THE ASD PLAN
by Jeff Anderson
Racial separatism and reparations will be the
new civil rights movement in the 21st century.â€”
It is irrational to believe a multiracial society can work, and the notion that diversity is a strength to be celebrated is the great absurdity of our time. Racial and ethnic conflict is the norm for pluralistic societies around the world, and indeed, the vast majority of wars in recent years have been civil wars among various racial or ethnic groups. Such are the bitter fruits of diversity. There is no reason to expect anything different in America.
In the US, we have created a massive and intrusive bureaucracy to manage racial conflict, with endless lawsuits over discrimination. We now have a wide array of agencies, both public and private, to enforce a host of antidiscrimination laws. Despite this enormous government effort, the diversity experiment has failed, for the simple reason that people donâ€™t want it.
There is nowhere left to go with current policies of race preferences. Simply passing more civil rights bills is not the answer. Federal judges canâ€™t order social harmony by decree. Force people together and mutual hatred will usually result. Our policies are only creating ever greater hostility, which is sure to erupt in coming years.
At an earlier stage in our history, we accepted the notion of the melting pot, which worked reasonably well as long as the immigrants in the ethnic stew were of European origin. It has not worked well across racial lines. Blacks, Whites, Asians, Hispanic, and Native North Americans, with few exceptions, do not mix, and stubbornly resist government efforts to force mixing upon them. It is racist quackery for our government to force people together who do not choose to be together. Normal, healthy people everywhere gravitate toward those who are similar to themselves to preserve their culture and survive as a people.
Americans for Self Determination was founded to foment a national discussion of separatist alternatives for the 21st century. Specifically, we are suggesting the US be partitioned into states for Blacks, Whites, Hispanics, and so on, along with multiracial states for those who wish to continue the experiment.
Now is the time to begin such a multiracial dialogue about separatism, before a storm of violent racial conflict erupts. Our economic prosperity has so far kept the lid from blowing off, but how long can it last? The global economy could collapse at any time, and our globo-cop foreign policy has us on a dead-end course with ruinous wars abroad.
Needless to say, racial separatism is impossible in todayâ€™s political climate, but it wonâ€™t be when we are on the brink of race war, with riots lasting all summer. At such a time, we will be ready with an alternative that will be just and reasonable.
Thomas Chittum, author of Civil War ll, has given us a hair-raising scenario of what a future race war in America might be like. He contends a Yugoslavia-style civil war is inevitable, and will break the country up along racial lines. The reason is that America has become a multiethnic empire, and history tells us such empires do not last. Only brute force can hold them together, and such societies usually end in civil war.
Chittum predicts Los Angeles will be ground zero for this coming catastrophe because economic collapse and civil war are coming in Mexico. This, in turn, will bring tens of millions of starving Mexicans across the border. White militias and Black and Latino crime gangs will be transformed into military units in the ensuing war.
Instead of civil war, some authorities argue that a kind of Brazilianization is more likely in America. According to this view, middle America will be economically ruined by the continued flood of third-world immigrants, which will bring wages down to poverty level. Government-enforced mixing and the mass media will complete the destruction of traditional American culture. Then the sea of demoralized and defeated ex-Americans will be ruled over by a new multiethnic overclass bound together only by political and economic power, and protected in gated communities.
Will middle America stand for this? Will this once proud people accept total dispossession? That remains to be seen.
At ASD, we are working for a future more optimistic than those two scenarios. We want economic nationalism to protect our jobs and markets, an America-first foreign policy that brings our troops home, and a United States of Diversity that allows each of our racial groups to have its own space.
The desire for racially homogeneous communities is so natural, it is a wonder Americans have ever been made to feel guilty about it. Whites are especially confused by the false ideology of multiculturalism, and seem to fear the charge of racism more than the wrath of God. The elites tell them the mere awareness of racial differences is discrimination and hate, and they accept such skewed definitions.
Whites have largely lost their racial consciousness, and unlike people of color, they would never celebrate racial pride and solidarity. They still refuse, however, to live in communities that are not majority White. On surveys, they give the politically correct answers, but their actions belie their words.
Unfortunately, the last half century of White flight has taken a heavy toll. Suburban sprawl has devoured our countryside. Inner cities are abandoned while tasteless overdevelopment continues in the suburbs. In three decades we have lost 20 million acres of open space. We use 150 billion gallons of gas every year for over 2 trillion miles of driving. Environmentalists tell us it must stop, but never seem to recognize the underlying racial causes. Americans simply will not live in densely packed urban centers with extensive public transportation unless those areas are racially homogeneous. There is a need today for human ecology, which recognizes the fact that the human animal is territorial, like so many other species, and requires exclusive space for the maintenance of social and cultural systems.
