The Balkanization of America
A year ago the U.S. Bureau of the Census published a report which revised previous estimates of the future population of the United States. According to the Census Bureau, there will be 400 million people in the United States in the year 2050. One important fact about this figure is that it is much greater than the optimum population for a land area the size of the United States. Another important fact concerns the nature of that population. In 2050 the United States will consist of several blocs of minority groups. There will be no majority group. By 2050 European Americans, who for the first 200 years of the existence of the United States had been its majority population group and who had founded and maintained its culture, laws, and economic life, will find themselves in the minority.
There is yet another important fact to be noted about this mass of 400 million people. This is a fact which suggests that the United States of 2050 will be America Balkanized, an America without Americans, an America in which citizens will identify with their minority status and forget about the nation as a whole. This is the fact that three of the four major population blocs will constitute visible minorities. Three of the four blocs — European Americans or Whites, African Americans or Blacks, Asian Americans or Yellows — will be what the anthropologist Sir Arthur Keith has called “macrodiacritic” groups. That is, more than 90 percent of their members are visibly identifiable. The fourth bloc, Hispanic Americans, is a conglomerate created by the Federal bureaucracy. Hispanics, who can belong to any race, will no doubt still be a political bloc.
Indeed, all four blocs will be relentlessly political, locked in a struggle to determine how the increasingly scarce economic goods and natural resources are to be distributed to each group. Can a nation so wracked by internal struggle long endure? History suggests not. History suggests that by the time that America lacks Americans to the extent that Yugoslavia now lacks Yugoslavs, it will undergo a more or less painful process of deconstruction. That time may, in fact, occur long before 2050.
The predicted great shift in the composition of the U.S. population is attributed by the Census Bureau to an estimated yearly influx of 1 million legal immigrants. There may be an equal number of illegal immigrants entering the United States each year. The overwhelming majority of immigrants, both legal and illegal, come from the Third World. Another factor which will radically change the ethnic composition of the population — a factor given less attention by the Census Bureau — is the differential birth rates of the various groups involved. It is quite likely that, given current trends, the European American will find himself in a minority long before 2050.
The three highly visible groups — the Whites, Yellows, and Blacks — are, of course, the three major races. Biologists refer to these races as subspecies. The differences among them go far beyond skin color. There is no point in enumerating all of those differences, but one fact about these subspecies needs to be recognized. It has been summed up in a thought-provoking essay called “Biological Subspecies of Man,” written some thirty years ago by Professor E. Raymond Hall, who was probably the foremost authority on American mammals. Dr. Hall’s observation regarding subspecies of mammals is that two subspecies of the same species do not occur in the same geographic area. Dr. Hall notes that there may be some intergradation (mixing) of subspecies, but much more often one subspecies thrives and the other goes into extinction. One subspecies proves to be more prolific than the other and wins the territory for itself. Dr. Hall concluded that the natural territory of a human subspecies is continental in scope. He warned that two different subspecies of humans will not co-exist indefinitely on the same continent. Ultimately one or the other will pass from the scene.
Territoriality is an imperative for man as it is for all other mammals. European Americans know well that much of urban America and wide areas of the South have become the territory of another subspecies. Is it too farfetched to say that what is publicized as a crime wave is really the strategy, combined with high birthrates, by which one subspecies is supplanting another, either by outbreeding European Americans or by forcing them to flee?
Territoriality is central to understanding the future America. Let current trends go for another 50 years, and it is obvious that then the Southeast will largely be African territory, and the Southwest mestizo-occupied territory, with various urban enclaves in the West under the control of Asians.
But why should we care about what will happen 50 years from now? The answer to that is the fact that the future is already with us in many areas. America Balkanized is now a reality in southern California, southern Florida, and in other places all across the continental United States. The politics of Balkanization — a recurrent cycle of polarization, confrontation, and violence — is already emerging in Los Angeles and Miami. But even where one would least expect to find it there is evidence of the coming Balkanization of America.
Let us consider one rather improbable example. The state of Arkansas is in the center of the United States. It has less than 1 percent of the U.S. population. It is almost the poorest of the 50 states. It has nothing to attract immigrants, yet the immigrant influx is apparent even in Arkansas.
Rogers is a small city of about 30,000 people, located in the middle of the Ozarks, in the extreme northwest corner of the state. Now the majority of the schoolchildren in Rogers are Spanish-speaking. Only a few years ago there were almost no Mexicans in the Ozarks. What happened? The answer is that a huge poultry processing firm, Tyson Foods, has imported thousands of Mexicans in order to use them as cheap, easily controlled labor.
