Digital Assimilationism

The 21st Century eradicated dissent from the real world. Everything you do outside of your home is tied to your legal name and ID, which is why no one with situational awareness is dissenting in public (or at least not without facing severe consequences, as the mass arrests following the Capitol protests have made clear as day).

Note: I am referring solely to real dissent, by which I mean right-wing dissent, obviously

The world wide web, however, bestowed on humanity the greatest (albeit ever-diminishing) degree of free speech it has ever enjoyed. It is not absolute, of course, as that concept is woefully fantastic, but it is about as close as it gets.

The cybernetic battlefield facilitated the rise of many previously unheard-of groups into the mainstream, such as transgenders, who are notoriously adept at the tactic which I would like to discuss in this article: digital assimilationism (in this case, manifested in the form of grooming).

Their approach goes as follows: individual members of the community find themselves a part of larger, unrelated communities (which most people have no issue with). Slowly, relationships are established and the tranny begins its malignant infusion of transgenderism into other emotionally or psychologically vulnerable individuals (who are more likely to be avid internet users). Eventually this infusion matures into a complete diagnosis, with transition as the prescription. Sooner than you’d think, the victim has been fully assimilated into the community, and will go on to assimilate others as well. Like a virus, they multiply exponentially and take over entire communities, expelling resisting members and proceeding to infect adjacent communities.

What’s important to note is that assimilation is not conversion: the subject does not belong to any conflicting groups, unlike, for instance, natives did prior to evangelization by their colonizers. Assimilation is primarily successful on those who do not belong to (or, even better, have recently departed from) a group of the same nature. Dissatisfaction, especially with oneself, is the greatest catalyst for spontaneous mental questions which assimilators are eager to provide answers for.

Nonetheless, despite my despicable example, assimilation is not an inherently evil concept. As with conversion, it depends specifically on what the subject is being assimilated into. During the colonial era, the conversion of natives into Christianity was a very positive thing, which brought about the end of many unspeakable practices previously perpetrated in the name of their pagan gods. Similarly, assimilating dissatisfied individuals into a rightful cause is a noble deed, and that is precisely how the dissident right has consistently grown in the digital world.

Arrival at dissent initiates with departure from conformity, in most people this is often the result of a wake-up call, a reality check, provoked by a real-world occurrence. Luckily for us, there is much in the world to be dissatisfied with, and the number of politically, philosophically and spiritually homeless souls sees unending growth. As Nick Land beautifully states:

“The war on political incorrectness creates data-empowered, web-coordinated, paranoid and poly-conspiratorial werewolves, superbly positioned to take advantage of liberal democracy’s impending rendezvous with ruinous reality, and to then play their part in the unleashing of unpleasantnesses that are scarcely imaginable (except by disturbing historical analogy). When a sane, pragmatic, and fact-based negotiation of human differences is forbidden by ideological fiat, the alternative is not a reign of perpetual peace, but a festering of increasingly self-conscious and militantly defiant thoughtcrime, nourished by publicly unavowable realities, and energized by powerful, atavistic, and palpably dissident mythologies. That’s obvious, on the ‘Net.”

The Dark Enlightenment, by Nick Land

Assimilation is also more efficient than conversion, obviously, as the latter requires the destruction of the existing belief system through the implementation of a new one, whilst the former conquers a blank slate. Conversion requires more force, unlike assimilation, and is never initially viable for fringe groups such as our own (or transgenders 10 years ago). The efficacy of debating, the most conventional form of political conversion, stems directly from the control of rhetoric, which we do not possess. I have more thoroughly explained this concept in an older article, so I needn’t repeat myself.

All in all, this is more of an explanatory piece (as well as a disavowal of debating) than a call to action. Being aware of the processes which have enabled our limited growth can, however, allow us to shift our focus and more efficiently create enemies of the System. It also allows us to more effectively combat assimilationists with conflicting interests to ours. Make of this what you will.

Share

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Post comment