Monday, August 3, 2020


     It’s a charming word, isn’t it? Try to pronounce it; it’s more of a challenge than you might think. But no matter how it’s mangled orally, its meaning remains the same: incapable of being mixed.

     The immiscibility of oil and water is well known. Indeed, it’s the reason for the invention of soap. The grime we accumulate on our skin won’t wash off in water alone. That’s because it’s suspended in the oil our skin naturally exudes as a protection against friction and ultraviolet light. Soap emulsifies (another charming word) that grime-in-oil suspension into something water can flush away. Without soap’s emulsifying action, we’d be reduced to scraping the dirt off ourselves with sticks. That explains the dermatological problems of uncivilized societies pretty well, doesn’t it? But I’m not here to talk about physical chemistry or its practical application to personal hygiene.

     Are there demographics, whether they’re already a significant part of the American population or are still largely outside our borders, that are inherently immiscible with the American majority? If so, what makes them immiscible with us?

     I think you can guess my opinion, so I won’t bother to rattle on about it. The abstract question is itself of considerable interest. If there are characteristics that render a people incapable of becoming Americans, it would be well for us to know what they are, and for our immigration laws to be cognizant of them. However, at this time little attention has gone to such studies, for a fairly obvious reason: it would be shouted down by the usual suspects as “racist,” “jingoist,” and “xenophobic.”

     Rudyard Kipling didn’t think so:

The Stranger within my gate,
     He may be true or kind,
But he does not talk my talk--
     I cannot feel his mind.
I see the face and the eyes and the mouth,
     But not the soul behind.

The men of my own stock,
     They may do ill or well,
But they tell the lies I am wanted to,
     They are used to the lies I tell;
And we do not need interpreters
     When we go to buy or sell.

The Stranger within my gates,
     He may be evil or good,
But I cannot tell what powers control--
     What reasons sway his mood;
Nor when the Gods of his far-off land
     Shall repossess his blood.

The men of my own stock,
     Bitter bad they may be,
But, at least, they hear the things I hear,
     And see the things I see;
And whatever I think of them and their likes
     They think of the likes of me.

This was my father's belief
     And this is also mine:
Let the corn be all one sheaf--
     And the grapes be all one vine,
Ere our children's teeth are set on edge
     By bitter bread and wine.

     And of course, we all know what today’s bien-pensants think of Kipling.

     Since I have a great deal before me today, I’m setting this question “on the table” for general discussion. I’d like it to focus on characteristics visibly abroad in the world today: traits, beliefs, and practices we can see are firmly associated with particular demographics:

  • Race and racial or tribal characteristics;
  • Strongly held religious or ideological convictions;
  • Attachment to particular customs, practices, and patterns of life.

     Be candid but thoughtful. I will participate as time allows. The best bits of the discussion will be used to update this post.



Thank you for the poem, Francis. Putting it into an essay I'm writing (of course, a HT to you).

Kye said...

I think the most immiscible group going are Moslems. Not only is the goal of Islam to convert or destroy us but to lie about it as they do it. That sounds pretty immiscible to me.

We could include communists as immiscibles for the same reasons. Both groups should be driven from our Republic. With prejudice.

Selfish Dave said...

There are physical differences between individuals; they are obvious when we use the perceptual senses to see the PERSON who is visiting from another culture.
There are mental (intellectual) differences. They are inherent in each specific PERSONALITY, and may not be immediately obvious. Traits of personality may be concealed when one has been trained to be polite to strangers.
The values (and I should include here the common vices) we consciously and subconsciously accept as part of our culture, effectively determine, to some degree, our emotional responses. Reason, if a reasonable thought process is initiated and maintained, may limit and check unreasonable emotions on a conscious level. We are, in this sense, self-determined. We are in significant part responsible for the creation of our personality, i.e., of who we are intellectually.
However, it seems to be difficult to evaluate the reasonableness of cultural values when held on a subconscious level. We need a science of psychology to function rationally.
Kipling was a produce of Colonial India, and a keen observer of nice differences. He dealt with a plethora of different languages and religions, i.e., distinct cultures. In other words, he was both physically perceptive, i.e., he saw the world empirically, as it was, and intellectually discriminating, he grasped the causal relationships that explained human action. He achieved, and was able to express, a remarkable degree of understanding.
The fear of things strange, foreign and different is called, in its extreme form, xenophobia. This fear serves us as a check on the naïve curiosity of the child in the playpen. The danger is to restrict intellectual curiosity.
The thought process, which we must initiate to use, must be supported by truth, and guided by a reasonable procedure (an argument). The alternative is to choose to not think, and be guided, like the lesser animals, by emotion.
The people who need to read Kipling, will not willingly read Kipling. He was removed from the library, along with Mark Twain, Joseph Conrad, etc. He's on their list of racists.

Pascal said...

How about a distinction between those who act as if they hold human life is sacred and those who act as if they don't?

Here is a current example. In addition to Dr Simone Gold having gotten in trouble for her role in Doctors on the Frontlines and exposing the HCQ/Zinc slander campaign that embarrassed both The Lancet and NEJM, I believe she was fired more for what she and Charlie Kirk agreed to in his interview of her. Listen to this alone.

A short segment.

You know as well as I how often people have tried to ignore this trend. They just don't want to hear it or believe such people are so cold-hearted. But here are two personalities actually breaking the long silence. And she got fired.

Andy Texan said...

Heard Simone Gold in an interview today on the Prager show. Not only was she fired they threatened the entire contract staff to which she belongs if she did not go quietly. Not only would she suffer the consequences but La Familia would also be fired. The time for action is here.

Linda Fox said...

America was founded on the idea that sentient individuals could decide to 'buy into' the core principles of the nation. They could self-select their new national identity, rather than being born into it.

It all started to fall apart when the immigrants could opt out of agreement with the core beliefs.

Leftism is deeply rooted in the fabric of our country. We need to start looking at ways to diminish their influence, including allowing them to voluntarily re-locate into geographically-isolated communities, with limited access to communications outside of those communities. Perhaps give them a subsidy that makes those isolated locations more attractive? Only available to those unable to have children.

Sometimes, paying off a crank is easier and cheaper than fighting them. Particularly if it keeps them from passing on their type of crazy.

But, take heart - I do believe that the end of the Crazy Years is near!

Paul Bonneau said...

I am uncomfortable with the formulation of this question, since it appears to be collectivist-speak.

I am a great fan of Kipling, but his poem here seems even to disallow trade with others, never mind living with them.

There is hardly a more foreign "demographic" than Chinese, yet my immigrant Chinese wife of 43 years fit into America like a duck to water. She has a vast collection of business and personal contacts, has acted as an entrepreneur all her life, once had upwards of 50 people on her payroll, most of them highly paid (subcontractors). Virtually everybody gets along with her. It's hard to imagine how anyone could fit in better than she has.

I think it makes more sense to say that *on average*, demographic X fits quite well and does not challenge the majority culture even as a fairly large minority, while *on average* demographic Y fits somewhere between poorly and disastrously, with challenges to the majority culture even when their population is tiny.

Of course most will recognize that X is east asians generally, while Y is muslims. But the point here, is that it depends strongly on whom you are talking about.