. This brings us back to the beginning of this article and globalism.
The planned liberal-left globalism was based on the multicultural policies which they have been constructing for decades. As we reviewed above, the very nature of multiculturalism has created a form of cultural segregation which deconstructs and fragments the end objective of multiculturalism itself.
As such, Multiculturalism has failed.
But this doesn’t mean that globalism is dead. We are in the early phase of a new globalism which will emerge based on nationalism and the sovereign rights of nations and individuals. There will be challenges to this as technology and the constant human predisposition for corruption continue riding on the illusion of traditional political stage theatre.
Changes to the international monetary system and subsequent geopolitical adjustments will come about as the unipolar USD based framework is retired for a more functional multicurrency framework which will allow for abundance around the world. The disproportionate demand for East to West migration will eventually be reduced through such monetary transformations, as well as the growing awareness and desire in Western nations to maintain cultural identity and prevent cultural segregation. None of which are anything more than what people all around the world would expect. – JC
JC Collins can be contacted at firstname.lastname@example.org
This article is copyrighted by POM Media©2017. As non-Premium content it can be shared and reposted without further permission.
Please subscribe for Premium Content.