By exPF

People, even elite multiculturalists, seem to understand that groups of human beings undergo various “trials and tribulations” - which test their loyalty to each other, their toughness in struggle, and their willingness to sacrifice and undergo hardship for one another. I hope we can assert here, without it being merely a facile truism, that nations, groups, peoples undergo periods of prolonged struggle and disorder which require some stronger allegiance or internal reference point - if said nation is to hold together and persist, rather than be broken by circumstance.

Put bluntly, it won’t always be days of wine and roses. Even the Blitz, even the Great Depression, don’t represent the putative low-point of communal existence: harder things may yet be demanded of us.

And there is still a lingering intuitive understanding that the only groups to actually persist through such difficulties, the only groups to survive, are those which will sacrifice for one another and bear hardship, following Hamilton’s rule, these groups are those sharing familial relationship.

That’s why they want us to assimilate. So that one day, the strife will end. One day, the controversies and debates and inflammatory denouncements and hate-speech measures will end. We will have become one. Even multiculturalists understand, in a somnambulatory way, the importance that we become family. So they posit that as their horizon:

Imagine there’s no countries
It isn’t hard to do
Nothing to kill or die for
And no religion too
Imagine all the people
Living life in peace

You may say that I’m a dreamer
But I’m not the only one
I hope someday you’ll join us
And the world will be as one

Imagine no possessions
I wonder if you can
No need for greed or hunger
A brotherhood of man
Imagine all the people
Sharing all the world

But the fact is that assimilation is an exquisitely delicate and complicated matter - each act of exogamy and miscegenation, and thus “assimilation” - is quite a different thing. Everyone who crosses the racial and ethnic divide, does it as a shit-scared tight-rope walker, straddling the abyss of true individualism, which yawns open beneath one perhaps for the first time in its true aspect, when one attempts this great feat. Miscegenation and exogamy are, in fact, some of the only pursuits in which it is possible to confront and to actually live true individualism in its fullest manifestation- not just putatively, as a kind of philosophical affirmation of a concept, but as an actual life-experiment upon which one’s future legacy is based. Ask the legions of single mothers already left in the wake of this project: it’s one thing to experiment with musical styles and an unconventional piercing: quite another to stake your prosperity on a partner of foreign stock.

In some sense it is the legions of single mothers raising cafe-au-lait children who could answer cultural individualists’ rebellion with the rejoinder:

“You think you have balls? We’re such individualists that we are actually raising a crop of children from sundry foreign wanderers who have abandoned us. Check that, if you want individualism.”

And the various leather-clad tattoo-sporting rockers would have nothing at all to say to them: they’d be genuinely one-upped by the Open Legs Brigade.

Unfortunately, these women are generally too stupid to appreciate the greater context of their actions; as it turns out, if Nelson had charged into Napoleon’s navy without knowing it was there, he would not be credited with the heroism which has since attached to his name. Likewise, these women cannot be said to understand the burden they have shouldered until they come to appreciate it’s gravity bit by regrettable bit - ex post facto - as the left side of the bell-curve is always appreciating and understanding its actions. In hindsight.

The hope that governments implicitly stake on the idea of “assimilation” is that the end-products of these processes will somehow come to unify under one banner, and will feel and act as one - ending forever our otherwise perpetual and ever-worsening divisiveness. Well, let’s consider what this looks like in practice.

If western rulers were enlightened enough to praise miscegenation - which they definitely have done through the vehicles of BBC hospital dramas and Hollywood movies - they should have done more than merely plant the seed of miscegenist thought. If “assimilation” was their goal, they should have included an instruction manual - because miscegenation is in fact an extremely complicated thing. First question: whom does one mate with? The liberal immigration policies certainly give the white western woman no end of choice as to possible mates. She could take an African, a West Indian, a Pakistani, an Arab, a Vietnamese, a Chinese, a Serbian, a Russian, a Slovenian, a Greek, a French or Swedish husband.

Secondly, how will the child be raised? With some degree of respect for his [unspecified] foreign ancestry? With equal respect for his white Anglo-Saxon and foreign ancestry? With no respect for his foreign ancestry? At what age will he be made conscious of his foreign ‘ties’? Will they be reaffirmed each year? Stringently denied? Portrayed as if they do not matter? Will the father be violently pro-[his homeland] or will he coyly pour saccharine love out on the new western polity he has adopted?

If anyone here has followed Steve Sailer’s exposition of a certain famed historical figure’s ancestry - one will no doubt be aware the many problems that arise from mixed matings. There are inferiority complexes, superiority complexes - the feeling of not belonging to either group, the militant desire to prove one’s allegiance to one group: those raised in mixed households will know already just how problematic forging an identity can be. As what does one identify oneself? Does one pretend to belong to both groups? Which group does one admire? Which group does one romanticize? After which group’s affection does one strive?

The narcissism, self-seeking and naivete of teenagers doesn’t respect the boundaries of “that which should not matter” - and so children growing up in mixed households tend to dote more on these concepts, during their identity search, than PC-commissars would like to think. Especially because the perception of these things by others speaks to the self-consciousness of the young.

Coming from a mixed family makes one naturally very idiosyncratic and individualistic by nature. Even different siblings can have completely different views on matters central to identity - thus increasing the tendency to divisiveness.

