Monday, May 17, 2010

Geography and Demographics, Plan A

(This is a plan outlines the political geography of the United States after a possible constitutional overhaul.  It is designed to satisfy as much as possible the goals of both civic nationalists and ethno-nationalists, as well as to avoid violence, provide for regional autonomy, law, and order.)




The theme of this plan is that the Nations are drawn to be home to a specific ethnic group or groups.  With one exception, each of them is drawn around a specific ethnoracial group; the exceptions is the multi-ethnic Megalopolis.


The ten Nations are:







The Megalopolis, 23.6 million people, 24% black, 6% Asian, 16% Hispanic, 52% WNH

Southwest, 29.5 million people, 6% black, 1% Amerindian, 7% Asian, 42% Hispanic, 42% WNH

Delta, 4.1 million people, 51% black, 1% Asian, 3% Hispanic, 44% WNH

Hawaii, 1.2 million people, 2% black, 42% Asian, 9% Pacific Islander, 7% Hispanic, 23% WNH

West-Central, 300,000 people, 1% black, 46% Amerindian, 10% Hispanic, 41% WNH

Northwest, 32.5 million people, 4% black, 2% Amerindian, 7% Asian, 13% Hispanic, 71% WNH

Northeast, 47.9 million people, 7% black, 2% Asian, 4% Hispanic, 85% WNH

Southeast, 56.1 million people, 20% black, 2% Asian, 7% Hispanic, 69% WNH

South-Central, 41.8 million people, 12% black, 1% Amerindian, 2% Asian, 14% Hispanic, 69% WNH

Midwest, 45.7 million people, 10% black, 2% Asian, 6% Hispanic, 81% WNH


Legend:
teal - Megalopolis
dark red- Southwest
gray - Delta
blue - Hawaii
yellow-orange - West-Central
green - Northwest
light green - Northeast
brown - Southeast
light blue - South-Central
red - Midwest

(I can post a bigger version of this map, but blogger won't display it all until I increase the column size.)



Q: Blacks are given only a very small area as their homeland.  How is this different from grand apartheid?
A: The parallels between this plan and South Africa's black homeland strategy are superficial.



  • American blacks mostly form a single ethnic group.  South African blacks form dozens, and none of the homelands that were created for them were as big as Delta Nation.

  • The Bantustans were created on lands whites didn't want; the Delta is formed on lands which have historically had black majorities because of their high suitability for agriculture.

  • Delta Nation has several extremely important port cities; all South African port cities were controlled by the white government.

  • A new continental constitution could and should give Delta Nation the right to secede.

  • The region could not accommodate all American blacks without becoming quite population-dense, but it is not intended to.  

  • Tax bases and tax collection mechanisms already exist in Delta jurisdictions; they are inherited by the new regime.

  • Delta Nation could coin its own money, operate its own National Guard, etc.

When compared to another ethnic homeland, Delta Nation does not look odd.  Israel's 8500 square miles are homeland to the world's 13 million Jews (of whom under 6 million choose to live there).  Delta Nation has about 50,000 square miles and is homeland to a little under 40 million American blacks.  If all 40 million chose to live there (and all non-black inhabitants emigrated), Delta Nation would swell to about the same population density as Israel (but note that over 5 million blacks live in Megalopolis Nation, which is not an ethnostate and has no racial majority).


There is no reason to believe that the creation of Delta Homeland would touched off a broad-based movement to expel law-abiding blacks, any more than the success of zionism preceded expulsions of Jews from their homes.

20 comments:

TAS said...

Why is so little of Arizona included in the Southwest nation?

B Lode said...

The Southwest nation is supposed to Hispanic majority; big chunks of AZ are non-Hispanic majority, while the NE portion is mostly Navajo and Hopi reservations.

Anonymous said...

I don't believe this makes much sense.
And your errors here derive from your refusal to accept "American Nations" wholehartedly because you still want a big United States with only a different name - "The Commonwealth".

For instance, that Megalopolis nation is ludacris. Not only is it way, way to diverse - by the way, you seem to get along very well with diversity, you just don't enjoy to see whites as a minority - it is not viable and not operation.
Those big cities have grown and have existed because they were a strategic entry to America, they are the openess of America to the world. How will those cities be attractive - as if they were not attractive already - when there's no America behind them?
How do you feed the population of Megalopolis?
They would have to import their food from less powerfull neighbourhood states. That would ensure way to big tensions, and it is just an example.