White flight is no longer a matter of ever-more-distant suburbs. Now Whites are fleeing whole regions of the country for racial reasons, and the same is true of Blacks.
In addition to sprawl, we also have the phenomenon of the new urbanism, which is based on the theory that the remedy for the loss of community in our society is to recreate old small-town White America in a physical and architectural sense. In this way, it is hoped that rooted, organic communities will spring forth. Since this hope is expressed without regard to racial differences, it too is almost guaranteed to fail.
It should be noted that Americans have generally done well at interracial relations in the workplace and in the public square, for there is a great deal of racial good will in this country. American workers dislike racial conflict and displays of disrespect, which is racism in the true sense of the word. It is not at all uncommon for people to like and respect coworkers of other races more than others of their own group. However, most prefer to come home to a homogenous neighborhood. It is separatism plus a respectful relationship that they really want, and our mission at ASD is to articulate that desire for them.
It is important to emphasize that the separatism we are advocating is the polar opposite of segregation, under which Blacks were completely dependent on Whites. Separatism means independence, self government, and self determination. The old racism, Jim Crow, was a form of supremacism, in which one group rules over another and holds it down, and uses it for its own purposes.
The new racism, which our government promotes, is sly and insidious. It denies the racial right to life and independence to all by denying the two conditions necessary for it: territory and self government. This politically correct form of racism recognizes only two extremes, the old racism and its own brand. Self determination is the middle road, and is the way to end racism. It is the means to replace racial strife with peaceful coexistence.
Richard McCulloch has developed these ideas at length in his book The Racial Compact. McCulloch calls for the recognition of universal racial rights to life and liberty for all. He writes, “Racial independence, sovereignty and self-determination are concerned with the right of a race to exercise control over its own life, existence, future, evolution and destiny. Racial independence is cultural and economic as well as political and biological. To truly control its own life a race must also exercise exclusive and sovereign control over its culture, history, art and myths, its self-image, soul, heart and mind, its view of its past, present and future, its purpose and destiny, nature and identity. No race can be truly free if another race exercises control over it, in whole or in part, in any of these areas.”
We endorse McCullochâ€™s call for a moral revolution in racial rights, and we strongly condemn all forms of racism and supremacism. By this we mean that we oppose racially based denial of rights and human dignity to any group or individual and we oppose the belief than any racial group has the right to exploit, denigrate, enslave, or otherwise oppress another group or phase them out through immigration policies. Unfortunately, others apply different meanings to the words racism and supremacism, which causes considerable confusion. For example, to some the belief that there are differences in talent and ability between racial groups, as a result of evolution or Divine creation, is racism. To those people, such a belief is morally evil in the same way as is active disrespect or exploitation.
The question of whether there are differences among races in regard to talents and abilities is a question for racial anthropology. That field represents a wide range of views, and we take no position in regard to any of them. We do not believe it is appropriate, however, to morally condemn someone for merely holding a given belief. The racism we condemn is of the moral realm, concerning behavior, and not that of factual truth. Free and open scientific inquiry is an important human right and must be respected.
Of course, one can argue that a mere belief in the natural differences of ability and temperament between races can lead to active disrespect for the rights and dignity of racial groups. That is true but similar extremes can be posited about many if not most moral beliefs. The belief is one thing, the behavior another. One could argue, for example, that the radical egalitarian dogma of communism, which American liberals have adopted, led to the mass atrocities of communism in the 20th century. That might be true. However, the one did not follow necessarily from the other and merely believing in egalitarianism should not be regarded as immoral.
Let the scientific debate about racial differences go on in a spirit of academic freedom. Let us have freedom of belief here in the same way we have it in matters of religion. We insist only on the democratic values of equal rights for all and self determination, which is deeply rooted in our political culture.
To end racism, we must end the conditions that cause it, which is a lack of territorial sovereignty for every people. It is territorial sovereignty alone that makes self determination possible. The doctrine of self determination, the central principle of democracy, grew out of 18th-century nationalism and is enshrined in the Declaration of Independence. The first sentence of that document asserts the right of one people, in a collective sense, to separate from another. The second paragraph asserts the right of a people to “alter or abolish” any government that does not secure their rights and interests, such as life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
The principle of self determination came to fruition in the 20th century. After WWI, it helped to break up the Austro-Hungarian and Ottoman empires, both of which had become unwieldy multicultural dinosaurs. After WWll, the principle was enshrined within the charter of the United Nations. According to Encyclopedia Britannica, “The UN Charter clarifies two meanings of the term self determination. First, a state is said to have the right to choose freely its political, economic, social, and cultural systems. Second, the right to self determination is defined as the right of a people to constitute itself in a state or otherwise freely determine the form of its association with an existing state. Both meanings have their basis in the Charter (Article l, paragraph 2; and Article 55, paragraph l).”
