Partition is the Only Answer

If, after the rioting and looting of the fine protestors of George Floyd’s death, you haven’t finally figured out that the entire multicultural experiment has been an abysmal failure; you’re either delusional or an accomplice to your land’s downfall. There was a time years ago that I thought it could work. Following a more live and let policy prevalent during the 1980s and ’90s, it still seemed possible. The only problem is this was always a lie. It was never intended to work and never will work. Sure, when the percentage of a country’s population is overwhelmingly and fundamentally homogenous, it helps mask the reality, but as the demographic makeup shifts and that homogeneity erodes it becomes less tenable. Indeed, in the case of the United States, even when there was that clear majority, there were obvious problems that demonstrated such disparate people simply cannot live together.

Now, let’s be clear, it does vary to some extent by whom the minority ethnic group is. For countries such as my native Canada, the minorities involved up until very recently were mostly various Asiatic people, as well as its indigenous tribes. As such, in smaller numbers, the relative difficulties and conflicts are far less pronounced than those of sub-Saharan African background. Such people were able to assimilate to a greater degree (though never entirely) and, more so with Asian people, are less prone to serious crimes (notably violent crimes) than ever exist with black Africans.

Those that try to argue that the reason for American blacks having such a high incidence is just due to slavery, Jim Crow laws, or poverty, fail to realize that these same people are disproportionately represented in perpetrating crime in every other non-African land in which they eventual reside. From Canada to the UK, to France, and Sweden, even China, the narrative is the same; one of higher crime, greater propensity to violence (very visibly the case with interracial violence), and constant grievance hustling that frequently use violence as well (again, the riots cited above). It is clear that they, more than any other, are unable to live at peace with or assimilate into the majority group (and, yes, of course, there are exceptions, but the exceptions only help prove the rule). So why continue to pretend otherwise? Why do we play this game of accommodation and attempted reconciliation, when it simply will not work?

In the American scenario, the failure to correct slavery via repatriation has laid the foundation for the chronic tensions and grievance hustling to this day. This was exacerbated by the unfortunate outcome of the Civil Rights Act, 1964. Although meant to ameliorate matters and further assimilate blacks into the wider American nation, it has yet to live up to expectations. Indeed, it was not before but after the Act was passed where riots erupted; indicating the Act was never enough. Further compounding this was the deleterious effects resulting from President Johnson’s War on Poverty; creating a perfect storm of dependency and race-based envy.

The blacks got what they wanted, but became more aggressive and demanding; even as the social fabric of their people began to deteriorate (the merits or, lack thereof Johnson’s policy are better left for another article). So, as is often the case, appeasement doesn’t work. No matter how much you give; they’ll only demand more. In the meantime, race relations have not improved and the probability of ever living harmoniously simply not realistic, and this is all setting aside the devastation wrought by the Hart-Cellar Act of 1965 (an act that was more or less mirrored in multiple white majority nations roughly around that same period). Even when one surveys other non-European racial groups, it can only optimally work in small numbers; as Putnam demonstrated years ago the more dissimilar a people are to one another, the less they will successfully integrate, thus, the very identity of a nation is unlikely to succeed (as the analogy is oft mentioned if you replaced all the people of Japan or China with Europeans or Africans, would those countries still be the same nations? Only a disingenuous and, very likely, an unscrupulous person would believe so). Radical changes to immigration policies have adversely altered the ethnocultural makeup. As even the American liberal academic Robert Putnam found out, the multiracial/cultural experiment has failed (https://www.historyofsocialwork.org/1995_Putnam/1995,%20Putnam,%20bowling%20alone.pdf).

Now, after all the recent protests and riots, etc. there have come even greater levels of degradation with whites being shamed into bending the knee and even washing of the feet of blacks. Just another stage in what will be the eventual full-scale subjugation of the white man; with reparations increasingly pushed as the next step. Further, if anyone thinks this will be contained within the US, they have another thing coming. Things are metastasizing well beyond the USA’s borders and will only further aggravate previously existing racial tensions with other ethnic groups. This will become the norm, to varying degrees, in every ‘white’ land, whether it relates to blacks (the British carry the stain of slavery and the evils of colonialism, too, regardless of historical context or accuracy), the indigenous people (Residential Schools in Canada and similar cases with Australia’s aboriginal people), or, of course, the Jews (haven’t the Germans already groveled enough, may they still have to pay even more? Don’t count it out). So, one is left to ask after all of this, how did all of this work out for you, white man?

So, what is the solution? What options are available to a country like the United States? Unlike a more traditionally ethnically homogeneous nation such as the UK, where the use of a long term immigration moratorium policy and aggressive, albeit peaceful, policy of repatriation might ameliorate the situation, such measures are not nearly as likely to work in a country like the USA. I believe there are only two that might work, and be enacted peacefully, though I am less certain it will go without at least some violence. We’re well beyond the point of salvaging the USA as it was historically constituted. The only solutions involve a form of partition.