Why to offer Los Angeles to Mexico just because?

What about the whites who stay behind? Don't you think they will have more loyalty towards foreign whites / other Nations?

You're not doing what you think you are, dude.

Afonso Henriques

B Lode said...

Northeastern cities have traditionally been quite diverse. (150 years isn't such a long time but in the context of post-Columbian North American, it isn't so bad.) Power groups in the urban Northeast want to make a go of multiculturalism and I see no reason to deny that to them; the cities are rich by some measures.

They certainly wouldn't lack America behind them. I have strictly limited intra-Commonwealth tariffs to 5% ad valorem. They would be fed the same way they are now.

I don't see what makes the neighboring Nations less powerful ... they have more population, less population density, an equal number of Commonwealth Senators, and a substantial advantage in Commonwealth Trustees.

I imagine that whites will continue to stream out of the Megalopolis. That area has been decreasingly hospitable to whites for half a century. The Megalopolis borders two American Nations and includes numerous sea and airports; emigration will be at least possible, if not easy, for the bulk of whites.

Some whites will probably stay behind if they services they offer are lucrative enough that they can afford to be secure, which is more or less the situation now in some areas. They can choose loyalty to big paychecks from multinational corporations in high-rise buildings, or they can take huge pay cuts and move to areas where land is comparatively cheap and you don't have to pay security guards.

Anonymous said...

B Lode,

"Power groups in the urban Northeast want to make a go of multiculturalism and I see no reason to deny that to them"

Really, but isn't that the same in Los Angeles, Chicago, Atlanta, or any other big city in the United States? If you give them the Megalopolis on those grounds, you would give them the whole United States as well.

By the way, if you give them away your bigger towns, you have to built other big towns or else you will have no centre, no base. You can't form a Nation only of country people. Really. I recommend you Fjordmans take on that. It is called Beheading Cities or something.

And we touch here in something that I find despicable that is the beheading of cities. I mean, I can't recognise America in any of its big cities, like I can recognise France in Paris or England in London. And you cannot have a functional Nation or even State, when your centres of power (econimcal, cultural, demographical, you name it) are profoundly "deranged".
The greatest wound in America is the beheading of its cities. And I have no doubt about it.

"I have strictly limited intra-Commonwealth tariffs to 5% ad valorem. They would be fed the same way they are now."

Okay. And wouldn't that limit the economical prosperity of the exporters of food to the Megapolis?
You are thus *destroying* the market and giving more power to the Megapolis. But again, you are for it because you don't see the United States as something awfull, even as it is not giving signs of stopping its multicultural madness. You want more local power and less federal power, but the idea of the Super United States of America is fine to you, you just want to take it some powers and call it Commonwealth. I think you have to opt between American Nations or the United States or United Nations. Maybe America's only oportunity to survive is through the Ununited Nations of America, all competing against each other for their interests, just like in Traditional Europe.

Overall, I symphatise with this exercise of yours, I truly do. But it is just not what I had in mind for America and the World, and especially, to European Civilisation.

Afonso Henriques

B Lode said...

Really, but isn't that the same in Los Angeles, Chicago, Atlanta, or any other big city in the United States? If you give them the Megalopolis on those grounds, you would give them the whole United States as well.

Chicago and Atlanta aren't part of a megalopolis; they cannot stand as nations on their own. Los Angeles doesn't seem quite germane; it has approximately the same level of diversity as most big cities, but it is getting more Hispanic all the time and it surrounded by a large Hispanic-majority hinterland - that is why I put it in a Hispanic-majority nation.

By the way, if you give them away your bigger towns, you have to built other big towns or else you will have no centre, no base. You can't form a Nation only of country people. Really. I recommend you Fjordmans take on that. It is called Beheading Cities or something.

I like Fjordmann, I'll check it out.
Boston, Chicago, St. Louis, Richmond, Jacksonville, Madison, Seattle, Denver, Houston, and Dallas all remain in white-majority Nations. The loss of the New York Times, the philharmonics, the United Nations, and some banks will not be a particularly bad thing.

Okay. And wouldn't that limit the economical prosperity of the exporters of food to the Megapolis?

I suppose if the Megalopolis Nation wanted to pass a small tariff on food imports, it could do that. So a little less than 10% of the Commonwealth's population would have somewhat higher food prices, and would have only their government to blame. I'm not getting why this is a big deal.