In addition to self determination, another principle crucial to our political system is separatism. How can a minority ever be self governing when power is in the hands of the majority and other minorities? A multiracial democracy is a contradiction in terms.
Separatism and religion
Separatism not only fits our political culture; it also comports with Christianity. In the Old Testament, God Himself called for the separation of Hebrews from the rest of humanity (Exod. 12:38, Num. 11:4). The New Testament accepts the existence of distinct nations and racial or ethnic groups as a matter of fact. The evil “Babylon” of the Book of Revelation is Rome, an early example of a multicultural empire.
It is true that there is a kind of multiracialism in the New Testament in the sense that salvation is open to all people. Christianity is a universal religion, not a folk religion, but the unity of humanity of which it speaks is spiritual and mystical, not racial and social. The parable of the Good Samaritan (Luke 10:30-35) calls for respect across ethnic lines in a manner we heartily support. That, however, is not multiculturalism in the contemporary sense of forcing people together. What our government is doing is the antithesis of respect.
It is clear then, that our political and religious traditions donâ€™t require racial homogenization, so why do the American people feel guilty about resisting the agenda our elites are foisting on us? Itâ€™s not the voice of God calling for government-enforced diversity, but only the ideological aliens who currently have power, and their agenda does not support American values and interests. Their racial program can only be implemented with totalitarian methods of coercion, and they have no place in a democracy.
The diversity mongers like to tell us race isnâ€™t real, but it is real to most people on a common-sense level, and to many scholars who study the subject on a scientific level. For example, sociobiologists tell us race is very real among animals, although they prefer the term subspecies to race. They tell us subspecies of mammals, for example, seldom occupy the same space without conflict.
Our diversity gurus tell us America is not a nation of blood and soil like other countries, but a nation born of abstract political propositions such as liberty and equality. We are a proposition country, they tell us, and everyone who manages to get here is an American. Given the very liberal naturalization laws in this country, every legal citizen of the US is indeed an “American.” However, no nation was ever born of abstract political concepts. A nation, by its very nature, is a people bound together by ties of blood kinship, a common history, culture, language, religion, geography, etc. All talk of America as the first universal nation is a disconnect from reality. The very term “universal nation” is an oxymoron.
Not only is America not a universal nation, it can no longer even truly be called a single nation. It is much more of an empire now, composed of a number of nations. Could America again be a single nation? It could, to an extent, if all minorities assimilated to the majority White culture. Indeed, many Americans not of European origin are well assimilated. They have adopted the dominant culture and they identify with it, and they need no victim status or preferences to get along. However, many more minorities are not willing or able to assimilate. Laszlo Thomay, in his book The Law of Race Relations, argues that only small numbers of racially distinct minorities can assimilate to a majority culture without conflict. Certainly, large numbers of racially different people entering a country in a short period of time make assimilation unlikely, and that is why our open-borders immigration policy has so greatly exacerbated our race problem. We will return to the immigration issue later.
Although immigration has made the problem worse, the principal racial conflict in America today is still between Whites and Blacks. One of the most controversial issues between those two groups is the matter of race preferences. This has been the object of a long and bitter battle, with liberals arguing that preferences are needed to level the playing field and offset the effects of slavery. Conservatives hold that preferences are unconstitutional, illegal under the 1964 Civil Rights Act, and terribly divisive.
Behind the conservative view seems to be the assumption that we will be a happy multiracial society if only preferences are eliminated. This assumption is clearly unfounded. We were not a happy multiracial society before preferences, and a return to that state will not work any wonders. It is racial heterogeneity itself that is the problem.
There is no resolution in sight for the deadlock, except the ASD Plan. A majority of Whites are against preferences, while Blacks are unwilling to give up what they consider to be legitimate gains of the civil rights movement. For many Blacks, abolishing preferences is to turn back the clock on civil rights.
