The Grand Strategikon and Excruciator Majoris of the Evil Legion of Evil had some interesting points to make with respect to my Memorial Day post:

You listen to certain members of the alt-right too much. We’re too frigging geographically intertwined to break up even if we wanted to. We’re not heading for a break up; we’re heading for a civil war to make the last one seem mere.

But, as someone observed not too long ago, the United States tends to come out of its crises stronger then it was going into them. Just imagine a US short 5 or so million right wingers but in which EVERY SINGLE LEFT-WINGER has been either destroyed or enslaved.

These are good points, but I must respectfully disagree with them for a number of reasons – empirical, historical, philosophical, and moral.

First, though, I will readily grant that the most likely future for the United States of America is a truly horrendous civil war, of a scale, scope, and brutality that will make the last one look like a slapboxing match.

War is coming, whether we want it or not – and I really don’t.

I have skin in that game, and I don’t want to lose it. My blood relatives back in the USA, and many of my closest friends, would be on the other side of that war. I don’t want them to come to harm. I don’t want them to find themselves suddenly afraid for their lives, loved ones, and property. I don’t want them to become destitute or turn into refugees overnight because of the wars that are to come.

War is not something that we of the Right want. We hate war, because – unlike our idiot cousins on the Left – we understand what war really is, and we do not want that horror to be visited upon those that we love.

We simply accept that it has to happen. The gulf between us and Them is simply far too great to bridge any longer.

Now, with respect to the notion of being geographically intertwined to the point where a break-up is impossible – I have a rather different perspective on this than most Western civilisationists and conservatives.

Two specific examples are highly instructive here: the Partition of 1947, and the breakup of Yugoslavia in the 1990s.

Taking the first, for the 40 years or so prior to the granting of independence to the former British Raj – which was a truly gigantic territory that encompassed what we now call Pakistan, India, Nepal, Sri Lanka, Bangladesh, and Burma – nationalists throughout the region agitated for India to be a homeland for all Indian people.

The “Indian people” at the time consisted of an incredibly diverse patchwork of tribes, kingdoms, cultures, languages, religions, and ways of life. Hindus, Muslims, Jains, Sikhs, Buddhists, Jews, and Christians all lived in a rather uneasy peace, intermingled as neighbours throughout the country. A North Indian from Uttar Pradesh had very little, if anything, in common with a South Indian from Tamil Nadu or Kerala – especially in linguistic terms, since Hindi and Tamil are profoundly different languages. (The first sounds quite mellifluous to the ear; the second sounds like the speaker is trying to talk around a mouthful of Skittles.)

The biggest concentrations of Muslims happened to live in the areas that we now call Pakistan and Punjab in the west of India, and West Bengal and Bangladesh in the east.

And prior to 1947, those areas were not independent national entities. They were part of what was originally planned to be a super-mongo country called “India”.

The reason why Pakistan and East Pakistan – now called “Bangladesh” – broke away from India, is because Muslim nationalists, led by Muhammad Ali Jinnah, agitated hard for separate lands for the substantial Muslim populations of the Raj. Even though the primary Indian nationalists wanted India to be a secular, inclusive, racially and religiously tolerant socialist nation, Jinnah did not trust those promises at all and wanted his own country to rule over.

It is rather ironic that Jinnah fancied himself a leader of Muslim Indians, given the fact that Jinnah himself was thoroughly Anglicised and barely spoke Urdu or Hindi, and when he went onto a radio show to announce Pakistan’s birth, he proclaimed, “Pakistan zindabad!“, which means, very roughly, “Long live Pakistan!” – but his Anglicised accent was so strong that his listeners thought he was saying, “Pakistan’s in the bag!”.

There were huge populations intermingled side-by-side in the territories that became Pakistan and East Pakistan. There were approximately 390 million people in India at the time. After Partition, the population of India stood at 330 million. Of the remainder, 30 million were in Pakistan proper, and another 60 million were in East Pakistan.

Hindus and Muslims whose families had been neighbours for literally hundreds of years suddenly found themselves minorities in their own countries.

So they moved.

There are people living in India today whose families used to live in East Pakistan, whose great-grandparents were landowners (zemindars) with extensive holdings in what is today Bangladesh. They were Hindus, and their neighbours and workers and tenants were Muslims. They might well have been Hindus in name only, but they were still idolaters in the minds of the Muslims that they lived among.

And they knew and understood that they were now in deadly danger. So they upped sticks and moved to India – and fled so fast that they left the deeds and titles to their lands and homes behind. Many of those families went from being rich landowners to destitute refugees without a penny to their names, literally overnight.