... you cannot have a functional Nation or even State, when your centres of power (econimcal, cultural, demographical, you name it) are profoundly "deranged".

This is why I want to put migration barriers up between the old power centers and the places I live. I couldn't figure out, myself, how to reverse the derangement of a city like Washington or New York. Do you have any suggestions?

Is the main thrust of your critique that the Commonwealth is too powerful? Completely lacking in powers over language, education, and ground transportation, lacking any power to tax people directly, governed by legislators beholden to National governments....

If you were engaged in this sort of exercise, what would the net result be? 50 completely sovereign nations?

Anonymous said...

"I'm not getting why this is a big deal."

In your system, it isn't. But I highly doubt that if a system like that of yours is implemented it will not develop into the system I envision, which resembles more of Traditional Europe.

For instance, it would be too easy to make them starve; it would be too easy for the exporters to want to raise the prices they recieve for feeding them, it would be too easy to make the ones in the Megapolis eraged and develop expansionist desires in order to assure their right to just grow food.

"This is why I want to put migration barriers up between the old power centers and the places I live."

I'm in Europe. Most large cities here still have a distinct carachter that can go back to centuries. Our inner citties and downtowns are the most expensive and (somewhat) desirable areas. We have our worst places outside the citie, and surrounding the cities we have middle class people who are the soul of the city. Read that piece of Fjordman "Beheading of European Cities". And what I'm criticising here is actually the White Flight from the big cities. In America cities are more than everywhere else a place of degradation. America must fight that, which it hasn't. I say this because by 9/11 I thought Wow! New York will never be the same and I never went there. Now I think that all American cities will become Detroit soon and then I will have no true America but that of rednecks. Can you understand?

"Do you have any suggestions?"

Make normal, average people to care about such cities as much as they care for their well kept suburban neighbourhoods. And as soon as you can, stop white flight and difficult the life of ethnic minorities. But again, now it is probabily too late...

"Is the main thrust of your critique that the Commonwealth is too powerful?"

Yes. It is my understanding that your Commonwealth lacks all soft powers but still has all the hard power. And also, it's function is to actually regulate the Nations...

P.S. - I also think that most people would symphatise more with that Commonwealth (who doesn't tax them and looks over their rights) than they would with their Nations, who will be somewhat authorative power figures.

Afonso Henriques

Anonymous said...

Now, influenced by my Brazilian friend, I've recognised the much more likely to become independent "America's Greatest Nations":

The North: Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachussets, Rhode Island, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Ohio, Indiana, Michiggan, Illinois, Wisconsin and Minnesota.
I think it is probable that this Nation can be divided in two, somewhere along the Ohio-Pennsylvania border.

The South: Washington D.C., Maryland, Virginia, West Virginia, Kentucky, North Carolina, South Carolina, Tennesee, Georgia, Alabama, Mississipi, Arkansas, Louisiana and Florida.
I notice some major cultural differentiation in this Nation. Mainly, the Upper South, that is North of North Carolina (and perhaps North of Tennesee) and I think Florida is a special State of its own, filled with Spaniards and Americans who are not historically related to the South.

Texas: Texas, Oklahoma and New Mexico.

Central United States: Iowa, Missouri, Kansas, Nebraska, Colorado, Utah, Wyoming, Idaho, Montana, North Dakota and South Dakota.

Pacific America: Washington, Oregon, Nevada, Arizona and California. This Nation would be centred around California.

And Alaska and Hawaii would either become independent or be drawned into the shere of California. Also, it is also very likely that this Nation becomes dominated by Amerindians (I am Hispanic and Latin, I don't like to call Africans and Amerindians Hisanic or Latin) and and Asians in the future, while all the others have a greater probabilities of being dominated by Europeans...

Afonso Henriques

Anonymous said...

"If you were engaged in this sort of exercise, what would the net result be? 50 completely sovereign nations?"

I must confess to you, now that you've asked, that I am also prone to waste my time playing these games as if I am that important, neglecting my own important matters. It's madness, I know. But at least I learn something during my research.

I may warn you that I am not an American and thus I am a foreign observer. My main concerns are the continuation of European Civilisation both in Europe and in North (and South) America, and also, which is the same, the racial preservation of Europeans in America. Also I must say, I thrive for a time when America is not as powerfull as it is today, that is, powerless to influentiate (negatively) on European businesses.