To make matters worse, a growing number of Blacks believe in reparations, which is a step beyond preferences. Reparations are seen as direct compensation for slavery, and a number of organizations have sprung up in recent years to promote them. Reparations activists were encouraged by the Wartime Relocations Act, which awarded $20,000 to each of 120,000 Japanese Americans interned during WWII, and they also point to the billions Germany has paid to Holocaust victims.
In fact, most Black leaders in recent decades have advocated reparations, including Martin Luther King Jr., Jesse Jackson, and Louis Farrakhan. Some have even called on Blacks to refuse to pay taxes in lieu of reparations. Also, on Capitol Hill, the Black caucus for over a decade has been promoting reparations bills, which usually call for a reparations commission to lay the groundwork for the eventual payoff.
Whites, however, remain unconvinced. Even the most liberal Whites have turned a deaf ear to calls for reparations, for a variety of reasons. Only a small number of Whites have ancestors who were slave owners. Some Blacks owned slaves, as they did in Africa. Furthermore, a very large number of Whites came to America as indentured servants, in a condition hardly preferable to that of Black slaves. Although descended from slaves, Blacks in America today are more free and prosperous than anywhere in the world.
Perhaps most important, since all former slaves and all former slave-owners are long dead, any reparations penalty would be levied against persons whom no one claims is personally guilty of anything. The moral basis of reparations would therefore have to be collective guilt, which is contrary to the Western idea of justice. Indeed, the replacement of collective guilt by the idea of personal responsibility was one of the greatest moral breakthroughs of Western civilization, rankingâ€”ironicallyâ€”with the outlawing of slavery.
The ASD Proposal
The argument between Blacks and Whites (and liberals and conservatives) over preferences and reparations cannot be resolved within our current universe of political discourse. Both sides have merit and moral force in their arguments. We formally take neither side in the debate, but rather suggest a practical compromise. We propose that Whites pay reparations, without recriminations or guilt rituals, but only for the development of Black states. In return, as a quid pro quo, Blacks would give up preferences in the White states. Whites would pay tax money into a reparations fund that could only be used for Blacks to purchase real estate from the current White owners in specifically chosen states. The reparations fund would be controlled by elected Black officials who would devise an equitable distribution system, including low interest loans for homes, farms, and businesses. Whites would monitor the use of funds from their end to prevent abuse.
The idea is not that Blacks would be “given” certain states, so that the Whites living there would simply pack a suitcase and leave. Whites could stay as long as they want, and could ask any price for their property. This way, we can end preferences in White states and keep them in an intensely focused form in the Black states. The end result would be self-governing Black states, which would draw Blacks from all over the country because of the opportunities the reparations fund would create. No US citizen would ever be forced to move anywhere. As the reparations money started to flow, preferences would be rapidly phased out in the White states. In the Black states, the governors, state legislatures, and state supreme courts would reign supreme, without interference from the federal government. The 10th Amendment would be reinstated to limit the power of Washington.
A problem with this proposal is that Blacks are spread across the US in urban centers, and in clusters of counties across the South. Those areas are too small to be viable states. Attempting to treat them as such would result in a system much like the old segregation, with Blacks still dependent on Whites. This would be the exact opposite of self determination. Nevertheless, if there is sufficient will for separatism, and if dozens of tiny Black states are not advisable, we can go with a few large states, or even one superstate. This might require the relocation of many people, which would admittedly be disruptive, but moving is not such a difficult thing today, especially if there is opportunity waiting.
The Black states could be almost anywhere in the current US: in the North, the South, the Northeast, the Midwest, or the West Coast. Most probably, however, Black leaders will look to the South, as that is their historic American homeland, and itâ€™s still where they are most heavily concentrated. There will be opposition from Southern Whites, of course. Southern Whites tend to be much more attached to their home states than Whites in the North. Nevertheless, they will need come to grips with the adverse demographic projections for the 21st century. They will be a minority in many areas within a few decades, facing a Black majority, or a Black/Hispanic/Other majority. Eventually, the idea of retaining a number of White states, and giving up others, may become acceptable. Of course, future Black separatist leaders may opt for another location, but whatever location is selected, we can expect “NIMBY” (not in my backyard) problems. We will need to keep in mind that some type of separatism is in our future. If it canâ€™t be done in an orderly political way, as the ASD Plan envisions, it will come by less pleasant means.
