On the 15th of September, 1938, UK Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain famously flew across the English Channel (overcoming his fear of flying) for the monumental purpose of meeting Adolf Hitler at the Berghof in order to avert the Sudetenland crisis, and hopefully (yet futilely) avoid plunging Europe into a Second World War. Upon his departure, he gave an impromptu speech to the British press in which he offered his favorite childhood self-motivating pep talk, “If at first you don’t succeed, try, try, try, again.” Chamberlain’s noble gesture of peace toward Hitler, Germany, and the rest of Europe can serve as a model, even if his repeated attempts didn’t achieve the ultimate success he so desperately wanted.
It should be apparent by now that the United States, along with the European satellite nations that follow her lead, is poised to descend into anarchy and widespread bloodshed. What this chaos will look like remains to be seen, but I will suggest a way to resolve this in a fashion that restores the racial dignity of all the aggrieved belligerents and perhaps, just perhaps, might conclude with the elusive dream of “peace in our time.”
I’m going to propose something lofty in this article. Perhaps it is time to negotiate novel, international, as well as intranational, “race treaties” to uphold as binding contracts in the same way that traditional treaties are respected. Before I go further with this idea, allow me to make clear that I am a white nationalist, and my primary concern is the autonomy and well-being of white people. My preference would be Balkanization that allows for the designation of a white homeland. However, in lieu of this, I do have ideas for coexisting, as an alternate resolution, that I will outline here.
The most egregious affront to racial harmony committed by liberalism in the 20th century was the criminalization of free association, consecrated by the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Forcing whites and blacks to occupy the same space has proven disastrous for race relations. Time and time again, when community demographics are engineered to integrate blacks into white neighborhoods, the whites flee and leave them to rot.
Conversely, whites are not welcome to move into black neighborhoods, and no effort is made to incentivize whites to do so. In fact, blacks and their white sycophants decry it as “gentrification” and believe it to be yet another flavor of “white supremacism” when whites reclaim urban areas. No race-based treaty would even be thinkable unless it addresses this nonsense. Therefore, I propose a “Diversity Tax” that would allow for peacefully segregated communities and businesses, while also allowing for diverse communities and businesses to coexist in multiple, parallel, amicable societies, all without having to enforce diversity at the end of a gun barrel.
Let’s look at the economics, the business end of things, to consider how this would work in a practical sense. Today, there is no social stigma to minorities advertising their companies or small businesses as “black”-owned, “Latino”-owned, etc. We all know that the same is not true about whites. In fact, if a white-owned business doesn’t explicitly advertise itself as embracing “diversity,” it is subject to harassment from the mob.
How about legally embracing everyone’s right to free association by allowing whites to advertise their business how they see fit, and to hire as they see fit, and if that means discriminatory hiring and advertising practices, then subject them, as well as minorities who do the same, to my proposed “Diversity Tax.” One can envision a 3% sales tax added to every transaction, with the proceeds going to fund diversity initiatives and improving diverse schools and communities.
The goal of a just society should unfailingly be to provide its citizens with maximum opportunities for happiness and healthiness, while stewarding itself for subsequent generations to enjoy the same. “Ours and our posterity,” as it were. If multiculturalism is to exist going forward, can there be no better way to legitimize it than allowing diverse businesses to compete, openly and honestly, with parallel race-preferentialized businesses, to even allow for parasitic taxation to help diversity flourish, and to watch the grand experiment unfold while honoring the free choice of the people?
Similar property taxes could be formulated and imposed upon self-segregated black, white, and other minority neighborhoods, communities, and cities, with diverse communities reaping the benefits of the parasitic taxes while enjoying lower taxes themselves.
If diversity is truly a strength, and the natural condition of humanity that should be strived for, then the parallel race-preferentialized societies would wither and become so anemic as to be unsustainable. Wouldn’t everyone, black, white, Latino, Asian, or “other,” be instinctively drawn to the economic benefits of the low-tax diverse communities?