But I actually like the United States and thus I take into account my preception of what the American experience has been and to what the Americans will react better slash beneffit the most. So, I kind of take American tradition in cnsideration, although it may be only my preception of that Tradition.

So, here it goes. I must add that a Reactionary, Conservative and White Nationalist Brazilian friend of mine has been an influence on me over this. He's no dumb person, he's somewhat wealthy and has academic credential (he's a professor). His influence lies on the fact that he showed me that I have divided America too much and that it is very likely that America will divide less than I divided.
So, my first divisions lie around the State level. I've considered 13 Nations that have already formed (cultural differentiation) in the United States:

1 - An Independent Hawaii (non white Nation)
2 - An Independent Alaska
3 - New England (States of Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachussets, Rhode Island and Connecticut)
4 - New York Area (States of New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania and Delaware)
5 - Greater Virginia (States of Maryland, Virginia, West Virginia and D.C.)
6 - The South: Kentucky, Tennesee, Arkansas, Louisiana, Mississipi, Alabama, Georgia, South Carolina and North Carolina)
7 - Florida. The State of Florida (and who knows if they want to exand into the Caribbean...)
8 - The Midwest / Great Lakes Region (States of Minnesota, Wisconsin, Michiggan, Illinois, Indiana and Ohio)
9 - The Northwest (States of Montana, Idaho, Wyoming, Utah and North and South Dakota)
10 - Central (States of Colorado, Nebraska, Kansas, Iowa and Missouri)
11 - Texas (plus New Mexico and Oklahoma)
12 - California (plus Nevada and Arizona)
13 - North Pacific (States of Washington and Oregon).

Afonso Henriques

Anonymous said...

Okay, now you're thinking why is this?

Well, first of all, it's what I see as functional. As mannagable. I mean, all this Nations would have the capabilty to act on their behalf and be wealthy functional Nations. Also, I notice "cultural differentiation" across those Nations, but very few of it inside these Nations.

How can I say this if I am aware of the ethnical diversity INSIDE these Nations and of the urban vs rural dynamic.
Well, I'd just say that rural Virginia is not the same as rural Utah in the same way that rural Bavaria is not the same as an English shire, even if there was no linguistic difference amongst them. And a functional country has a rural and an urban life, right?
Last time I went to the rural areas one of the local men said to me, after I had remarked on the quality of living in the countryside:

"Buy you don't want to live here just like I don't want to live in the city".
And he was right.

The ethnic thing. Every of the 13 Nations but Hawaii would have a white majority. Those Nations would more effectively control ethnic minorities and adress their problems. And also, if they want to give away some part of their territory, of course that they are free to do it.
But I believe Europeans would be the norm in every such Nation. And as it would gain a definite National character whites of those regions would increasing see themselves forming a true Nationality, like Germans or British to such an extent that even the white liberals would recognise that they are part of *that* culture (although they would probabily undermine that, but that's another story). Ethnic minorities would recognise the dominant culture / norm and would comply or create their sub culture of it. But they would not see it as somewhat void and propositional as they now seem to see.

I see no reason to create a black Nation in the Delta, while you'll have to "endure" the blacks of Atlanta. Nor do I like to see San Diego and Los Angeles giving like that to Mexicans...

But of course, if the (white) people of those Nations were okay with that, they could grant whatever they wanted. And then, no white would be left behind in what would be a treason. Believe me, I know about de-colonisation gone bad.

Hawaii would an exception to this rule. But I think any of those Nations would be prone to recieve any white Hawaiian who would like to come to the mainland, although I believe a vast majorities of white Hawaiians would prefer to stay in Hawaii, even if Hawaii gained independence (if they would like that after the Japanese take control and start doing whatever they want, that's another question).

Afonso Henriques

Anonymous said...

"If you were engaged in this sort of exercise, what would the net result be? 50 completely sovereign nations?"

No. Anything between 5 to 13 Nations.

But I am also all for "Canadian Nations" also! Like:
Quebec, Canada, Eastern Canada, and Western Canada. And who knows? Maybe even a non white independent Northern Canada?
No... too many resources that shall not be lost to Europeans.

So, North America would go from two to up to sixteen Nations, not counting Hawaii, which would become an Asian/Pacific/Polinyesian multicultural Nation, Latin America style.