How much reparations money should be paid? We tentatively suggest a transfer of wealth that would make the average net worth of Black and White families equal. With Whites outnumbering Blacks five or six to one, it shouldnâ€™t be too much of a financial burden for Whites, especially if paid over several decades. The whole project will be like a no-fault divorce, in which the assets are shared equally, with a minimum of blame. Recriminations will only bring the dialogue to a halt. Blacks who remain in White states would not benefit directly from any reparations money, but would have equal rights and citizenship in a wealthy and free industrialized democracy. There is no reason Whites should balk at the financial burden of such a program, even if they donâ€™t believe they “owe” such reparations. They would not be handing money over with no strings attached, but rather for a project that can save American civilization and provide a real future for Whites. The US has a multi-trillion-dollar economy, and forty trillion dollars in assets. Think of the five trillion dollars wasted in the war on poverty in the last three decades, or the twelve trillion wasted on the cold war. The American Civil War cost twenty-one billion dollars, which was eight times the amount that would have been needed to buy the freedom of every slave. Think of the money spent on World Wars I and II, and on Korea and Vietnam.
The truth is, we didnâ€™t need most of our wars, except perhaps the Revolutionary War against the British, but we do need a reparations-separatist program as a matter of survival. Yes, we can afford to save our country.
Americaâ€™s leadership has not always pushed for racial diversity. Quite the contrary. From George Washington to Abraham Lincoln and beyond, most of them were separatists, and most believed a multiracial America would end in ruin. Todayâ€™s doctrine of diversity would have sounded preposterous to them.
Most of America’s leaders during her first century condemned slavery and called for its abolition. But they also called for the repatriation of freed Blacks to Africa, or to some other location, such as the West Indies or Central America. Very few Whites believed in abolition and a multiracial America. In 1816, the American Colonization Society was formed to expedite emancipation and repatriation. Among the many prominent people who were active members were: James Madison, Andrew Jackson, Daniel Webster, James Monroe, Francis Scott Key, General Winfield Scott, and John Marshall. To be sure, the leaders of the ACS had a variety of motives, but all were right in their basic contention that multiracial societies do not work well.
The ACS did manage to create the African country of Liberia for freed slaves, but, overall, it failed. It was met by strong opposition from slave-holding interests, and also from many freed Blacks who didnâ€™t want to leave America., although the ACS never advocated mandatory expulsion.
So the great American race problem lingered on through the antebellum period, and was eventually taken up by Abraham Lincoln. Lincoln himself was a member of the ACS and had deep forebodings about a multiracial country. As president, he became somewhat obsessed with the idea of separatism. Early in the War, he sponsored the Chiriqui Resettlement plan to settle freed Blacks in Panama or elsewhere in Central America. Later, in 1863, he even considered making Texas a republic of Black America. Unfortunately, there was too little talk of a Black homeland on North American soil, the obvious location. It could have been done then, with minimum inconvenience to Whites.
Although many Blacks opposed the Liberian and the Central American resettlement plans, throughout American history there have been back-to-Africa movements that were initiated by Blacks. Unfortunately, most of these plans soon encountered financial difficulties and fraud was common to many. Some Blacks did make the trip from time to time, but the problems of politics, culture, and climate often were insurmountable and most of the settlers returned to the US after a brief stay.
In post-reconstruction times, when Black hopes for a good life in America hit a low point, back-to-Africa proposals were most numerous. Many flamboyant and heroic figures appeared, such as Pap Singelton, Martin Delaney, and Bishop Turner. The great star, of course, was Marcus Garvey, who in the 1920s formed the Universal Negro Improvement Association, dedicated to the back-to-Africa cause. Garvey was a master of pomp and ceremony, and his movement provided a great psychological uplift for many Blacks. The problem was that the US government, dominated by Whites, not only did not support it, but was actively hostile to it. Garvey was indicted for mail fraud in 1922 and eventually deported to his native Jamaica, at which time the movement crumbled.
The Garvey movement was a lost opportunity of tragic proportions. With all White America behind it, the great race problem could have been solved. It would have been much easier in the 1920s than today. With the passing of the Garvey movement, the back-to-Africa idea went into abeyance. It has been kept alive by small groups over the years, who continue to believe Africa is the place for Black Americans. Perhaps, with White financial aid, there will be successful emigration to Africa in the future, but most probably the majority will prefer to seek their destiny on North American soil.
The latter part of the 20th century saw the rise of the modern civil rights movement, with its ideal of racial integration. In spite of a massive effort by the powers that be, that movement has been a failure for the simple reason that it requires government coercion to force people to go against nature and reason.
Although it was right in repudiating segregation, the civil rights movement was deeply misguided in promoting government-forced race mixing. The end result has been a new type of Black dependency on Whites. When it should have been moving Blacks in the direction of independence and self government, the civil rights movement was taking them in the opposite direction.