In the extreme northeast corner of the state there is the small city of Jonesboro, which has approximately 45,000 people. Jonesboro also has a huge mosque with a 100-foot-tall minaret. This mosque was not built by local Black Muslims. It was built by Moslems from the Arab states, students at the local university who have come to the United States to study business administration and learn how to manage American corporations which are being bought up by their countrymen.
On the far western border of Arkansas there is Fort Smith. Almost 10,000 of the 90,000 people in Fort Smith are Asians. They have built a huge Buddhist temple. Recently one of the schools in Fort Smith had to be shut down for the day when gang warfare broke out between gangs of Cambodians and Blacks. The Asians in Fort Smith were originally refugees housed at nearby Fort Chaffee. Many of them stayed in Fort Smith when they were offered employment in local factories.
In the center of the state, in Little Rock, a group of Chinese American investors representing business interests in Hong Kong held a meeting in August of this year and announced their intention to establish a new community to be called Chinatown, Arkansas. Chinatown, Arkansas, is to be developed on 500 acres to be purchased south of Little Rock and will be the home of 2,000 Chinese immigrants. It will include a shopping center and two schools. The investors promised that at least one out of every four jobs created by Chinatown, Arkansas, will be given to local people. Moreover, they promised that if Chinatown, Arkansas, is successful in achieving its purpose of facilitating the transfer of Hong Kong businesses to the United States, then similar Chinatown developments will arise in Missouri, Oklahoma, Texas, Tennessee, Mississippi, and Louisiana.
A delegation from the Greater Little Rock Chamber of Commerce was present and expressed its enthusiasm for the projected Chinatown, Arkansas. The mayor of Little Rock also expressed his gratitude. In his words, “A culturally diverse community really has something to offer.” The mayor said that he was happy that Chinatown would offer some jobs to local people, but he did not say whether or not any member of his own family might be ready to apply for one of those jobs.
Even where we would least expect it, there is today a foreshadowing of the coming America, an America in which European Americans will no longer be able to speak of “our country” but only of “this country.”
What is behind the immigrant invasion? The answer is obvious. It was apparent in each of the examples cited. The culprits responsible are not the Illuminati, not the Insiders, not the Humanists, not even the Communists. No, the cause of America’s surrender to the immigrant invasion is simply the shameless, hoggish greed of the ruling elite of this nation!
The ruling elite can dispatch hundreds of thousands of troops to Kuwait, Somalia, Rwanda, and Haiti, but for some reason a few thousand men cannot be spared to patrol the nation’s southern border and stop the influx of illegal immigrants. The reason, of course, is that the elite is quite happy with the nation’s highly permeable borders. The Wall Street Journal has even editorialized in favor of open borders.
The strategy of the elite is clear: In the new global economy the American elite will become part of an international elite, while the mass of Americans who work for a living must accept their future place in a global labor pool. In other words, the overwhelming majority of European Americans are supposed to accept a way of life that will be somewhere between the European standard and that prevailing in the Third World.
What can be done about this threat to the future of our people?
There are at least three possible courses of action.
First, we can continue to do what we have been doing. That is, communicating our views to our elected representatives in Washington, D.C. This is an essential, never-ending task. If we cease to undertake it, there will be no voice against those who urge our representatives to open our borders to an even larger influx of immigrants.
Second, we can work to change the legislative bodies by encouraging people who agree with us to run for election. We need candidates who will express our views. It is much more cost-effective to put in office people who already agree with us than it is to attempt to convert to our views those officeholders who may be hostile to us. Even unsuccessful campaigns are useful in mobilizing the people and broadcasting our views. It is also useful to put on the ballot referenda such as Proposition 187 in the recent California elections.
Third, we can begin to work for the implementation of a long-range strategy in which we turn away from the legislative talk shops and look to the rank and file of our own people. We need to work to build a sense of community among European Americans that is as strong as the sense of community that now exists among African Americans and Asian Americans. There is now a large population of European Americans, but there is not a community of European Americans led by European Americans who are conscious, avowed leaders of that community.
There is a nationwide African American community led by African Americans who are leaders not because they are accepted as part of the ruling elite, but because they are leaders of their community as such. They are race leaders.
European Americans have no race leaders. There is no end of European Americans who belong to the ruling elite, but — claiming to represent all Americans — they are not our leaders.
In America, unlike Eastern Europe, the politics of Balkanization is the politics of race. The politics of race terrifies the ruling elite because it is a politics which is carried on outside of the legislative talk shops. It is a politics which is rooted in life, which defines friend and enemy once and for all. It is a politics which is climactic. It is a politics which is final.
A great campaign in that politics has begun. We cannot look to the ruling elite for leadership in that campaign. If it is to be found anywhere, we must look to ourselves alone.