Afonso Henriques.

P.S. - Sorry for the rain of comments but I think you will enjoy them.

B Lode said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
B Lode said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
B Lode said...

You have made a lot of comments. Let me take the first three that jump out:

For instance, it would be too easy to make them starve; it would be too easy for the exporters to want to raise the prices they recieve for feeding them, it would be too easy to make the ones in the Megapolis eraged and develop expansionist desires in order to assure their right to just grow food.

I can't think of any precedent for this, that would be possible under the system I have created. Nations can't tax exports. Creating a cartel out of the thousands of firms shipping food to NYC, Baltimore, and DC, would be scarcely possible if profit were the goal; if the sole goal were starving fellow citizens I think we are in the realm of fantasy.

If the system is altered, perhaps this would be plausible, but I have no intention of deal with possible alterations to my system.

Every of the 13 Nations but Hawaii would have a white majority.

I haven't done the math, but if you mix heavily Hispanic areas in with the rest, the white majority persists only in nominal terms. Differential birthrates will take away the white non-Hispanic majority of the American Southwest in a few years. "White" doesn't really overlap with "Hispanic" in the American Southwest, except on census forms. La Raza shows know signs of accepting assimilation with gringos. (I understand that this is not true of other Hispanic groups, e.g. Cubans in South Florida.)

I must confess to you, now that you've asked, that I am also prone to waste my time playing these games as if I am that important, neglecting my own important matters. It's madness, I know. But at least I learn something during my research.

I look around me and I see grown men my age yelling at the television during professional sports matches. I see people cheating on their spouses, dressing up like movie characters, ignoring their children, learning to speak Klingon, and reading the New York Times.

I don't regard what I'm doing as a waste of time. It's a hobby. As I was saying at Guy White, I choose to err on the side of too much detail rather than not enough. The results are what you see here.

B Lode said...

It looks like the main difference between your 13-nation plan and my Ten Nation Option is that each of your Nations has a white majority (five of mine do) and I have a highly urban Nation. (One of the things I didn't mention in defense of the latter was the large number of big ports that Megalopolis Nation possesses - it should have no problem importing food from foreign countries.)

But I still don't see how to better run a diverse polity than with confederalism. Are you saying the solution is in making suburban people care about crime-ridden, leftist cities? I simply couldn't tell you how to make anyone care.

It is my understanding that your Commonwealth lacks all soft powers but still has all the hard power. And also, it's function is to actually regulate the Nations.

It's a compact. It has as much law enforcement power as its Congress votes it, provided its judiciary accept the laws as constitutional. And both the legislative and judicial branches are creatures of official elected to National offices.

I assume that human nature will stay largely the same if this constitution is in place, and that the National governments will remain jealous of their power, and use the Commonwealth mainly for things they can't do on their own (i.e., continental defense, chasing software pirates and old-fashioned pirates, controlling air pollution, etc.) Beyond that they will want to keep power local.

B Lode said...

And yes, I have read Fjordman's Beheading Nations. He is always good.

Anonymous said...

Still, while you are right, that people of the Megalopolis would easily be capable to buy food from wherever it comes, maybe a crisis could take away that capability. What I wanted was to warn you that the Megalopolis is extremely "sensitive" as it it designed on your map.

I am aware of that "inconsistency" about whites and Hispanics. But I believe that white Latin Americans can be a vehicle (and are, usually) of European Civilisation. For intance, Cubans in Florida seem to have confirmed this.

This being said, I am also aware of the (so-called) racial statistics of Latin America and Latin Americans in the United States.

I find it hard to believe that although Mexico is 10 to 15% white, a great amount of Mexican immigrants in Americans are white: 45% of Mexican (or is it Latino? Let's bear with Mexicans) Americans claim to be white, that means there are 20 million white Mexicans, 10 million in Mexico and 10 million in the United States.

The problem is, those are the official statistics and I can't ignore them becuse I haven't better data despite these numbers seem "not right".

But again, from what I know of Mexico... I'd say that Mexico is 10% European and 10% almost European, that is, assimilable people who can easily miscegenate and adopt American culture.
So, my view is that one fifth of Mexicans are actually assimilable in relation to the United States.

