For the first time, Socrates spoke about cosmopolitanism about 2400 years ago. Emmanuel Kant saw in the united humanity the crown of history, Lenin spoke of uniting the whole world through the destruction of the fragmentation of nations, Karl Marx considered the national states to be artificial entities with the aim of enslaving the masses, and Voltaire dreamed of a united Europe.
People tend to dream of a certain ideal world. But dreamers do not think about the consequences. Any ideology builds a model of the world in which its goals are achievable, ignoring the uncomfortable reality. Today, globalism is becoming more and more aggressive in advancing its agenda, and increasingly blind to its results.
Multiculturalism is one of the key ideological tools of globalism in uniting populations and abolishing borders. The dismantling of national identities through intermingling of peoples, cultural relativism, the abolition of social standards and the declaration of any opposition to this process as “far right” and “fascists” are today's everyday lives of Europe and the USA. But does, for example, the possession of a German passport of any inhabitant of the Earth German?
In 2010 year Tilo Sarrazin published the book Germany - Self-destruction, which cost him a seat on the board of directors of the Bundesbank, but also marked the beginning of a broad public debate on multiculturalism. The book touched upon, with a series of figures, the disappointing results of the migration policy of Germany. And then even Merkel, Sarkozy and Cameron announced the failure of multiculturalism. In Europe, they started talking that the pendulum would swing back. However, the pendulum analogy is very dangerous. It gives a false impression that history is a process that goes on rails, and if something goes wrong, the system will adjust itself. Now we can say that it was rather an attempt to lull public opinion. The pendulum has swung so hard, and its cargo has flown so far that, perhaps, it has already slipped from the thread of history, and we are in for a hard landing in a new reality - unregulated chaos?
Understanding the extreme reluctance of change and the conservatism of the majority of people, the globalist elites disguise all ideological steps for economic gain. Therefore, it all started with the simple desire to have a more comfortable life for less money. Cheap labor filling the least prestigious professions. However, this was how it looked only for the average man, and for the secular humanists this was an important step towards a world without borders. Be that as it may, economic benefits were the deciding factor. Short-term economic benefits ... But you would not chase, pop, for cheapness.
It looks like some advantages - the business gets additional profit, and the consumer has more affordable prices. Additional burden on infrastructure (schools, hospitals and other public institutions) is paid from the budget. Interest groups are born - various commissions and committees on migration management, public organizations for the protection of migrants' rights, etc. However, as it turned out, in addition to the financial component, cheap labor has a significant civilizational margin. The culture of the country is beginning to transform, the social atmosphere is changing - and not always in the direction that would suit the locals.
But in the next step, the need for mass import of foreigners is explained by a shortage of labor, an aging population, and difficulties in paying pensions. The argument is quite controversial, because the percentage of skilled labor among immigrants from the third world countries is extremely low, many of them are illiterate, even in their own language. In addition, they also age and claim retirement. And, as the experience of Europe shows, neither their children nor their grandchildren are compared in terms of education and professional qualifications with the local population. Moreover, their level of ambition is much higher than that of their parents, who were happy with grass-roots work. But only very few of them correspond to these ambitions.
Then the migrants start nodding at the United States. After all, this is a country of immigrants, and see how they evolved. Consequently, immigration as a whole has a positive result, albeit not immediately, but multinational societies end up stronger. This is true, but only in part. One must understand the nature of this immigration. In the past, immigrants to the United States did not have any social benefits and had to rely entirely on their own strength. About a third of visitors returned to their countries. They were also forced to assimilate into a single American culture. Not to mention that the majority of these immigrants were from European countries, and therefore they were already close in their values and culture to the United States.
Today we are talking about a completely different immigration. Mostly from countries in Africa and the Middle East, people with extremely low levels of education, unable to independently integrate into society and conduct economic activities. Basically, they go for benefits, free housing and treatment. They are not going to assimilate, and many of them openly do not recognize the values of the country of arrival. As a rule, they live in their ethnic areas, which even the police avoid.
