Tag Archives: segregation

Segregation is the answer to racism

I pointed out earlier that segregation is a necessary and moral response to xenophobic populism in Europe. Now that more is clear about the motives of the Charleston shooter Dylann Roof, we can see clear parallels with ‘racist’ attitudes in Europe.

‘Racist’ is in quotes, because it is a disputed and confusing term. Dylann Roof is a racist in the classic sense: he believes that Africans are inherently inferior.

Negroes have lower Iqs, lower impulse control, and higher testosterone levels in generals. These three things alone are a recipe for violent behavior.
Last Rhodesian

The right-wing ‘Council of Conservative Citizens’, which influenced Roof, also promotes classic racist theories, accompanied by the claim of imminent threat. Roof allegedly said to his victims “You rape our women”. Anders Behring Breivik said the same in more detail: over 100 pages of his manifesto talk of immigrant / Muslim rape. Strictly speaking, however, hostility to Muslims is not ‘racism’, because Islam is not a race. And Breivik choose to attack the government and ‘the left’ – rather than a mosque, an Islamic school, or a place where immigrants gather. There are similarities and differences, and ‘racism’ as an umbrella term is insufficient at best.

The mainstream responses to violent incidents of this kind are also similar, in Europe and the United States – calls for social unity, tolerance, and the defeat or elimination of racism. It is time to move on from this approach, which clearly does not work.

Whatever the appropriate terminology, it is clear that some individuals hold negative and hostile attitudes, to groups within the population. One platitude which surfaced in the wake of the Charleston shootings is that “no-one is born a racist”. Now quite probably most ‘racists’ are indeed born that way, with innate hostility to people outside their own group. Biological explanations for xenophobia are also disputed. However it does not really matter, in terms of public and state response to violent incidents targeting minorities.

The important thing is that neither the government nor civil society can ‘unmake racism’. There is no tolerance pill, which can cure an individual’s negative and hostile attitudes to specific groups. Anders Breivik and Dylann Roof are here to stay. So is hostility to specific minorities, and aggressive expression of that hostility. So are the fanboys: some people will continue to admire Breivik and Roof, and to see their actions as justified.

We can not make people be nice to each other. Despite all its surveillance powers, the United States government can’t stop them killing each other either. Nor can European governments, even though the killing may be less frequent, and take a different form.

People hate other people. People want to kill other people. They say so openly. Social media made it possible for each individual to broadcast their attitudes to the world, and the result was a flood of hate and death threats.

What the state can do, is keep them apart. Paradoxically, the fact that individuals hate groups more than other single individuals, makes it easier to separate them. If a white person hates blacks, the state can keep that person away from blacks. If a Christian hates gays, the state can keep that person away from gays. If a feminist hates men, the state can keep her away from men. And it works both ways: if a gay man hates homophobes, the state can keep that person away from homophobes.

Widespread segregation is not a panacea. Some racist and/or xenophobic individuals will reject it on grounds of scale, as Dylann Roof rejected the idea of a white nationalist homeland in the United States:

Here I would also like to touch on the idea of a Norhtwest Front. I think this idea is beyond stupid. Why should I for example, give up the beauty and history of my state to go to the Norhthwest?
Last Rhodesian

More to the point, the political elite and the media abhor the idea of segregation, in both Europe and the United States. For legal reasons, I can not make any policy proposals here for the United States, and I don’t want to. The United States must solve its own problems, and preferably also the problems it brings to the rest of the world. This blog is about what happens in Europe, and any state policy advocated here is intended for, at most, the territory of the European Union.

However, I see in American reactions to the Charleston shootings, a mirror of Europe’s own inability to confront the issue of hatred and hostility. I see platitude after platitude, but a general unwillingness to analyse society and politics. I see millions of reactions, but apparently none of them innovative. Everyone says roughly what you would expect them to say, and they will say it again, after the next racially motivated mass shooting. Americans are walking in circles around the elephant in the room, and in that they are just like Europeans.

Separate public transport for women

Women in western countries often complain about sexual harassment on public transport. In Britain there is a website and a Twitter account which collect women’s experiences of ‘everyday sexism’: harassment on public transport is a prominent theme.


Generalised feminist anger at men’s behaviour is however inappropriate. There is simple answer to the problem, it has been tested in practice, and it works: gender segregation on public transport. It usually means separate carriages for women on urban metro systems. These trains are composed of multiple carriages (‘cars’ in US usage), so that a specific carriage can be reserved for women. Some buses are also segregated, meaning that one section of a single vehicle is reserved for women. A single vehicle can be reserved for women, at present only in the form of women-only taxis.