I also know that Northern Mexico is the whiter part of Mexico, with an average of some 20% of whites. So I believe that one third of Northern Mexico is assimilable. So, those 40% although an exageration are not such a great exageration specially when we consider all the other Latin Americans who immigrate to the United States, and if we consider that white Latin Americans tend to immigrate to the United States in over-represented numbers (more than their percentage in the country of origin). I just believe that there are lots and lots of non visible Camerons Diaz and Christinas Aguilera.

That's why in my book California, Texas, Arizona, New Mexico, and every State in the South East is plus 60% white.

Although I truly believe California will fall below 50% in a very near future.

"... and reading the New York Times."

... Priceless.

Afonso Henriques

Anonymous said...

Yes, what shocked me most in your thinking is the easiness with which you create non white Nations and leave whites, resources, and great - Historical and present - places behind.

In a way, you legitimise the immigrants and "cut" through "true Nations".

The Delta, La Raza Empire, and even the Indian reservation, don't actually need to come into light as Nations, nor do they solve anything.

(Apparantly, they would alow for more ethnically pure Nations. But actually, it would just move Mexico Northwards and create a "black Israel")

Also, the Megapolis seems a bit too strange. It seems like Singapure or something...

"Are you saying the solution is in making suburban people care about crime-ridden, leftist cities?"

Yes. As part of their country. As part of their Nation. As the most important part of their Nation. I believe it was so not long ago.

"Beyond that they will want to keep power local."

My problem is not with the States/Nations. Oh no! My problem is that I feel like the Commonwealth will want to slowly penetrate into the Nations. And will probabily in some ocasion bully some Nation with the support of the others.

I mean, it's ok for Nations to compete. I just distrust Commonwealths and United Nation tyes of complexes.

Afonso Henriques

B Lode said...

Yes, what shocked me most in your thinking is the easiness with which you create non white Nations and leave whites, resources, and great - Historical and present - places behind.

I just don't see any other alternative. La Raza cannot easily be hauled out of the southwest, and they cannot easily be outbred. The only practicable path I see is the possibility of containing them in the southwest.

The US is in many ways a colony of Los Angeles, Washington D.C., and New York City. I don't see any alternatives to erecting a partition between the heartland and those dense, crowded, media-controlling, tax-spending cosmopoles. They don't seem like America to me.

It wasn't easy though. I have thought about this a lot and I'm not happy with this solution. More radical types like Covington may want to give up all but a handful of states, typically Oregon, Washington, Idaho, and Wyoming or something like that. I say that's giving up too much and I have drawn lines to maximize white majorities in five Nations, while reciprocating for the other groups.

If the thesis is that every group needs a homeland, I can't very well just wish away the minorities.

We may have come to the point where we have just agree to disagree. A lot of features of the plan that seem so key to me simply may not impress other thinkers. All legislative votes in the Assembly are by secret ballot - Trustees are selected at random from National legislators - there is no overall head of the Commonwealth executive - those are crucial to me. What at the incentives for the Commonwealth government as I've structured it to encroach on National power? I see none.

But this is an odd post to be having that debate on.

Anonymous said...

"If the thesis is that every group needs a homeland, I can't very well just wish away the minorities."

The problem is actually very similar to that of Kosovo.
With it America signaled that every fricking one can come to a place, and make that place their home. And if we fight back, if we refuse, we'll be bombed to complience.

So to me, the thesis is that every group that *deserves* a homeland, which has *earned* a homeland, does in fact have a right to it.

I understand that California will probabily minority white tomorrow, but as far as I know it is still majority white (yes, counting white Hispanics, but even if you don't, Non Hispanic Americans are a plurality) and whites still rule it and are the "core" of California, being a majority in most of the state, geographically wise. Also, they were the ones who "created" and "earned" the homeland.

To simply offer them what our forefathers built... I mean, it's a gigant Kosovo!

I understand your position, I truly do, but I just think that if we accept those principles (no matter how well intended they are) we will disappear rapidly because there are much more morally/ethically wise that we are accepting also with it.

I don't know enough but my idea is that African-Americans truly diserve their Nation on the Delta. Okay, I can consider it so. But, will it solve the black problem? Will all or the overwhelming majority of blacks move there?
And what about Harlem?
What about Paris?

In the end, we have European Civilisation nowhere.

Afonso Henriques

P.S. - I will stop comment on this thread although I will continue to lay an eye on your blog every now and then, and probabily you'll have some more comments from me on other posts.