(The exerpt from my book “In the Human Desert”
If earlier some Africans left their continent irrevocably, now the continent always stands behind its back. Accordingly, the process of cultural integration of foreign citizens is incredibly complicated. In short, solving technological, scientific problems of Western civilization inevitably causes cultural clashes that put our lives on the brink of a sharp civilizational crisis. This is a huge panorama of conflicts, discussions and irrational wars, despite the fact that the main opponents are not extremists.
Real extremists are just the tip of the iceberg.
The main challenge is the composition of people who live next to us and do not violate the law. They are most problematic for a long period. Because they imperceptibly introduce old, backward cultural code, that is habits, customs, superstitions, fears that Europe has already experienced and experienced long ago. And now we have to oppose these cultural phenomena of the non-Western world.
In doing this, someone should understand that cultures are very often incompatible with each other in principle. Not because people are bad, but because this cultural code of life, the way of life to each other is irreconcilable. Someone must displace someone. This is a principled point of view on the understanding of the so-called “cultural dialogue”. People can achieve mitigation of interpersonal contradictions, but a key cultural principle can not be reconciled. In short, relations between people have to exist at the expense of mutual concessions, but in favor of a more advanced culture and civilization.
Of course, Western “pundits” must comprehend and reformulate the root causes of the existence of Western civilizations with the inevitable weaknesses and gaps in our society, which also complicates the consequences for immigrants from indigenous peoples with its civilizational relics. We must respect other cultures, but we must not allow the erosion and disintegration of our own. The concession to estranged cultures must be strictly defined and limited. Thus, on the one hand, we must foresee the consequences of foreign cultural influences; on the other hand, we must limit the influence of cultural characteristics that are so alienated in our contemporary historical conditions.
In the way of this defense of the alien effects since the end of the World War 11 we face the biases and prejudices tightly connected with the Nazi and Racist influences. The politicians and pundits are afraid to be accused in the ideological and political views and preferences proper to our common historical past. We must get used to the idea that dialogue can be, as a rule, impossible with some cultures and civilizations. Although Ayn Rand believed that there could be a cultural (reciprocal) “melting pot”. It’s a pity, but we must be more realistic and specific about these delicate issues with far-reaching consequences. Modern history clearly displayed the adverse effects of cultural dialogue, unlimited liberal immigration policies and ideological preferences within national and religious enclaves.
These shortcomings were caused by the unconscious attitude of Western society to the fundamental values of Western civilization with a regime of personal freedom and personal responsibility. This Western society holds the error that this type of society is universal and eternal, covering the whole Earth. Instead, scientists should draw the attention of the general public to the significant differences in the cumulative personality in cultural motives and preferences in different societies. Even if we read texts, say, the Middle Ages or the Renaissance, we very often attribute our own feelings, desires, aspirations and goals to historical characters.
Of course, we must remember that our modern immigrants can have the views, habits and customs of our European historical past. Of course, we have already forgotten our ancestors with its specifics. Many people who come to Europe and North America are forced to jump through the stages of development in order to cope with the new difficulties that will inevitably arise for them. This complex historical picture excludes one-sided narrowed approaches to the adaptation of immense flows of immigrants from the outside and social mixing from the bottom to top and vice versa.
In this context, it would be desirable to avoid the purely ideological and political disputes inherent in today’s political life in the main Western countries and in countries that are at the forefront of the struggle with post-communist Russia or other countries that support backward social systems with regimes of religious collective responsibility and individual irresponsibility. In other words, it would be better not to get involved in ideological disputes, but to rethink this problem as such. Immigrants face exceptional difficulties in Western society, but Western society still can not help overcome these cultural obstacles.
Thus, this approach does not work well if we uncritically accept the rules of culture that come to us from home countries of migrants. We must rethink the foundations of our own civilization and understand the limits of the limits of permissible concessions in culture for the bearers of an alien culture that have come to us.
This means that it is bad for them in their home country, where it is difficult to live, they moved to the West, where they hope to live better. Despite this, they are trying to impose their alien cultural habits and customs on us. They arrived with their cultural “infections”, incompatible with our habits and traditions. Therefore, they inevitably contribute to the controlled chaos of the opponents of the West both in the post-communist world and in the same West. Of course, Western society still has layers that, as a rule, support the ideology and practice of confrontation with the supporters of the West.
Then they begin to spread complaints and requests for recognition of their cultural and religious identity and their right to this religious lifestyle incompatible with the Western way of life. “They are offended that they are not respected, because these customs are not respected.” We should say: “Sorry, but your customs forced you to move here.” In advance, there is no need to enter into discussions with them in any controversy. There is no cultural common denominator for arguments, from where there are contradictions and confrontations. Here we see the key starting point of this struggle of cultures. In this case, we do not see a struggle with material interests, but a struggle for the right to have a civilizational starting point that crowds out one way of life another way of life.