Gender-segregated public transport is a good example of how to create a parallel society for women, suggested here earlier as a state response to feminism.

The public transport system in a large European city typically includes a metro, a regional metro or commuter rail lines, bus services, and night bus services. Metro and commuter trains can certainly include a separate women-only section: no technical modifications are required. On some stations, it may be possible to allocate a separate waiting area on the platform, so that women could directly access the women-only section of the train. Separate station access would only be possible in rare cases. Underground stations must keep all passageways open for emergencies, so separate women’s entry/exit is impossible there.

Modern city buses are designed to open all doors at stops, for quick entrance and exit. Usually, the only possible segregated area is at the rear, without a separate door. An alternative to segregating each bus, is separate women-only buses on high-frequency routes. For instance, every alternate bus could be women-only: that might apply only at peak times. Again no technical modifications are needed, just an indication of which bus is for women.

Women-only buses are certainly the solution for night bus routes, which probably carry the highest risk of harassment. Frequencies are typically low, so the segregated buses would run just after each other. That double provision would need to be subsidised.

Intercity trains are be more difficult to partition: the number of doors is limited, and passengers may need to walk along the train. However, for reasons that are worth investigating, women don’t seem to report harassment on long-distance trains. (In some countries they are much more expensive than other trains, and therefore socially segregated already).

In some city centres it may be possible to segregate pedestrian access to public transport. That could be done with short sections of women-only street, and in some areas perhaps a few women-only bus stops. Pavements can in theory be segregated, with a longitudinal women-only strip, about 4 metres wide. Obviously, this kind of provision is not possible in narrow streets.

Women-only taxis, on the other hand, require no specific investment, infrastructure, or technical changes. It is merely a question of organising them, with perhaps a limited initial subsidy. After that, the economics are the same as that of any other taxi. In some countries, women-only taxis and buses, and separate space on trains, might conflict with anti-discrimination laws, which need amending.

Gender segregation in public transport is a good example of how segregation works in a positive way, and benefits the weak. It can serve as a model for other forms of segregation in public transport, and for other forms of women-only facilities in traditionally mixed services. Obviously women need many more separate facilities, to enable then to avoid men entirely, but that is no reason to avoid limited-scale innovations.

Segregation is a necessary and moral response to xenophobic populism in Europe

The rise of the ‘populist’ parties in western Europe is a significant shift, in the generally stable system of political parties. It is not the populism itself that is new, it is that an unrepresented section of the population has acquired a political voice. The new European ‘populist’ parties and movements are anti-immigration, anti-Islam, anti-EU, and culturally nationalist. They include parties such as Geert Wilders’ PVV in the Netherlands, the Front National in France, the UKIP in Britain, Vlaams Belang in Flanders, and some ‘street movements’ such as the EDL in Britain and Golden Dawn in Greece.

These parties can not be explained by the political process itself, or by economic circumstances. They exist because a section of the population is nationalist, eurosceptic and xenophobic. The parties are a symptom, not a cause. Xenophobia itself is autonomous, and not responsive to political process or government policy. It is probably genetic in origin, and it can be explained in terms of evolutionary biology. The underlying problem is that a section of the population is biologically incapable of living in a multi-ethnic society. When that is imposed on them, they become frustrated and angry.

The new ‘populist’ parties express that anger and frustration, but cannot remove its cause. Instead they distort the political process, causing established parties to make endless concessions to the xenophobic voters. The concessions are never enough, and that causes more frustration: it is a vicious circle.

What do these voters want? Essentially, a mono-ethnic and mono-cultural nation-state. Geert Wilders’ supporters in the Netherlands want to live in Dutch neighbourhoods, inhabited by Dutch people, where Dutch is spoken on the street, and where Dutch police officers keep order. They want Dutch schools with Dutch teachers, where Dutch children learn Dutch culture and history. They want Dutch shops with Dutch staff, Dutch hospitals with Dutch doctors and nurses, and they want to work with Dutch colleagues, for Dutch employers.

Similarly, typical UKIP supporters in the United Kingdom want to live in British neighbourhoods, inhabited by British people, where English is spoken on the street, and where British police officers keep order. They want British schools with British teachers, where British children learn British culture and history. They want British shops with British staff, British hospitals with British doctors and nurses, and they want to work with British colleagues, for British employers.