The first option is more radical; divide the country into smaller countries. Assign land to each racial group proportionate to their current percentage of the population, but sweetening the deal for those of non-European heritage both to reduce any hostile reaction on their part and with an eye to demographic trends. So, for example, blacks may receive 15% of the land, based on their current percentage of under 13% and stagnated growth (mostly due to a high abortion rate, though keeping in mind their higher than average sexual promiscuity and out of wedlock progeny). Whites may receive as 40% or lower, as they are a shrinking demographic, but are more likely to thrive with the smaller landmass than some of the other racial groups, plus are less likely to make a substantive (read violent) fuss about what they receive. As such, each group would have its own, dedicated nation where the other racial groups are restricted residence.

As one surveys the current, as well as projected, demographic state of the USA to determine where a dominant (if not exclusively) ethnically European nation (or potentially multiple nations) may be forged, the most likely candidate regions revolve around much of the Mid-West and parts of the North West, though mostly to the East (or, at best, the Eastern regions) of Washington State or Oregon. Sadly, other than some increasingly rare exceptions, the once-great Anglo-Celtic bastions of the South are in the process of complete transformation into majority non-white regions that will only result in its decline into Brazil like jurisdictions. For all the bravado many Texans currently have of being the great independent and individualist oriented Republican stronghold; it’ll almost certainly be true blue Democrat by 2024 or very soon after. Their loyalty to the Grand Old Party has been betrayed, as (other than some notable exceptions) the GOP itself has become converged with far too much of the same globalist mindset of mass immigration and weak-willed policy related to illegal immigrants on the American southern border.

Perhaps ironically, considering its predominately liberal ideological bent, much of the New England region would be integrated into this new USA. Although generally more liberal left ideologically, New England is still decidedly ethnoculturally homogenous and as it stands, seems committed to remaining so. As is often said by true Nationalists, it’s not a matter of being Left or Right; it’s about whether you will embrace and sustain your ethnos. For whatever weaknesses that exist within the Leftist worldview, those who are truly embracing and preserving their people are still superior to any Right-wing Globalist who will sell out their people for the ever-elusive higher GDP.

The other option is portioning the existing country. This would either be designated states for each racial group or, perhaps, city-states that are cordoned off from the rest of the state they are in. In either case, strict controls on movement between each jurisdiction would need to be employed and those of another racial group would only be permitted travel or visitation based on strict criteria. The idea of actual residence would have to be even more stringently delineated and, if permitted, it would only be on a limited basis (so no mass migration) and with certain expectations (and, undoubtedly, few if any voting rights within that jurisdiction).

This option would likely be trickier, as it would almost certainly require an agreed-upon new or amended version of the existing U.S. constitution; one that would have to ensure set nationalist, read racial, limits, including very strongly entrenched and prescribed standards to contain all potentially subversive actions by anyone who may be permitted entry and residence in this new nation. Again, the issue of peaceful change to something like this is in no way guaranteed, and considering many of the non-whites prefer the benefits they have from white supported society, they may refuse to enter into such an agreement. It’ll have to be sold as beneficial to them, as a way to avoid the adverse effects of racial contact and, to appeal to their concerns of white racism towards their people. Keep the whites away and your people will be protected. Also, to help soften the blow, some sort of monetary inducement may be required, but even this may not be enough. Ultimately, none of this may be tenable, or, if it was, it would invariably require the use of force to bring it about; so violence would not be avoided. Unfortunately, this is a very possible (if not probable) likelihood with each partition scenario. The main hope is to avoid the partitioning scenario that plagued India in 1947 with the advent of Pakistan. Such significant bloodshed is sadly all too possible, especially if there is great resistance by many non-whites and their self-loathing white supporters, but the use of aforementioned offer of compensation would ideally ameliorate the situation and avoid that outcome.

Regardless of what road is taken, it is clear something will need to be done (and one must not become black pilled about this; as it does no one any good and there is much hope for what can still be done). Yes, there will be some loose strings and complications that will need to be addressed (for example: where would mixed-race people live?), but what exists now just cannot persist. It’s only a matter of time before a full-scale collapse into internecine violence and increasingly authoritarian race-based policy decisions will be employed; making things more unbearable. The center simply will not hold much longer. As a left-leaning, hippie friend of my son surprisingly admitted while they were observing the ongoing George Floyd related riots, “I don’t think we can live together anymore.”Reality always wins over ideology, but we must not lose hope or fall prey to despair or black pilled fatalism. I believe we are on the threshold of something better, but it is also certain that now is the time to work out as amicable a separation as may be possible; before it’s too late.