Globalization: Multiculturalism:

 

Organic Multiculturalism

and Imported, Unclassified Disruptive Influences

by Michael Mifsud

Author, Journalist, Entrepreneur

Malaga, Spain

 

Multiculturalism is a broad concept that taken out of context falls apart as far as meaning is concerned.  It is assumed that anything that evolves towards bigger and better,  provided it keeps its balance, is a positive move in the right direction towards global unity.  Unfortunately this is not the case.  Bigger and better,  is an economic rather than social term which reflects on the benefits to a “State” or to a hard core of seasoned businesses able to absorb its impact.  Even the small trader would, in theory, benefit if sufficiently well protected by the banking system to allow for growth investment, but the harsh reality as has been seen in the two decades, is that growth reduces the choice and the larger entities grow disproportionately against the demise of the entrepreneurial spirit and the “nation of shopkeepers”.  The answer therefore is not so much for economic growth, but for parallel reinvestment in social needs neglected by the immensity of the multinational experience.  In short, the village community enjoys the richness of communication spread throughout the whole day between traders and clients and home and allotments, not to mention the immersion in rich cultural activity untouched by the years. Curiously, as societies grow these cultural exchanges not only diminish in intensity but seem to disappear in direct proportion to this so called growth.

 

If the growth factor is to be sustained, then the cultural activity has to be strengthened rather then neglected if fulfillment, so essential to the overall political experience, is to be saved. The tradition and eccentricities of expression endemic to  the descendants of one time cohesive tribes or religious refugees, must therefore be respected and if necessary re-enforced as the primary lubricating force of a stretched social adhesion.   Additionally,  “club” membership of Church or State social activities  as a spiritual reassurance on the one hand and relaxing  entertainment on the other have always been the factor behind a strong, free society based on willing, trusting  subservience, as  opposed to the rejection that both religious and civic entities experience today from the disenchanted, fearful communities now practically everywhere.

 

Immigration and emigration in the sort of time and numbers that could be called “imperceptible”, has always been conducive to harmless curiosity by the hosts and eventual absorption by those in the process. The immigrants contributed  anecdotes and new knowledge and the emigrants describing their own experiences in foreign lands as they too, turned into immigrants of their new countries. These natural flows in  towns and cities  made little if any impact on local cultures although full absorption in most cases took up to a decade to realize and only when there was an intention to do so on the part of the immigrants. This  was the time needed for societies to accommodate  things they did not fully understand but which in the end removed their fears and perhaps extracted a degree of confidence (and perhaps, affection).  In villages however,  despite popular opinion to the contrary, the time gap is even longer and perhaps generational as the scions of immigrants complete the process between them.  The need to subdue the differences intelligently on the part of the parental guides emerges as an overall commitment, failing which, the generational differences could remain firmly in place. Thereby hangs the real problem.

 

Massive, unresponsive immigration devoid of capacity to maintain itself is obviously a very severe blow to any social budget which in modern terms, is already stretched to the full by war debts and increasingly complicated needs that the small communities were perfectly capable of sorting out among its members without resorting to outside help.  By this I mean, the handicapped, the terminally ill and the lack of environmental dangers among other things. Large metropolises are of a different order of things. Community cohesion in terms of administrative capability and technique refers to a weak chain of delegation “ad infinitum”  where personal responsibility at any level becomes meaningless.  This leads, as we can see in our revered Western democracies, to end results  which are far removed from the values and aspirations of the people they are supposed to protect.  It takes little to observe that the blurred version of “Vox Populi” now exposed in all our fought-for democracies, forces whole societies to struggle within itself (often violently) to  shed its imposed and dangerous, contradictory creases.  In small and medium towns even, where the leaders are ideologically tied to the dictates of the supra societies, via party politics, rich religious lobby propaganda and or global trade ambitions, the same twisted effect leads the people into the incomprehensible dance which will either destroy their cultural security or turn all against each other. Small towns and villages however,  would instantly recognize the dangers of feeding those who merely seek economic advantage, apart from the physical threat in numbers and bar them from the start with picks and axes if they had to.   This is well known to the hidden controllers within directed, massive, culturally invasive groups and the reason why these strangely somnambulistic  immigrants always head for the anonymous (and relatively unguarded) concentrated centers of Europe.  They do not linger and dissipate along the way as genuinely desperate people would be expected to do.

 

The anonymity of the big towns and possible encounter with culturally acceptable “ghettoes” is what they look for in their endemic confusion or intent.  Perhaps the sense of loss of their original identity necessary for their understanding of the way forward may well be their search for similar people to greet them.  In Britain, a hive of immigration experiments, found their success stories to the point of changing the very face of cities and cultures but mainly through the system of free education and highly sophisticated welfare arrangements.  Warnings by prophets of doom, like the redoubtable Enoch Powell in the sixties, were to become a reality as blood started to spill out in the smaller cities  or “huddled” areas  that were to become red light districts even for the comfortable bobby brought up on armless beats.  The one factor that distinguishes those early days between that which we see today, is the hardening of religious fanaticism based on the political needs in corrupt countries to blame the outside world for everything -  including cultural deprivation. The enemy outside was to become the very essence of  hospitality in richer countries (a hospitality demanded under pressure and nurtured by romantic concepts like the UN and UNESCO)  and in an unacceptable form as people hardened by deprivation and bottle fed religious notions, brought preconceived obstacles with them.  Host cultural needs were considered alien with little regard for anything other than their own, including the inherent enmity.

 

Until fairly recently, most major democratic  communities worldwide were restrictive with respect to the quality and nature of their immigrants. They initially obeyed the rules of the cultural backdrop for the required progress towards full citizenship, but as economic booms entered a new form of economic global colonialism, new factors began to emerge.  The global drive to sell where and whenever no matter how, was  based on market free for alls devoid of sense and the cultural damage to the emerging economies they operated from with cheap labor, were to produce the tinder of the cultural fragmentations that had been left behind in those places, more than a century before.  The ensuing difficulties as families set up their own barriers, can be seen clearly and especially in the later days of internal armed conflict in which the West eventually has had to become regularly involved.  

 

It should therefore be abundantly clear that mass immigration is cultural suicide and not one single self respecting evolved society will be able to accept it.  Educating the newcomers to cultural acceptance of their host´s manner and style of life, not to mention dangerous beliefs embraced by many, is impractical and not  an answer to integration. It would work better with jungle tribes, than with fully fledged, religiously oriented immigrants set on manipulating their benefits towards their own ends as a matter of course.  Australia, like other colonies in their days were the solitary outposts of convicts in the main and later, all and sundry.  The experiment worked extremely well from the outset as materials and commodities were harnessed to create the hometowns which are now legendary.  The answer therefore if only temporarily for some, would be the allocation of uninhabited islands managed by a group of economic powers with a view to provide the materials for and expect the effort from those genuinely interested in a future for their children in a land that they could one day call their own.  Multiculturalism would then perhaps take on a new meaning as natural attraction between types of people fused the families into meaningful, collective effort and the structures and facilities, rather than tents and squalor, blunted  their despair. 

 

It is more than probable that those whose intentions were politically and criminally  tinged would try and find somewhere else to go to and do their own thing – in effect, with lack of opportunity to seek their targets,  back to where they came from, assisted and noted, by those anxious to deter them.