From these aspirations, the policy follows logically. Society must be structured, so that they can live with each other as much as possible, free from the foreign elements which distress them, and contradict their aspirations. That requires a historically unique form of separation. The details would differ from country to country: the Netherlands, for instance, has a historical model of separated communities, the verzuiling or pillarisation.

Those who do not want to live separately from foreigners, would simply not choose to do so. That is an obvious difference with historical segregation in the United States or South Africa: they had no multi-ethnic option.

Segregation has a bad name, and it would contravene national anti-discrimination laws, which are derived from international treaties. Those laws must therefore be repealed. The greatest obstacle to the introduction of segregation is however, the integrative nationalism of the elites in western Europe. Their goal is a homogenous population, a traditional nationalist ideal: they respond to migration by demanding the assimilation of migrants. Segregation would be an admission of failure for them, and indeed a failure of the nation-state itself.

Segregation begins with recognition of the xenophobic and nationalist segment of the population as a distinct group. They must get a specific name – not ‘xenophobe’ because it is too negative, perhaps ‘national-patriotic’. The ‘national-patriotic’ population must get their own education system, from primary school to university. They must get their own healthcare system, with their own separate hospitals. Public broadcasting must be broken up, and a separate national-patriotic media sector created.

These national-patriotic facilities must be legally empowered to refuse access to foreigners, otherwise it would be pointless. In effect they will be white schools, white universities, and white hospitals, even if they do not carry that label. ‘White’ in this case means the indigenous ethnic majority in each nation-state, not the whole white race. The UKIP hospital and the PVV hospital would employ no Polish staff and treat no Poles, even though Poles are white.

Equally the rest of the population, and their institutions, would be empowered to refuse access to national-patriotic individuals. The segregation must be consistent: parents who send their children to a national-patriotic school, must themselves use the national-patriotic health service.

In the private sector, any business could register as ‘national-patriotic’, and would then be empowered to refuse employment to foreigners and minorities. That status would be public, and the entrepreneur must accept any resulting loss of business. Other businesses would be entitled to register as multi-ethnic, and refuse employment to national-patriotic individuals. That status too would be public. The result will be a gradual segregation of the economy, with the emergence of a separate ‘white sector’.

These policies would encourage the formation of a parallel society – allowing the national-patriotic segment to gradually isolate itself from the rest of the population. That is not a morally abhorrent proposal: it is similar to the earlier suggestion of a parallel society for women, as a state response to feminism.

A parallel society would be insufficient without residential segregation. White flight must be recognised, legalised, and facilitated. National-patriotic residents should be allowed to select their neighbours by ethnic origin and culture. There would be a certain threshold – for instance, that the majority of residents in a neighbourhood or housing development are already national-patriotic. On designation of a neighbourhood as national-patriotic, migrants and ethnic minorities would be rehoused, and their homes allocated to national-patriots. As immigrants leave, the signs of their presence (mosques, for instance, or ethnic shops) will also disappear.

Equally, residents of other neighbourhoods and housing developments will be allowed to refuse residence to the national-patriotic population. That could be enforced by demanding prior consent to a multi-ethnic neighbourhood, or by checking whether residents used national-patriotic health care or education.

The result will be an accelerated internal migration along political and ethnic lines, and reinforcement of existing ethnic segregation in housing. That is not in itself the goal of the policy: the point is what happens inside the national-patriotic areas. The pre-immigration ‘white community’ will be restored, at least at local level, and that is the aspiration of the xenophobic segment of the population. After segregation, the blacks are gone, the Asians are gone, the North Africans are gone, the Turks are gone, the Muslims are gone, the mosques are gone, and everyone speaks the national language again.

If the neighbourhood level is insufficient to restore a pre-immigration national community, then the scale of segregation should be enlarged, to municipality and borough level, and if necessary to regions. In turn that will create the conditions for further institutional separation: a national-patriotic police, separate national-patriotic courts, and national-patriotic laws. It will facilitate the transition to a separate national-patriotic economy in these areas, where national-patriotic firms do business with each other, and supply goods and services to national-patriotic customers. Again, this is very similar to the earlier suggestion of a complete parallel society for women.

I know that many people will dislike the idea of segregation and parallel societies. The international community would be enraged. What is the alternative, however? A frustrated, bitter, angry, and increasingly radicalised minority inside the indigenous population, that cannot be placated by any political stance of the elite. And then: more Breiviks, random killings of immigrants (as in Germany), bomb attacks on mosques, a competition in migrant-bashing between the main political parties, and ultimately some form of pogrom or forced repatriation. That is the logical end point of current trends: segregation is a better alternative.