The local population is forced to pay ever higher taxes on the maintenance of public infrastructure and social benefits, and increasingly fear for their safety. In Sweden, over the past 40 years, the number of rapes has increased 15 times. With a relatively small number of migrants in the total share of the population, they leave almost half of the prisoners in correctional institutions. However, the birth rate among them far exceeds the reluctantly setting children of Europeans. London and Paris are experiencing a baby boom, but most of these children will be English and French only on their passport. The examples of Lebanon and Kosovo did not serve as a lesson.
The problem is that, living in their culture, people often do not realize its depth and notice only external manifestations. Cuisine, national costumes, dances, music, holidays and language. Such things as the concept of personal space, facial expressions, gestures, tone of voice, visual contact, way of expressing emotions, courtship rituals, relationships between men and women, traditions of raising children, the concept of friendship, the concept of social norm, attitude to the elderly, attitude to strangers , to various activities, etc., are simply not realized.
The terms “multinational” and “multicultural” are also often confused. Society may well be multinational and successful. In any case, as long as people adhere to the general rules of behavior, speak the same language and have a common identity. Simply put live in the framework of the dominant culture. But can two or more cultures get together in one public space, often opposing or even excluding one another? It’s like different rules of the road in the same city. With such an approach, life is greatly complicated. People become uncertain about how to behave and how to evaluate the actions and behavior of other people. The general social nervousness is growing, turning into intolerance. The number of social contacts is reduced, people begin to participate less in public life, and even less often go out. The level of trust falls, including to representatives of their culture and nationality. At the instinctive level, they begin to consider the environment hostile and dangerous. All of this was established as a result of research by multicultural societies in the United States.
At the same time, political discourse is greatly transformed. National minorities do not vote for this or that platform. They vote for their ethnic interests. Latin Americans and African Americans almost monolithically support the US Democratic Party. Not because they are for same-sex marriage and transgender rights. And not because they support feminism and the import of refugees. But because the Democrats promise them more benefits and benefits, and also advocate for the facilitation of the issuance of citizenship. The situation is similar in Europe with migrants and socialists. This tactical alliance, and when minorities gain power, then they can change the political agenda to a completely different one. For example, Mexican again make California, Texas, Arizona, Nevada and New Mexico (this is the goal of the influential organization La Raza - “race”). And in Europe it is the establishment of Sharia law. But until then, paradoxically, the most conservative part of society will support the most progressive parties.
At the same time, the ideology of multiculturalism polarizes and distorts society. For example, in Sweden, children sing the song “My country is your country, I am so happy to share it with you,” the Canadian prime minister makes a statement that there is no Canadian culture, and a generation has grown up in the United States that, thanks to academic efforts Wednesday believes that there is no American culture. German leftist politicians celebrate the low birth rate and the replacement of the population in their own country. Because "there are fewer descendants of the Nazis" (Gregor Gizi). French politicians say that it is necessary to force mixed marriages and give up their own identity. Any dissenters are declared by the fascists, racists, become non-armed, are subject to dismissal and persecution up to physical attacks.
But the discontent of the population is still growing. And then it starts to talk about helping refugees. Well, unless the Europeans do not lend a helping hand to refugees from Syria, fleeing from the terrible war and the Assad regime? A photograph of a drowned boy caused a flurry of empathy in Europe. But no one asked that the boy’s family had been living in Turkey for three years, and they did not flee from the war. Also interesting is the fact that among these refugees less than a quarter are Syrians, and the majority are from the same Africa, or Afghanistan and Iraq. Even more surprisingly, on 70% it’s a man and quite a call-up age. Technically, they are not refugees - they did not seek asylum in the first country. They pass all of Europe to get to Germany or Sweden. And therefore, even if they flee from the places of hostilities, they are not refugees, but deserters.
