THE PURITANS’ NETWORK
Proposed Plan for Peaceful Partition - In Outline Form by J. Parnell McCarter
I have been asked to elaborate upon what I am
advising as a path for the USA and its constituents out of our current societal
morass and consistent with the principles I advocate at http://www.puritans.net/homelands/. That website already has such a plan, but
let me elaborate upon it in outline form in this article. It should be kept in mind that the
alternative scenario that may await the USA should peaceful partition not be
pursued, may well look like what is described in Thomas Chittum’s
book Civil War II: The Coming
Breakup of America (see http://en.metapedia.org/wiki/Civil_War_II:_The_Coming_Breakup_of_America).
But even if the USA does pursue a course
of civil war, in the end such war must be resolved, and I hope that my plan
might offer some guidance of how it may be resolved by the then warring
Thus, I would propose the following plan for
would advise that the representatives of the current US federal government
declare all foreign US territories (like Puerto Rico and Guam), along with
all Indian Reservations in the USA, to be free and independent sovereign
nations, with their variety of welfare and other US federal government
subsidies to be phased out.
would advise that the representatives of the current US federal government
dissolve the current multicultural nation of the USA, with its flawed
secularist constitution, and to partition it into 3 main Christian ethnic
homeland nations (along with various smaller nations):
current Republican and Democratic parties have done us the favor of
already gerrymandering the US House districts by racial people. Those US House districts whose
representatives are members of the Congressional Black Caucus (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Congressional_Black_Caucus),
with a few possible exceptions, could form the newly formed Confederation
of African American States. Those
US House districts whose representatives are members of the Congressional
Hispanic Caucus (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Congressional_Hispanic_Caucus),
with a few possible exceptions, could form the newly formed Confederation
of Hispanic American States. Most
of the rest (with certain exceptions to be briefly described later) of the
nation could form the Confederation of Anglo American States. The First Congress of each of these
newly formed Confederations could consist of the currently elected members
of the US House of Representatives, from which they each could elect a
Prime Minister and in due time each could write and adopt its own
constitution. I would urge that the
constitution of all 3 be explicitly Christian and as Biblical as
possible. Ideally they would
reference the Westminster Standards as outlining the principal doctrines
of the Bible.
three Confederations could write and adopt a Treaty, binding upon all
three, allowing for tariff-free commerce and free transportation among
each other, so as not unduly to impede commercial enterprise and friendly
relations among each other. The
Treaty could also spell out that the former US federal government debt be
absorbed by the 3 Confederations proportionate to the wealth of each of
the 3 newly formed Confederations.
The Treaty could also provide a provision allowing a window of time
of all US citizens at the time of dissolution of the US federal government
to voluntarily and without any coercion relocate their residence and
citizenship into another Confederation, for those who so chose to. The Treaty could also spell out the
procedures for further peaceful partitions from the three existing
confederations, should future conditions warrant such. Finally, the
Treaty could guarantee that within each Confederation there would be no
differentiation of civil or voting rights on the basis of race or
ethnicity among the citizens of each, according to Biblical norms of
justice. This would help to ensure
no one would be treated unjustly as defined by scriptural standards simply
on the basis of race and ethnicity within any of the three main
would advise that the capital of the newly formed Confederation of Anglo
American States be established in Grand
and that said civil government look principally to church officers from
the Free Presbyterian Church of Scotland and Netherlands Reformed
Congregations for advice on how to form their government, laws, and
constitution according to Biblical principles. Consequently, I would recommend that the
Free Presbyterian Church of Scotland re-locate at least one of its
ministers most capable for such a task to Grand Rapids, Michigan. The location of a national capital is of
no small importance in framing the religious direction of a nation. (The Roman Catholics knew this, which is
why they shrewdly made sure the capital of the US
federal government was located in a parcel of Maryland
not far from their newly established Jesuit college,
now known as Georgetown
would advise that the newly formed Confederation of Anglo American States
adopt English as its official language and Protestant Christianity as its
official religion, covenanting to serve the Lord Jesus Christ according to
Biblical principles. In addition, I
would advise that it declare itself constitutionally and by law a homeland
for Anglo Americans. By 'Anglo
American' (or sometimes abbreviated simply “Anglo”) I mean a Caucasian
inhabitant of the USA of non-Latin extraction whose primary language is
English and generally whose religion is Protestant Christian. While there would be minority citizens
not fitting this definition of 'Anglo American' in the Confederation, they
would agree to live peaceably and without bitterness in the Anglo
homeland. An endless stream of
whining and complaining at "white majority rule", or even worse
rioting, would not be tolerated, but incessant whiners and complainers
would be relieved from their misery by being shown the door so they could
move to their own ethnic people's homeland. If there is a whole community
of such incessant whiners and complainers, or even rioters, then a remedy
should be considered of simply partitioning said community off from Anglo
would advise at its inception that the Confederation of Anglo American
States provide a 6-month window for all illegal immigrants to vacate
Confederation territory or else face complete property confiscation and
forcible deportation to their own home country. I would advise going forward strict
enforcement of immigration law and discontinuation of allowing children of
foreigners to become citizens simply because they were born in the
nation. I would advise that
immigration policy of the newly formed Confederation of Anglo American
States be based primarily upon jus sanguinis
but with various and sundry exceptions.
