[Charles] Blow is wrong about one thing: there is no "nation divided against itself", because as I've previously noted, there are not merely two separate nations, there are four. There are the Reds of progressive, secular America, there are the Whites of traditional religious America, there are the Browns of third world America, and there are the Blacks of feral America. They may broadly follow the racial demographics, but the lines are not hard; for example, Charles Blow is a black man who is clearly Red, rather than Black, just as David Brooks is Red, not White.

Given how people have expressed considerable doubt concerning my negative outlook on the continued union of these four Americas, it should be interesting to see how they respond to a black, left-wing New York Times columnist who has, despite our very different perspectives, reached similar conclusions. Note, in particular, that damning admission: "because of dramatic... demographic changes".

The fruits of diversity are bloodshed and war. They always have been. Populations of sufficiently differing time preferences simply cannot live together for long. And the only successful way to keep those fruits from ripening has is a powerful militaristic state willing and able to commit atrocities in order to keep the otherwise warring parties in line. Consider, for example, the difference between segregation as it was practiced in the pre-1960s USA and the way it was practiced in the USSR and China. Or the way it is presently practiced in Africa with the various tribes vying for power in the national government.

It won't surprise me if those who oppose deportations now and are horrified by the WWII Japanese internment live long enought to one day find themselves supporting a Red American government that is engaged in internal deportations of Hispanics to its Aztlan Autonomous Oblast.