The response was Brexit, when, despite all the efforts of the media, albeit with a small margin, but in the UK, supporters of the country's exit from the EU won. Today, a similar choice was made by US voters by voting for Donald Trump. In European countries, the rise of right-wing parties. But the clock is ticking, and every year there are more and more imported immigrants and less and less indigenous European population. In fact, there is a replacement of the population and the replacement of culture. Globalist elites use the divide-and-conquer tactic, which has proven its effectiveness in past centuries, when European colonialists used minorities to control the population of the conquered territories.
By the way, the rampant offense of a sexual nature did not provoke a wave of anger among Western feminists who are so anxious about fighting the “culture of sexual violence”. That is, if a man and a woman had sex after a couple of glasses of wine, then, having experienced regret, a woman can accuse a man of rape - she didn’t control herself, and therefore could not give consent. But when statistics were published in Norway and it turned out that 100% of rapes were committed by unknown immigrants to the victim, then, oddly enough, feminists chose not to notice this fact. When thousands of women were sexually assaulted on New Year’s Eve in Cologne and other European cities, Joanne Rowling and other opinion leaders suddenly began to talk "about men in general." When in Rotherham more than 1400 children were sexually exploited by the local Pakistani community, feminists were again quieter than water. Particularly indicative is the recent case in Sweden, in the country of victorious feminism. Several migrants raped a woman in a wheelchair. And then Swedish women came to the action of supporting ... migrants from unfair charges of sexual offenses.
As I wrote earlierThe goal of feminism is not equal rights or concern for the welfare of women. Their goal is to destroy the "patriarchy", an imaginary system of enslaving women through a conspiracy of men. Dismantling their own culture for them is an intermediate goal, and therefore if immigrants need to be used as a ram, then they will do it. Here their interests converge with secular humanists. After all, if all the wars were fought because of cultural and ethnic differences, then the recipe for universal peace is a mixture of cultures and nationalities with the goal of deriving some kind of single global nationality and culture. Yes, at first it will be difficult. But in the end, everything will settle down and universal prosperity and prosperity will come. In addition, all wars always started and were waged by men, and if women beat power out of their hands, then there will be no one to start these wars. But I am afraid that they will simply replace some men in power with others.
If you look at the statistics of voting for the right in Europe, they are supported by the overwhelming majority of men. Women, especially unmarried, vote for liberal-minded politicians. Such is the natural function of the stronger sex - to protect their land and their culture, so they are more inclined to see the danger in the policies pursued today.
Western man in the street considers his culture to be something eternal, true. Therefore, they think that all these immigrants will become Europeans. Exactly the same ones who abandon their religion, will appreciate education and hard work, personal freedoms and equality of all before the law, will adopt European morality, will also raise their children. But in reality, Western culture is no longer viewed by the rest of the world as a landmark, which was still 40 − 50 years ago. Then there was the westernization of the world, fashion, films and music conquered including the Islamic world. But today, the Islamic world is going in the opposite direction. Asian countries are also not in a hurry to accept Western values. Yes, they choose what is effective - economic freedoms, technological progress, the organization of cities and infrastructure. But not the struggle for equality and social justice, the rejection of their own culture and identity, the abolition of social standards and the primacy of personal freedom.
However, there are other examples. Prime Minister of Japan Abe stated at the UN General Assembly that Japan would not accept refugees, because the country is full of internal problems that need to be solved first. And this is despite the colossal pressure from the United States and Western European countries for Japan to adopt the concept of multiculturalism. The Japanese, despite all the problems with fertility, population aging and the economy, practically do not accept migrants.
When it comes to solving economic problems with the help of labor migrants, you need to understand that the “economy” is always a relatively short planning horizon. When considering the world through the prism of financial indicators, the long-term implications for the country may be much more expensive. According to the UN, Sweden will add to the list of third world countries for 2030. And this was once one of the most prosperous countries in the world.
So, first we were told about cheap labor, which is beneficial to all. Then about the aging population. Then about the open world without borders. Then about helping refugees. But not called the main goal. Dismantling of national identities and states, replacement of separate ethnic groups and cultures for a homogeneous world population.
Well, this is a natural selection of cultures and civilizations. Our task is not to be among those who received the Darwin Award.