Civic Nationalists plead “Stop The Balkanization”.

My Recent Posts

Back when I was a young teenager, shortly after I first met Ronald Reagan and the elder George Bush, I began reading The National Review magazine. During the Cold War, when the Russians were the bad guys (does anybody remember those days?), it was an intelligent, sometimes clever alternative to the Marx lite of the rest of the mainstream media. That was before I slipped rightwards through the John Birth Society to the Council of Conservative Citizens to the National Alliance over the next few years.


These days, it’s the voice of Civic Nationalism, which makes it a shill for law and order multiracialism. In this new article, the author (who is President of the Center for Equal Opportunity) whines about Americans being further divided and categorized as members of a particular race. The Civic Nationalists are in the unenviable position of standing astride the train tracks of history yelling “Stop!”, but I don’t have any pity on them. They heaped plenty of coal into the locomotive, themselves.


Stop the Balkanization
by Roger Clegg


“The proposals would affect our nation adversely in at least three ways: (1) adding one more ethnic group [i.e., MENA] would further sub-divide America along ethnic lines and take another step to transform the U.S. into what the Founders never intended, a nation of groups; (2) creating a Hispanic race would deepen these fractures and threaten to make them permanent; and (3) dangling purported advantages such as congressional redistricting would further help perpetuate divisions within the country by giving people an incentive to identify themselves as a member of a subnational group and a disincentive to build inter-ethnic coalitions.”


Read more at:

True, muh Founders never intended the United States to be a nation of groups. They intended it to be a nation of one group, Whites. Aside from their own identity as being exclusively White and their implicit statement that they were establishing the government to secure the blessings of liberty for themselves and their progeny, not the progeny of Asia or Africa or Mexico, there’s that whole Naturalization Act of 1790 thing, where they said that only Whites were eligible to immigrate to the new United States and become citizens. To prove that it wasn’t a one-off, they doubled down again five years later, in 1795. The Founders were, by intent and by law, White Nationalists. Now that their obvious original intent for our nation has been irretrievably perverted into a multiracial empire, the fractures between the races NEED to be deepened and made permanent, and there SHOULD be “a disincentive to build inter-ethnic coalitions”. Balkanization is coming. Stop it? Nonsense. By all means, Balkanize.


Thomas Sutrina Added Apr 18, 2017 - 1:28pm
I guess they seem to skip the reason for two houses and Federalism and the division of power and the statements that specifically divided power.  You see the founders worried about "factions" another name for groups with different interest, Federalist # 9 (The Utility of the Union as a Safeguard Against Domestic Faction and Insurrection).  Yes the founders did not identify race as a division, but they clearly understood religion.  As you know some colonies were formed because of religious differences.  The colonies forced the addition of the Bill of rights because they worried about factions gaining to much power even under the Constitution.  We have the tenth Amendment that says all powers not specifically granted to government shall be given to the states and citizens.
Dino Manalis Added Apr 18, 2017 - 2:46pm
We should come together, not balkanize, to deal with our many problems thoughtfully and logically!
Billy Roper Added Apr 19, 2017 - 11:06am
Thomas, "Yes the founders did not identify race as a division, but they clearly understood religion."
Ever heard of the Naturalization Act of 1790?
Billy Roper Added Apr 19, 2017 - 11:06am
Dino, are you a bot?
Thomas Sutrina Added Apr 19, 2017 - 1:36pm
Billy R., I did hear of the first naturalization act which is not an immigration restricting act but an act on how long a person has to live in the country before they could apply at the local court house for the opportunity to vote.  A Minimum period, an assimilation period.
That act does not prevent indentured servants, slaves or women from voting but leaves the decision up to the states.  The immigrant at the time were from Europe so the choice of saying free white person is not unexpected.  
We do know that people from the caribbean islands what were of mixed blood like Hamilton were not restricted from voting so the term white  was not restricted to Europeans.  In fact immigrants from Europe are not all white to begin with.  In the 1700 Europe have dark skinned citizens of Italy and greece and the people that escaped the Muslim invasion of the Byzantine empire are not white skinned and citizens of Europe.
Women not voting was the norm in Europe and I believe the world at that time.  Men made up the armies that defended the nations.