Provision should certainly be made to accept refugees of any race
or ethnicity fleeing persecution for being Protestant Christian. Furthermore, assimilation into the
Anglo population would be emphasized, and multiculturalism would be denounced,
within the Confederation.
Anti-miscegenation laws should be regarded as an impediment to assimilation
of the citizens of the Confederation into one ethnic people over time.
would advise that all affirmative action programs be declared illegal in
the newly formed Confederation of Anglo American States.
would advise that the
newly formed Confederation of Anglo American States
partition off certain miscellaneous ethnic enclaves within the
Confederation, as seemed wise, practical and just. For instance, this could include certain
Jewish American enclaves such as Kiryas
Joel, New York and certain
Arab American enclaves such as Dearborn,
Michigan. Such would be autonomous or
semiautonomous states, but with close ties and cooperation with the Confederation
of Anglo American States.
a gesture of kindness to the Confederation of African American States and
to the Confederation of Hispanic American States, I would advise that the
Confederation of Anglo American States voluntarily pay off all of the US federal
government debt which had been allocated to the former two. But the former two should be made to
understand that going forward they would be expected to stand on their own
two feet and in no way live on the dole of the Confederation of Anglo American
States, for the good of all parties concerned.
would advise that the
newly formed Confederation of Anglo American States avoid a
centralized model with a large bureaucracy in the national capital, but
instead embrace a decentralized model, more along the lines of the Old
Swiss Confederacy. This is
important due to the widely varying cultural and political philosophies
within the Confederation, such as seen in the difference between the
Northeast and the South of the current USA. This will allow each of the constituent
states to form a style of government consistent with the cultural and
political philosophy of that state, and hence remove unnecessary tension
as each state jockeys to impose on all what it wants for itself.
would advise that in the Confederation of Anglo American States issuance
or sale of title to personal and real property, as well as securities in
equity or debt instruments, be prohibited to foreign parties. A grace period of several years could be
allowed for current foreign holders to sell any current holdings.
would advise that the currency of the Confederation of Anglo American
States be denominated only in gold and silver. Electronic money transfers would still
be permissible, so long as fully backed by gold and/or silver. I would also advise that
fractional-reserve banking be prohibited, and current banks be allowed a
grace period to convert to a form not based in fractional-reserve
banking. The entire Federal Reserve
System would be dissolved.
of Anglo American States (“Anglo America”)
of African American States (“African America”)
of Hispanic American States (“Hispanic America”)
Objection #1: You are recommending a form of
Response: In the article at http://www.puritans.net/articles/apartheid.htm,
I have sought to explain why what I advocate is not a form of apartheid. Indeed, I would argue the current US empire is closer to a form of apartheid, with many Native
Americans and African Americans relegated to impoverished Indian Reservations
and black ghettos, that are effectively under white control. Studies show that the current US system
actually leads such peoples to be worse off than if they were to have national
independence. For instance, consider the
study documented in the article at http://www.vocativ.com/culture/society/baltimore-poverty/: “The researchers found many similarities—in
all five cities, adolescents were exposed to unsanitary conditions, substance
abuse and violence—but the differences between each area were especially
compelling. Overall, teenagers in Baltimore and Johannesburg, despite
being located in comparably wealthy countries, had far worse health outcomes
and tended to perceive their communities more negatively.”
In contrast, what I am recommending recognizes the
moral propriety of national aspirations of each people, irrespective of race or
ethnicity. What is fundamentally
different between Nigerians having sought national independence from the
British Empire and African Americans (like Chokwe
Lumumba) who seek national independence for African Americans from the US empire?