So far, we have been arguing that multiracial societies donâ€™t work, and this we believe is demonstrably true. Nevertheless, for those who still believe in diversity and want to continue the multiracial experiment, we do advocate the creation of multiracial “rainbow states.” Those states could employ the same ideology and agenda as todayâ€™s civil rights establishment, perhaps even with the quotas and diversity requirements accelerated beyond those existing today. Many Blacks may prefer such an environment to all-Black states. Interracial couples in particular might find these states to their liking. For the multicultural and multiracial true believers of all races, a rainbow state might be what they need. There they will be able to continue the experiment and live it to the full extent. How much better America will be when everyone has a real choice in the kind of state and society in which they live.
Up to this point, we have been speaking in terms of Black and White, but we will also need states for other minorities. Hispanics, for example, are rapidly overtaking Blacks as America’s largest minority, and they will need to make a future for themselves.
Some Hispanics are well assimilated, but for the most part, they donâ€™t mix well with Whites, Blacks, and Asians. Mexicans are the most numerous Hispanic group. In the US, though they are becoming more dispersed, they are still concentrated in the Southwest. Indeed, that region is considered by many of them to be little more than Northern Mexico. There is less pressure to assimilate to Anglo culture there because their culture is or soon will be the dominant culture. Many of them value that culture highly and wish to preserve it. ASD supports them in this desire. However, the desires of many Latinos in the Southwest go beyond culture. Politically, many call for a reconquestâ€”reconquistaâ€”of the region, through violence if necessary.
The Movimiento Estudiantil Chicano de Aztlan (MECHA) has chapters in many high schools and colleges throughout the region. MECHA claims the areaâ€”which they call Aztlanâ€”for Mexico and believes that it has mystical significance as the legendary homeland of the Aztecs. MECHA and other reconquista advocates claim that the US stole the region from Mexico after the Mexican War and in treaties negotiated thereafter.
It is true Mexico did inherit a claim to this land from Spain in 1821, when it gained independence. Few Mexicans lived there, however, and the Mexican government began to encourage Americans to settle there. The settlers in Texas eventually tired of living under Mexican tyranny and fought and won a successful revolution to free themselves. The Mexican War ensued in the 1840s. It ended with the treaty of Guadeloupe Hidalgo, in which the Mexican government accepted payment of 15 million dollars for the land, plus a cancellation of a prior debt of 3.25 million. The government of Mexico ratified this treaty more than once and the matter remained closed until it was re-opened by the post-1960s tide of immigration from the south.
If Thomas Chittum is correct (see above) and economic collapse and famine soon come to Mexico, that tide of immigration could grow into a tidal wave of starving refugees crossing into US territory. If so, the reconquista could be realized even sooner than currently anticipated. It would be too late for the US military to start guarding the border, and the American Southwest would become, de facto at least, Aztlan. At that point, it might be prudent for us to let it go completely. Nevertheless, ASD does not advocate ceding this land at this point. Instead, we support the creation of Spanish-speaking states there that are still part of the US. Southern California might be a good candidate for a rainbow state.
Regardless of how it all turns out, it seems inevitable that the Southwest will have a Hispanic future of some kind. No case can be made for reparations from Whites, however, and any Hispanic or Latino states will have to do without White financial support. In that way, the Hispanic situation is much different from that of Blacks.
Another area of the US that seems headed for a Hispanic future is southern Florida, where Cubans predominate. Miami is already a Spanish-speaking city. Although many Cubans are White in a racial sense, they have their own culture, and are not inclined to assimilate to Anglo majority culture. A separate state for them may be in order there as well.
Short-term immigration proposals
Now is a good time to discuss an interim proposal ASD has for dealing with the immigration question. Immigration into this country, largely from Mexico and Central America and other parts of the third world, has increased enormously since the passage of the Immigration Act of 1965. It has increased to such an extent that the ethnic composition of the country has been dramatically changed. There was no mandate for this change. It could never have passed in a referendum. Polls have shown repeatedly that Americans of all races oppose it. Yet the leaders in Congress did their work and have since stood by and watched it happen.
What’s more, they and the other elites who run the country have been quick to label as hate monger anyone who speaks out. The threat of being branded a racist has been very effective in silencing critics of immigration policy. Meanwhile, the influx of immigrants, legal and illegal, has upset an already tenuous equilibrium, and will result in endless conflict and strife unless something is done.
