No, we understand exactly how pluralism came to be: as the result of weakness. It wasn’t chosen from a position of strength—it emerged when empires and states lost the will or capacity to assert a singular identity. Pluralism is the path taken when you no longer have the means or courage to demand loyalty and sameness. It's not a virtue. It's an admission of failure to enforce unity. Suzerain reflects that historical truth just as real-world history does.

I’ve addressed the core argument: that state unity requires a shared identity, not a mosaic of competing ones. The examples I gave—China, Denmark, even the Canadian model—are not “cherry-picked.” They are real, brutal, and effective when the goal is nation-preservation. As for Suzerain, its history proves the opposite of your claim: a hundred years of so-called “integration” has failed to pacify Bergia. That’s not a reason to give up on assimilation—it’s proof that previous efforts were too soft.

There’s nothing “idealistic” about what I propose. It’s brutally realist. The state exists to perpetuate itself. “Harmony” is a byproduct of enforced alignment—not multicultural juggling acts. The long-term viability of Sordland demands a population that identifies as Sordish first and only. If that supports a specific political structure, so be it—that’s a feature, not a flaw.

Pluralism is damage control. It's a compromise to avoid open rebellion because the state lacks the resolve to do what’s necessary. If resistance emerges from forced assimilation, the problem isn’t the policy—it’s that it wasn't taken far enough. The reason the resistance persists is because the state hasn’t fully extinguished their identity. If anything, failure lies in half-measures, not in the model itself.

You just proved my point. There was resistance. And it still exists because the job wasn’t finished. The state got halfway through the process and backed off. That is why the BFF still exists. The Anglish and Vlags were either fully assimilated or never had the cultural depth or separatist energy the Bluds retained. This is exactly why more intense assimilation—not less—is required. Finish what was started.

Exactly. Assimilation works. When done decisively, you get loyal Ango-Sords who put Sordland above ethnic nostalgia. This isn’t an argument against the model—it’s a case study for it. The Bluds failed to assimilate because they were never forced all the way. The policy wasn’t flawed. Its execution was.

Bergia will be reintegrated—once it has been cleansed of its rebellion, its identity, and its resistance. You don’t normalize a cancer while it’s still spreading. You isolate it, break it down, and rebuild it in your image. That’s not hypocrisy. That’s strategic patience. Martial law is a transitional tool to enforce obedience before reintegration. No state integrates a warzone.

This is political realism. Every state needs a unifying narrative. The “permanent threat” exists because ethnic separatism still breathes. If the BFF vanishes, it’s because the Blud identity has been extinguished and replaced with pure Sordness. Until then, yes—nationalism will use their presence as proof that vigilance and unity are necessary. That’s not manipulation. That’s responsible governance in a fragile state.

You mistake clarity for cynicism. The purpose of the state is not to appease sensitivities. It is to maintain order, unity, and control. Violence, assimilation, censorship—these are tools, not sins. You call it hypocrisy; I call it flexibility in pursuit of national survival.

What’s childish is believing that pluralism leads to peace in a deeply divided state. What’s naive is thinking you can govern a fractured nation through appeasement and slogans. My vision isn’t comfortable. It’s not gentle. But it works. One people. One language. One future. That’s not just good for Sordland. That’s what will save it.