Originally posted October 2017
How many times have you heard someone say that if immigrants adopted our way of life, our culture, our laws and our ‘liberal values’ then there wouldn’t be an issue with immigration? “If only they would assimilate and integrate” they say, then there would be no problems associated with allowing population changing levels of immigration. Multiculturalism is the problem according to this narrative, and integration is the supposed solution. Those who subscribe to this integrationist approach to mass immigration fail to understand two very important things.
First, the immutability of human nature dicates that different groups with different identities, morals, values, customs, religions and cultural practices will inevitably come into conflict at some point. These divergent groups will self-segregate according to their inate and natural in-group preference and despite the fact that some will integrate into the dominant culture, the vast majority will seek out their own group and stay within the confines of that community. This can be seen in all Western nations that have been opened up to immigration from the third-world. There is very limited integration, and widespread segregation. There are large Islamic communities, Chinese communities, and African communities as well as the indigenous communities who tend to flee from the forced ‘diversity’ not realising that soon enough there will be no more places to flee to. The idea that mass immigration wouldn’t be a problem if integration was achieved is extremely naive.
Secondly, there is no escaping the fact that integration is facilitation of the erosion of our unique racial identity as a group. Whilst absorbing immigrants into the host culture may seem the most logical way to avoid inter-group conflict, the actual outcome is the gradual attrition of our own racial identity and whilst that may be unimportant to some, it is exactly what our enemies desire and apathy or disregard in relation to it is facilitating that enemy. Just because racial identity is considered insignificant to some, doesn’t mean that it isn’t important to others. Those who want mass assimilation can be considered anti-identity enablers, because they are indifferent in their attitude towards the eventual eradication of European racial identity through the mass immigration of non-European high birthrate populations that will soon become the dominant demographic groups.
Those who support this model of racial and cultural integration are actually as bad as those who are engineering the mass movement of populations into the West, because racial integration and the subsequent eradication of European racial identity as the majority population
in the West is exactly what they are working towards.
Whilst they may spout patriotic slogans and talk about protecting the country and culture, they do so with race not as a criterion for the protection and preservation of the Western nations and usually their patriotism is limited to opposing the rise of Islam. They are ignorant to the fact that Western culture is a product of the European mind that created it. If you take the European out of the West, you remove the originally creative mind that was the founder of Western Civilisation as we know it. The same is true of any other culture outside of Europe, it is a product of the people that created it.
What is considered to be successful integration?
As alluded to earlier, a minority of people will integrate into the dominant culture seemingly with no issues whatsoever. The problem arises when their numbers become so great that they end up supplanting the identity of the indigenous population. This is when people bring up the argument about the ‘insignificance of skin colour’ as if that was all race was about. They claim that it ‘doesn’t matter’ if Britain for example, becomes minority white, so long as everybody is integrated and embraces the same culture, but what culture is that? Binge drinking? Football? Reality television? MTV? Music festivals?
Is somebody considered ‘integrated’ if they partake in certain pastimes? Is somebody considered ‘integrated’ if they are ‘tolerant?’ What exactly is ‘integration’ meant to entail? When, if ever, do they see integration as being part of the nation and identity destroying agenda of Globalism? When does integration become replacement? When is too much integration enough? When whites are the visible minority?
Integration as Dilution
Mass Immigration is a form of demographic warfare being waged by the globalist elites to weaken the majority European racial and cultural identity of the West. This is being done so that eventually, Europeans will not be able to organise in their own interests because there simply won’t be enough Europeans to constitute a majority vote. The biggest threat to Globalist tyranny over the West is a racially conscious European population hence the strategy of diluting and destroying this population through mass immigration, population replacement, multiculturalism or integration, call it what you want, it has the same end in sight. Dilution, simply put, means weakening, and this is what the West is undergoing, a dilution/weakening of the European racial identity and Western cultural identity.
Integration that Does Work
If we take America as an example – prior to 1965 – of successful integration, we can see that America was a nation founded and built by our European ancestors. It was settled by various European populations who were racially and culturally similar and whilst problems inevitably did exist, the integration of these different European populations was much more achievable and sustainable.
The English, Irish, Germans, Italians and others made America great, and they made America in the image of the Europe they left behind and that was a feature of the America we all came to know and love.
After 1965 and the Open Immigration Act, America was opened up to the third-world which subsequently has created the America that you see today. America was over 90% European before 1965, and today it stands at about 60% and declining fast. The country is beset with racial tensions, cultural clashes and political turmoil between different groups competing in the theatre of identity politics all vying for top spot in the victim table. America has gone from being the almost perfect example of how to integrate, to the perfect example of how not to.
In the UK in 2017, UKIP launched what they called an ‘integration agenda’ that sought to ‘bring communities together.’ How would this be beneficial to Britain in the long-term once the British identity has been submerged under the inevitable dilution process that comes with mass immigration? How does ‘removing the Burkha’ for example, achieve anything in the long-term? It doesn’t. It only faciliates the intentional racial and cultural transformation of Britain and other nations by misleading the public into a false sense of security and coercing them into acceptance of what is happening, keeping them ignorant to what is really going on around them and who is really responsible.
The wearing of the face veil by Muslim women was described by UKIP as being a ‘barrier to integration’ which is naive to say the least. Like we said earlier, Islam and Muslims have no interest in integration because it is natural for them to want to remain with other Muslims and maintain their identity just like every other group. And why would we want to ‘integrate’ ourselves out of existence anyway?
If we want our people to wake up to what is happening to Western nations then let them wear the veil, let them build mosques and let them colonise areas of towns and cities. We want our people to see what is happening not mislead them with the illusion of ‘integration.’
As much as multiculturalism is a malignant manifestation of Globalism and the puppet politicians that do its bidding, it is preferable not only to wake our people up to their own interests as a group, but because the impact of multiculturalism can be seen. Like we have said in previous articles, both multiculturalism and integration lead to our eventual demise, they just pursue different routes to same destination. Integration is just the more ‘peaceful’ way to get there.
I’ll finish with a quote from a book called ‘The Perils of Diversity’ by Byron Roth:
‘Even the most disastrous natural and man-made catastrophes do not permanently alter the fundamental nature of societies. The citizens of Western Europe who survived the upheavals of World War I and II returned to a way of life that was poorer, to be sure, but otherwise not much different than it had been before the wars. Much had changed, but much more remained the same. This is very unlikely to be the case if one ethnic or cultural group replaces another; such demographic changes may alter a society profoundly and irreversibly.’