In light of recent events in Paris, Brussels, and Milan—perpetrated by illegal and legal immigrants from the Third World (primarily Islamists)—this analysis aims to guide the reader through the difficult situation in which Europe now finds itself, while also attempting to offer a forecast for the future of the “white continent.”
- When Western governments, under the guidance of their elites, first decided to bring in people from the Third World, they began with a single term:
ASSIMILATION
Assimilation implies the notion of sameness. That is, it was assumed that new arrivals would eventually become identical to—or at least indistinguishable from—the people of the host country. It soon became apparent, however, that nothing of the sort occurred. The arrivals did not assimilate in the slightest; they remained exactly as they were before they arrived. Why did this happen?
The primary and most significant reason is that these arrivals represent a different anthropological type. You have been led to believe that they failed to assimilate due to cultural differences, but culture is not the core issue. Culture is not imposed from above, nor is it something alien. Different peoples possess different cultures because they represent different anthropological and biological types. Culture is simply the collective expression of a people’s collective soul; it is created by the people themselves and is a product of their anthropological type. This is something we cannot change.
Without wishing to cause offense—though, frankly, it is of no concern to us if we do—an anthropological type is not unlike a breed of dog: some breeds are lethargic, while others are hyperactive; some bark incessantly, while others rarely do so. Some people form bonds with others easily, while others do not. You cannot train a naturally inactive breed to be active. The biological substrate determines everything. A people cannot adopt a culture that expresses the collective soul of another, just as one dog breed cannot adopt the inherent character traits of another.
The second reason is numerical. The people brought into Europe (and the United States) from other continents arrived—and continue to arrive—in numbers far too large to ever be absorbed into the host population, even if such a thing were possible. Naturally, these newcomers stick together, intermingle among themselves, and form distinct communities that preserve their native culture—a culture that best expresses their own collective soul.
As if that were not enough, leftist intellectuals and their liberal lackeys in the host countries have constantly reminded these newcomers of their human rights—specifically, their right to maintain their indigenous identity. Once the newcomers were told that it was perfectly acceptable to preserve their own culture, why on earth would they bother to assimilate? Why would they willingly abandon their identity or surrender such a right?
Thus, assimilation failed.
- However, since host nations still required an explanation for what was happening, the leftist elites presented a new phase:
INTEGRATION
How does integration differ from assimilation? Integration does not require newcomers to discard their own identity and become similar to the host population. It merely requires them to fit into the host society, much like a component fits into a larger whole. Under this model, newcomers can visibly retain their distinctiveness, provided they function as cogs within a larger mechanism. They may preserve their culture, religion, and traditions, on the condition that they do not disrupt the cohesion of the whole.
However, even this approach failed—for the very same reasons. The newcomers simply could not integrate into the broader society because their biological makeup did not allow for it. Once again, their sheer numbers and the pervasive rhetoric surrounding their right to maintain their own identity played a significant role.
- Following the failure of both assimilation and integration, the Left and the liberal Right devised a third concept:
PARTICIPATORY INCLUSION
Participatory inclusion implies an acceptance that those who have arrived will neither attempt to assimilate nor to integrate. We agree to let them remain exactly who they are. Under the banner of participatory inclusion, Europe’s leaders (most of them) expect host nations to tolerate and incorporate these fundamentally incompatible populations into our societies—just as they are.
These three phases—assimilation, integration, and participatory inclusion—have been promoted to Europe’s native population for decades. However, since the first two have failed and the third is on the verge of collapse, we are about to witness a repetition of this cycle—only this time, it will unfold in reverse.
The next step, the fourth phase, will be a return to integration; but this time, it will require the integration of the host countries into the culture of the arrivals. Due to the ever-increasing numbers flooding into Western Europe—driven by an ideology that demands white people constantly kneel and apologize for racism and colonialism—the existing populations of the host countries will be expected, and eventually compelled, to integrate into the foreign cultures that have established themselves among them. We are already witnessing local dietary customs changing and traditional religious holidays being abolished to appease the demands of the newcomers. This process will intensify in the future.
- Finally, the fifth phase will follow:
Ideologically weakened, reduced in number, and psychologically shackled by a sense of unforgivable guilt toward non-whites, the host nations will desire—and, to some extent, feel compelled—to assimilate into the populations arriving from the Third World. We will witness assimilation once again, but with the vector pointing in the opposite direction. This fifth and final phase will mark the complete takeover of Western Europe by non-white peoples and the total subjugation of the former host populations to the newcomers.
***When this analysis was being written, Paris was being burned by immigrants who are unemployed and living on welfare benefits (please also read the analysis titled “Marginalized immigrants, living on welfare benefits, are setting France on fire“).
