This strikes as a shallow, question-begging analysis. There is a foundational basis for human unity, and that is our self-evident common humanity. You are equating multiculturalism with top-down globalism here, or your view makes little sense, but this is a false equation. I have lived in places myself where a variety of distinct cultures co-exist absolutely fine, and have done so for generations now – they abide by the same underlying laws, which are understood as applicable to all. When that breaks down – when one ‘special’ group no longer abides by common laws, exempts themselves, and they enrich themselves at everyone else’s expense; that is the real issue here, not ‘mulitculturalism’ and the other similar varieties of effort to deflect from basic, anti-human criminality. We are facing a global network of depraved and despicable criminality – that is the only division that matters here; those who would only serve themselves, versus those who serve each other in the extended human family, regardless of shade, history or tradition.
OK that’s fine – this is partly a semantics issue. The whole point of grasping efforts like a ‘Bill of Rights’ is precisely that it takes basic law and order issues – which cover our universal humanity – out of the purview of local custom and culture. That is also the point of separating church and state. In this sense, there is no need for civilisation itself to be incompatible with multiculturalism – that was what I addressed in your claim, and found question-begging. Multiculturalism is fine when it works, and it can indeed work – that was my point, and it needed making. I find everything else you note pretty much spot on.