This breakup was incredibly traumatic. You simply do not move some 15 million people between the borders of three nations – Pakistan, East Pakistan, and India – without serious pain and suffering. Well over a million people died in the sectarian and religious conflicts that flared up all along the Punjab and Bengal borders as refugees streamed into India from Pakistan and East Pakistan, and into the latter two countries from the former.

Note the numbers involved. Unbroken India’s population was 390 million; after Partition it was 330 million, which is not far off from the current US population. Note also the incredible diversity of the “nation” of India.

In my opinion there are 5 shared traits involved in binding together a nation: race, religion, language, history, and culture.

India has precisely one of those factors in common throughout and among all of its peoples: religion. Hinduism is the glue that binds a Frankensteinian nation together.

Now look at the USA. What does that have in common?

Back during the War Between the States, Americans from the North and South had all five of those factors in common. They were pretty much all descendants of white European Christians, so they had race, religion, and language in common. They were only about 3 generations removed from the Revolutionary War, and indeed a number of descendants of the original Founders fought on both sides of the war, so they had history in common. Despite the extreme pain caused by the rupture, individuals and groups from both sides could and did easily show respect and affection for each other as brothers divided by principles and values. And despite the radically different agrarian culture to be found south of the Mason-Dixon line, a Southerner was still recognisably from the same cultural milieu as a Northerner, so they had culture in common too.

What, if any, of that remains true today?

America today is less than 65% white; in 1861 it was well over 90% white. America today is post-Christian. America today has multiple different languages spoken within it, especially so given the insistence of its Hispanic invaders on speaking Spanish in their own homes. America today has no shared history; the vast influx of Asians, Hispanics, and Africans since 1965 has absolutely no respect for the Constitution and the forces that shaped it, and zero affection for the glories of America’s past.

As for American culture – don’t make me laugh. I’ve lived in New York and New Jersey. I’ve traveled all over New England, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Florida, and Texas. There is NO common American culture anymore beyond mindless consumerism, and that wears thin awfully fast once you get into small-town America.

So all five of the ties that bind a nation together are simply gone in the USA today – or, in the case of the English language alone, severely frayed. And this directly contradicts one of LTC Kratman’s primary points above.

It is indeed true that the United States has historically emerged from crises stronger than it was going into them. The natural counterpoint is that this assumes that the USA is still a nation.

It is not. It is an empire held together by the threat of force. And history teaches us that, no matter how that threat of force is removed, eventually and inevitably a breaking occurs in an empire when the source of central power falls apart.

Now, in the case of India, Partition was imposed on the nation by the British. So it was not an organic breakup but an artificial one.

So let’s take a quick look at a perhaps more instructive and relevant example of another highly intermingled, multi-racial, multi-religious, multi-cultural, multi-linguistic part of the world that broke up in a very nasty way.

That would be the former Yugoslavia, which fell apart after the collapse of the Soviet Union. Once the threat of direct military action from the central Yugoslav government was removed, anything that kept the Serbs, Croats, Kosovars, Albanians, Montenegrins, Macedonians, Slovenians, and Lord only knows who else, from tearing each other apart, disappeared.

The Balkans became a bloody free-for-all. Nobody could figure out who was fighting whom; even today, twenty years after the Balkan Wars, it’s still a massive jumble because everyone was so thoroughly mixed up.

Again, the lessons are highly instructive. Once again, the empire that preceded the modern nation was a highly mixed agglomerate of races, cultures, histories, languages, and religions, many of whom were openly and avowedly antagonistic to each other. And once again, the moment that the central government no longer had the ability or authority to impose its will upon the constituent provinces and nations, they went to war. And once again, there was a colossal amount of pain and suffering involved as neighbours and brothers fought and killed each other in the streets of their own cities.

As for LTC Kratman’s final point, about how the USA will be vastly better off with 5 million fewer right-wingers but with every last left-winger killed or enslaved – well, yes, I agree, that’s true, but it won’t happen because there is no United States of America anymore, and will not be in the future.

The USA isn’t a nation. It’s an empire, and a dying one. There are now substantial non-white, non-Christian populations within the territory of the USA. Blacks comprise 14% of the country, or thereabouts – and Hispanics aren’t far behind, at about 12%. Indeed, the count of Hispanics significantly underestimates the impact of having millions of Dirt Worlders from Mexico, Guatemala, Honduras, and the various other Central American shitholes stream over the porous southern border. It’s officially estimated that there are about 11 million illegal Hispanics in the USA – I wager that the real number is closer to 25 million.