Some might counter that the black and minority-only communities would be at an economic disadvantage from the start due to the “lingering artifacts of systemic racism.” Therefore, I’ll even offer up an extra 2% tax imposed on the white-only businesses and communities, with 1% divvied up and awarded to the black and minority-only businesses and communities and the other 1% awarded to the diverse businesses and communities. This would ensure that whites not only bear the greatest cost of having our own communities, but we also bear the greatest burden toward maintaining the glorious utopia of diversity.
Here’s a thought experiment. How would these treaties, taxations, and the resultant new societies formed by them pan out? Spoiler alert; not as intended.
If you haven’t yet figured this out, my libertarian-esque “race treaty” proposal has not been articulated totally in good faith. I’ve done a bit of sleight of hand here to prove a point. I’ve offered this up to expose the folly of the system we currently are watching deteriorate.
In my imaginary timeline, black and minority-owned and operated businesses would not thrive except on the smallest of scales. All but the rarest black companies employing more than 100 people, without the benefit of white infrastructure and management, would fail. This might not be the case with some Asian companies, for instance, but we all understand that the purpose of our current complex diversity initiatives has little-to-nothing to do with propping up any other minority other than blacks.
No, what would ultimately happen would be the exact thing that happens now. The talented blacks would leave their all-black communities and businesses behind, and choose to live and work in the diverse communities with lower taxes and the advantage of white, Asian, and Latino industriousness. This would leave the lowest IQ and poorest blacks behind in unimaginably dysfunctional ghettos, worse than they have now.
Whites would stratify by class, leaving poorer and working-class whites who can’t muster the money to pay the 5% overall diversity tax (in order to live in all-white areas) having to accept life among the “diverse.” Only upper-middle and wealthy whites would be able to manage the cost of racial exclusivity, and to be certain, they absolutely would, as they already more-or-less do under a less open and honest system.
Even still, I’ve not been totally disingenuous with my bait-and-switch here. I do believe that “peace in our time” can be achieved, but it must be done with honesty and openness. We all must accept that equal outcomes can never be engineered without injustices inflicted upon whites. Even with the best of intentions, in the spirit of Neville Chamberlain’s ham-fisted “try, try, try, again” philosophy, no fair and equitable society can exist under multiculturalism. The fictitious treaty scenario that I proposed here is certainly doable, but it’s only worthwhile if the outcomes are accepted and the brutal honesty of it all is honored above the naive and idealistic notions of egalitarianism.
There’s another wise old saying that goes something like, “the definition of insanity is doing the same things over and over again and expecting a different result.” Chamberlain’s “try, try, try, again” philosophy might have sounded noble, but today, just as then, it’s a fool’s errand to try to mend gushing, open wounds with bandaids or to prop a broken system with unsustainable solutions. I’d support a “race treaty” and a “diversity tax,” only if its outcomes are accepted unconditionally, once and for all. The bitter truth is, however, that the only practical way forward is through racial divorce and Balkanization, and it is to that end we must strive.
Racial autonomy is one of the purest of fundamental human rights. “Peace in our time” will never be achieved as long as we keep ham-fisting diversity with “try, try, try, again.”
If you want to support our work, please send us a donation by going to our Entropy page and selecting “send paid chat.” Entropy allows you to donate any amount from $3 and up. All comments will be read and discussed in the next episode of Counter-Currents Radio, which airs every Friday.
Don’t forget to sign up for the twice-monthly email Counter-Currents Newsletter for exclusive content, offers, and news.
Diversity: Our Greatest Strength?
Every Nation Is Perfect by Its Own Standards
The Counter-Currents 2023 Fundraiser: Support the Movement of Truth!
American Renaissance 2023: Reasons for Optimism
Nueva Derecha vs. Vieja Derecha Capítulo 5: Reflextiones Sobre El Concepto de lo Político de Carl Schmitt
Richard Hanania and the Limits of Race Realism
Thoughts on an Unfortunate Convergence: Doctors, Lawyers, and Angry Women
Against Liberalism: Society Is Not a Market, Chapter I, Part 3: What Is Liberalism?