So let’s draw some pictures in our minds. Imagine a Swedish man takes an Englishwoman to wife. Its not a cross of the racial divide, but its an ethnic experiment, to be sure. The Swedish man will no doubt speak good English, with a slight accent, and be successful at his career, with a respect for British culture and a self-effacingness that lets him melt into the landscape. He does represent a repudiation of Englishness but one that is justified - at least in view of the woman in question - with gains in human capital which make him far above average anywhere, thus also in England.

But this grand game isn’t just for Swedish businessmen, and accomplished northern Europeans seeking adventurous mating propositions abroad - other foreigners also enter into the mix. Imagine a Greek, who runs a restaurant and engages in the same experiment. His conflict with Englishness is necessarily a bit more profound, but he gets along in one way or another. The union likewise produces some kind of children, who feel necessarily conflicted - and aren’t too keen on flying the cross of St. George.

Alas, if only we could draw the line at the admission of the Greek, this might all end in smiles. No, our commitment to anti-racist principles and the accidental nature of our “who will pop up next?” immigration policy demands of us even more radical experiments. A Tunisian businessman takes another Englishwoman to wife. Necessarily conflicted with the whole notion of European identity as such, he is nevertheless tenacious and intelligent, and can make a way in the world. The union produces children.

Alas, if only the Tunisian were the end of our troubles. Several different Africans and West Indian immigrants arrive, all similarly desiring to sire children with English women. Like degraded scientists in a perverse underground lab, all these experiments give birth to new, heretofore unknown strains of children.

Now all of these foreigners have assimilated - the question is: what have they assimilated to? To a fragmented, sterilized, seen-through-a-prism idea of Englishness? An idea which, under any interpretation, would clash with their other identities and require relativizing merely to be rendered safe? An idea of Englishness which, were it to place any high value on English cultural belonging, would necessarily categorize them all as half-breeds, outsiders and people-not-quite-belonging?

Understand, in clear terms, that this means Englishness has to be made devoid of all value, just in order that these peoples’ existence will not represent some kind of affront against it. They will forever be aware that, if Englishness constitutes a central value, it is one from which they are forever excluded. It is these people who primarily have an interest in seeing English identity relativized - something to be subtly scoffed at, something not to be taken too seriously.

If they have any university education, the idea will come very naturally to them that they are “better than the Englishman in the street” who has trouble articulating himself and speaks in simple tones. They will naturally grasp the concept of aristocracy to justify their existence, being born ‘outside the blood’ and thus with a grievance which must be justified - even if cultural attainment and a glib tongue is all they can offer us in exchange for the ethnic bond sacrificed as a result of their parents’ experimental breeding. Nothing else will satisfy their alienation at the knowledge that they do not pass John Bull’s ‘sniff test’ - which is the kind of thing that makes human beings supremely alienated and hateful: knowing they are not wanted on the basis of their essential features. The motto is: if I can’t have English physiognomy and pedigree, then even knowledge of the existence of such is anathema to me! I must see it all destroyed! I must see it all made a mockery of!

One might ask, bemused: are the results of these experiments expected to breed with one another? What future does ‘assimilation’ have in mind for the Turkish-Hungarian-Greek-Swedish-Gypsy-Somali-Scotsman?

How about this: a future in which the possibility of “Ozmir Ulysses Henrik Ogdabishu Allen” ever meeting another person like himself are precisely zero! Zero!!
A future in which he will forever be a ‘freak’ striving to re-assert the boundaries of what he thought was normalcy. A future in which all of the miserable beneficiaries of these breeding experiments are striving to reassert their belonging to an ethnic group with static norms and expectations - just because they grasp the fact that life isn’t a genetic free-for-all and one has to maintain some basal conservatism in order to create children vaguely resembling oneself. They will understand this because they will see how dangerously near their parents’ experiments brought them to the verge of racio-cultural anomie, and see the need to avert this in their own choices.

Just consider in all its absurdity the grand central premise of “assimilation” - that every single generation will be some individualistic experiment in breeding. That every generation, one can reach outside the bounds of history and mate with some completely different specimen, making one’s pedigree not an ordered progression, but a riotous explosion of dazzling colors in conflict. I will take a Persian to wed, and my son, an Egyptian, and his son, an Inuit, and his son, a Scotswoman. Oh, it will be so colorful. We will all be Björk. We will all be Freddy Mercury. We will be Cher.

The multiplicity of different characters and backgrounds within a nation forms the fodder for the assimilationist experiment - this is one side of the equation. Here there are advanced medical doctors representing the upper classes, high-school dropouts, working men classed as ‘losers’ - each of these people will be ‘mixing’. So the variation of the original population is present, multiplied by the variation of the “colonizing” population ...  As if England, with its class divides and regionalisms, were not divided enough as ‘starting material’. The end product could look like literally anything imaginable. One imagines cafe-au-lait cognitive elitists and Mediterranean-looking Chavs; slant-eyed punk-rock hooligans and mulatto churchgoers. A thousand myriad forms, each one representing a fragment of our collective death.

All this combined with the fact that both the colonizing population and the English population will consist (for the most part) of people adhering to their respective heritages, and thus, tacitly denying the model of assimilation which is presently being put forth. This alienates the half-breeds and adds yet more to the divisiveness of social life generally.

Assimilation, far from being a “gasp! we’ve finally arrived” salvation-through-copulation-Endlösung, is more like an endless spiral which gets more messy and more problematic and complicated the deeper one advances into it. This trick which was meant to save us, overcoming ethnic conflict by playing musical chairs with our genitals, well, it turns out the real world ain’t that simple.