Blacks in particular have made it perfectly clear for well over 20 years and more that they do not wish to conform to white standards of behaviour and civilisation. They comprise less than one-sixth of the population but commit over half of the violent crimes. They are a nation unto themselves at this point, even though they are geographically distributed across the entire USA.

As for Hispanics, well, they are a bit more well-adjusted, but not by a whole lot. And unlike whites, they have absolutely no racial guilt to speak of with respect to blacks, which means that they have no sense of restraint when it comes to launching turf wars against blacks. Unlike whites, they do not tolerate or cover up black crimes against them out of some misplaced sense of idealism and tolerance. They are not whites and do not have any interest in being whites.

It is usually at this point that one might pull out a map like this one to try to argue with me that America is too intermingled to be threatened by a serious breakup:

Indeed, as you can see, there is a LOT of blending involved between Republicans and Democrats. It’s not as simple as saying that Texas is red or New York is blue. At the county and precinct level, there is a huge amount of intermingling.

Furthermore, there are literally tens of millions of people in the USA who are descendants of mixed-race marriages. LTC Kratman knows this better than anyone else. It is simply not feasible to to divide the USA along neat cultural and ethnic lines because those lines are completely blurred, and I agree with him completely about this.

Here is my response to that point:

That is what Yugoslavia looked like, in ethnic terms, before it broke up. Notice how intermingled it was between Bosnians, Serbs, Croats, and every-bloody-body else. And notice those areas which had no clear ethnic majority present.

The intermingling DID NOT STOP the breakup of Yugoslavia, at all. It didn’t even appreciably slow that breakup down.

And this is what British India looked like before Partition in 1947:

I remind you that Bengal today is now West Bengal – a Hindu-majority state of India with a Muslim population of about 27% – and Bangladesh – a Muslim-majority country with less than 15% of its population as Hindus and almost no Christians.

And, remember, this was a region of the Raj that was heavily intertwined. I am not talking hypothetically when I say that there were Hindu landowners who had been there for generations, intermingled with Muslims and living in peace, who had to uproot themselves and go to India as soon as Partition happened. This actually happened to families that I know of personally.

Is it possible to stop the intermingling in the USA? Evidence so far suggests that it is not.

The reason is simple. Liberals always and inevitably screw up their own states, so the marginally less stupid among them up sticks and move to more free and more sensible states – but they don’t leave their idiotic belief systems behind. So they slowly but surely end up turning red states into blue ones.

We’ve seen this repeatedly with California bleeding residents to Texas, Arizona, and Nevada – and, inevitably, those states are turning blue. Remember that Texas was once a solidly blue state, back in the days of President Johnson, because the Southern Democrats voted as a single bloc. It took a Republican, Richard Nixon, to break up that pattern and bring the southerners back into the fold. Texas today is solidly Republican, but that won’t hold forever.

So what is to be done, if liberals simply keep coming to conservative states and messing them up?

They have to get thrown out. They have to be stopped from coming over. And there is NO way to do that right now within the framework of the law. You cannot, by law, block a former resident of California from living in Texas and voting on Texan issues. Nor should you, if you want to preserve the fiction that a Californian and a Texan today belong to the same nation.

The only possible method to achieve the end of keeping progressive idiocies out of conservative homelands, is force.

To repeat, yet once more: I DO NOT WANT THE BREAKUP OF THE USA. I do not want a war. I do not want to see brother killing brother and neighbour shooting at neighbour. I do not want to witness entire neighbourhoods and counties undergoing ethnic cleansing. I do not want to see refugee camps setup along the borders of new nations within the territory of the USA.

I sure as hell do not want the Aztlans to reinstate a pagan nation in the American south that uses human sacrifice to appease their sun-god, or a radically Left-loony state of Commiefornia, or an Islamic Caliphate anywhere within the borders of the old USA.

But, what I want or do not want, is irrelevant. What matters is the ties that bind nations together.

Those ties either don’t exist or are severely frayed in the USA right now. It will not take much more to make them snap completely – either a natural disaster of some kind, or a real shooting war between progressives and conservatives in one of the “purple” states.

Remember that Diversity + Proximity = War. Mass migration has basically the same outcome as war – on this, I am pretty sure that LTC Kratman and I agree completely.

Where we disagree is in the idea that new nations will emerge from those wars on the former territory of the USA. I believe they will. He believes they won’t. Time will tell who is right.

In this, though, I have rarely, if ever, wanted more fervently to be wrong.