ASD believes that its plan of separatism is the ultimate answer. Implementing that plan may take many years, however. In the meantime, we call for an immediate 10-year moratorium on further immigration. Illegals will be politely repatriated, while US citizens will be issued tamper-proof national ID cards. Such IDs will help track down criminals of all kinds and will cut down on fraud in welfare, credit cards, and passports.
Many traditional Americans have understandable fears that such a policy could aid a future totalitarian regime in controlling the populace. They are right to be concerned; our constitutional guarantees must be respected. But we have to understand that the changes in our society caused by the influx of third-world aliens are themselves the single greatest threat to our liberties. In the years to come, there will be an overwhelming need to distinguish US citizens from aliens. Only through finding a way to do that can we ultimately make our freedoms secure.
Native North Americans number about two million. About half of them live on widely scattered reservations, and the other half are dispersed throughout the country. Large numbers of persons who identify themselves as Indians are actually of mixed White and Indian heritage and many exist quite comfortably in White society. Their status is not at issue here. But what of the Indians, both on and off the reservations, who are not assimilated into the White culture? Are their reservations independent nations or merely collective wards of the federal government? Their status is ambiguous.
How would an Indian homeland or a number of homelands work under the ASD plan? One large Indian state is unlikely because of the massive relocation it would require and also because of lingering intertribal conflicts. The reservations are too small to be viable as states, lacking economic infrastructure and remaining dependent on the federal government. Although some Indians, like Blacks, would also like to receive reparations for past injustices, itâ€™s doubtful Whites would be willing to make a great financial sacrifice without a quid pro quo that works in their own interest. The problem is a difficult one, but the numbers are not so great as to make it insurmountable. As provisions are made to accommodate other groups, a just solution to the need for Native American sovereignty will doubtlessly present itself.
Asians are another fast-growing minority, numbering about 10 million today. Most are newcomers, though some have roots that go back to the 19th century. They generally do well in terms of career and income. In some areas, such as education, they do a little too well, and American universities have felt the need to limit their numbers so as to make room for other minorities.
There is generally a high level of comfort between Asian- and European-Americans, so itâ€™s not clear if there will be a demand for specific Asian states. If so, the Pacific Northwestâ€”Washington, Oregon, and British Columbiaâ€”is a possibility. Vancouver is already being called “Hongcouver” due to the influx of Asians there. The entire region has a large degree of economic cohesiveness and has been called by some “Cascadia.” If there should be a mass exodus from Hong Kong or Taiwan in the future, due to threats from Beijing, for example, this area would be a popular destination. Moreover, if Canada should break up, which sometimes seems likely, there might be a movement to unite all of “Cascadia” into a single state. These factors could result in the creation of a large, Asian-dominated superstate.
Political inroads have already been made by Asians in the area. Washington has elected the first US governor of Chinese ancestry, and a Chinese Canadian has been elected lieutenant governor of British Columbia. This may be a sign of things to come.
Whites living in the region are a heterogeneous and eclectic mix, ranging from neopagan nature worshippers to libertarian free-marketers. These are the kind of people who may think race irrelevant, and may not object to large numbers of Asian immigrants. As stated above, it remains to be seen if Asians will seek states of their own, or simply make their way in mainstream White states.
Clearly, there should be no transfer of wealth from Whites to Asians, in spite of certain 19th-century unpleasantries, because Asians are on average more prosperous, and are fortunate to be here.
Hawaii is another state that may well become majority Asian, but its situation is a little different from that of the Northwest because of its native Hawaiian element. A separatist movement is already underway there. It received some impetus in 1994, when governor John Waihee, the first governor of Hawaiian ancestry, said in his state of the state address, “There are few today who doubt that sovereignty will happen…it is a matter of how, when, and in what form.”
At present, that form could turn out to be any one of the following: (1) complete secession from the US, (2) political status quo but with reparations, or (3) “nation within a nation” status, much like that of Indian reservations. This latter option has the backing of Ka Lahui Hawaii, the state’s largest self-determination group, and it may be the most likely option.
Within the ASD plan, native Hawaiians would receive their own territory, either various small islands or specified parts of larger ones. They would also need financial support from Whites.
Americans of Middle Eastern origin or descent, who are racially akin to Europeans and are classified as White, are assumed not to be entitled to race preferences. Many are largely assimilated to the majority culture and seem to be prospering. The more religious Muslims among them, however, are not so easily assimilable. The problem is that Islamic culture is fundamentally incompatible with Western culture. For Islam, coexistence with non-Islamic social and political institutions is not possible. Western-style democracy, with its separation of church and state, and individual freedoms, is not acceptable. Therefore, Middle Eastern Americans who are deeply committed to their tradition and not inclined to assimilate, should have their own enclaves.