Objection #2: Your plan has been tried and failed
for African Americans in places like Detroit.
plan has not been tried in the USA. Here is why:
1. Most importantly, so long as African American
communities are part of the USA,
they will be under the thumb of a secularist regime that does not allow them to
Christianity as the official national religion for governance. Official Protestant
Biblical Christianity, including in their schools, is of utmost importance to
get out of their current quagmire. The Biblical gospel needs to infuse their
social life, unlike the current situation.
Also, so long as African American communities are part of the USA, they will be dependent on the US welfare
system, instead of being forced to stand on their own two feet. The US welfare
system is terrible for keeping people in a sort of prison of immorality and
irresponsibility. It is an analogous to parents who refuse to let their
children leave the house, even as they grow older, but instead try to keep them
home and in diapers.
Also, so long as African American communities are part of the USA, they will be subject to the US justice and
prison system, which relegates many of their males to years in prison. It is a
horrible way to deal with crime.
Objection #3: Your plan is racist.
Response: Let's be clear what the term
"racist" has come to mean in modern America- a racist is anyone who
does not support any of the following according to its now common use:
multiculturalism, open borders, affirmative action, Dr. Martin Luther King as
hero, rap music, hip hop music, or the like. I could add to that anyone who
agrees with ethnic homeland nations (including for peoples not only primarily
descended from Ham and Shem, but also from Japheth). So
in discussing whether "racism" is Biblical or not, we should consider
and discuss it in the way the term is being used by most people in modern America, especially those currently with worldly
power in America.
The term is *not* being used simply to mean those who hate people of other
races, or those who believe people of other races should be treated unfairly.)
Given its thorough corruption, use of the
term "racism" to evaluate people is a badge of paganism and should be
regarded as such by all Biblical Christians. So whenever one hears a professing
Christian use the term in this way simply remind them to correct their language
or else you will have to regard them as having embraced to some degree a
worldly philosophy alien to Biblical Christianity. This way over time we can
shame the use of this term out of existence, at least among professing
Christians. We'll let pagans keep using it as long as they like, and it will
even help us identify them more readily.
Objection #4: Your plan is kinist.
have explained in depth at http://www.puritans.net/homelands/
why neither I nor my plan are kinist. This assertion is simply a slanderous
Objection #5: Your plan is unjust.
think there is good reason to believe that Christian ethnic homeland nations
are our eschatological destiny, based upon scriptural testimony. Old Testament Israel in its moral aspects is and
will be the model for all nations of the world.
What God has called clean, we ought not to call unclean. Furthermore, it should be noticed that this plan
eschews all ethnic cleansing, and it includes provisions to ensure "no differentiation
of civil or voting rights on the basis of race or ethnicity among the citizens
Objection #6: Your plan will not help to address
There is significant historical evidence that it would help. Let's consider one specific modern
example. Singapore is effectively an independent
ethnic homeland nation for Chinese on the Malay peninsula
region, whereas Malaysia is
an independent ethnic homeland nation for Malays on the Malay
peninsula region. For awhile they were one nation, but they broke
up into these 2 ethnic homeland nations. Nevertheless, there are many ethnic
Malays in Singapore and many
ethnic Chinese in Malaysia.
An ethnic homeland nation is not ethnically pure. What precipitated this national division?
Because in Malaysia the majority of Malays want "affirmative action"
programs for themselves, which effectively discriminate against ethnic Chinese
there. Those ethnic Chinese on the Malay peninsula
region who do not want to live in a nation with such "affirmative
action" programs against them, can instead live in Singapore, where ethnic Chinese
make up the ruling majority.
true in the case of the Malay peninsula also has
proved true in far flung locations, including the former Czechoslovakia, USSR,
etc. Division into ethnic homeland
nations brought a modicum of peace, whereas there otherwise would have been
Objection #7: This plan impedes free markets and
free human migrations.
Bible does not approve or guarantee absolutely free markets and free human
migrations. It recognizes the right of
nations to establish hedges and engage in lawful wars to protect from movements
and invasions of other peoples, so that a people can pass down their homeland
from generation to generation.
Each people naturally forms
an attachment to the homeland God has providentially provided to them. Consider the attachment of the Japanese
people to Japan, the Egyptian people to Egypt, and the Armenian people to
Armenia. Their cultural history is bound
to their geographical setting, such as Mount Fuji for the Japanese, the Nile
River for the Egyptians, and Mount Ararat for the Armenians. Displacement from these geographical settings
in the name of free markets and free human migrations is cruel. An ethnic people is
not Biblically obliged to forfeit their control of a given territory in the
name of free markets and free human migrations.
The various peoples that inhabit the modern USA are no different.