Unfortunately, given the World Trade Center attacks and the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, the Islamic world and the West basically are at war with one another. This is a civilizational conflict; the chances are great that it will sooner or later spill over into domestic ethnic tensions. That will serve only to further complicate the racial and ethnic situation in America.
Up to this point, we have been speaking of Americaâ€™s racial and ethnic groups, and how we might make a brighter future for all of them. But a true democracy should make space for all sorts of social subgroups, when itâ€™s called for. These need not be separate states necessarily, merely some space for each group to call its own. Take for example, the Amish, whose lifestyle seems eccentric to most of us. They have found a place in society because they have found physical spaces where they can live unmolested. Government should always make it possible for such religious sects to carve out some turf, be it a neighborhood, a small town, or a county.
Other, non-religious groups might benefit from their own territories as well. Radical feminists may want Amazon colonies, with no men allowed. Gays often congregate in gay neighborhoods. Why not make those areas official with clearly delineated boundaries and local gay government and police forces? Genuine diversity would make our country a rich and colorful garden of contrasts.
The 10th Amendment option
The foregoing discussion of separatism may sound farfetched to many, but nevertheless, if it is given a fair hearing through the media, and if voters have a chance to elect capable and committed leaders to bring it about, it could be done. A separatist plan, worked out in detail, could be voted on in a national referendum. Perhaps it would need a constitutional amendment or be the basis for a new constitutional convention. If the plan can win the support of a majority in every racial group, it can be done. If it is what most people want, why shouldn’t it be done? The perverse ideology of multiculturalism, so out of touch with nature and reason, is advancing only because no alternative is present.
But for those who remain unconvinced that such a formal program could ever be implemented, there remains an easier way, touched upon above. That is to simply reinstate the 10th amendment. The 10th amendment says, “the powers not delegated to the United States by the constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.” This means, in effect, that the powers accorded the federal government are in fact very limited; most power is reserved for the individual states. The 10th Amendment has never been repealed, only ignored. Its reinstatement would allow the individual fifty states to run their internal affairs without interference from Washington. One state could outlaw minority preferences while another might intensify them. Racial groups, in turn, would gravitate to states that protected and promoted their interests. Minorities would be in control in states where they predominate. The federal government would concern itself only with those few powers expressly delegated to it by the constitution, such as foreign policy, trade, and national defense. And the Supreme Court in Washington would have its purview restricted accordingly.
Joseph Stumph, president of the Committee of 50 States, says that the states not only have the right to run their internal affairs, but even the constitutional right to abolish the federal government. This was in fact just what happened in 1788 when the Articles of Confederation were replaced by our current Constitution. The first federal government of the United States was terminated. The states did not give up sovereignty when they ratified the Constitution. The federal government is only the agent of the states who created it. It is like a corporation that can be dissolved by the same authority that brought it into being.
As Stumph says, â€œIf the states today should decide the present government has outlived its usefulness, 35 statesâ€”70 percent, following the precedentâ€”can fire the feds and start over. Delegates from only 12 states wrote and proposed the Constitution. But a single state could have written and proposed it to the other 12. And so it is today, a single state legislature, say Idaho, could propose a new Constitution to the other 49 state legislatures. This state need not ask the feds for permission to do this.”
This shouldnâ€™t be surprising. Even the Declaration of Independence proclaims it is the right of the people to “alter or abolish” any government that does not promote their rights and interests. For decades, all important decisions have been made by corrupt power elites against the will of the people, who knew better. Our political system is set up to allow the will of the people to be routinely thwarted, and this leads us to question the extent to which we are a democracy.
Regardless of the political alterations that will be needed in the future, racial separatism of some kind is inevitable, and it is our purpose to see it done in a just and peaceful manner.
The ASD Plan is intended as only a sketch and not a blueprint, and it is hoped it will inspire a true national dialogue on race, for it is time for the American people to deal with the issues raised here.
Reparations and separatism will be the next phase of the civil rights movement, which will begin when the preference game is played out. It canâ€™t be predicted yet when that will be, but it will come. Affirmative action is an idea whose time has come and gone.
It is said that Americaâ€™s problem is that we canâ€™t face our problems. In racial matters, that is certainly true, but if we can find the courage, the 21st century can be a time of peace and harmony in this country. We could be a wonderful mosaic of diverse people living in mutual respect for each otherâ€™s differences. Let us be a United States of Diversity.