It would be much more realistic if that were so but by his hand *Asians are out and so are **Jews, I think he lumped it as they would rather be with their own kind. (I went back and pulled some quotes)
After living in Lily White Colorado, I headed to University; Columbia U. in Harlem. I was appalled how the Koreans only associated with the Koreans. The Japaneses with the Japanese. The Orthodox Jews only with other Orthodox Jews. The Blacks I met were actually the group most open to associating with others (maybe because we were on their home turf?)
These were the "brightest and best" - the Ivy League, and in New York, one of the most vibrant and diverse places in the world! --and racism and slurs and segregation were far more rampant in New York City than they were in my lily-white hometown. Asian girls would have an Asian boyfriend "just for show" - The cute Jewish girl in the room next door dated a Korean until her parents refused to pay for medical school if she continued to see him. I was told outright by a gang of Indians (the Asian kind) that I must cease and desist my attentions toward a pretty young lady named Ami,currently under "their protection."
I think Butterworth's point is that "being with your own kind" is human nature, and being forced to live together causes the conflict. From what I saw in New York, I have a hard time disagreeing with him. I don't want to believe it, but left to their own devices,
different races self-segregate. My reading is that all blacks are out, all lesbians are out; all persons not white are out. White practicing Christian as he believes it (example: you must tithe and donate to the church) are the only persons allowed in NAR so far except at the black labor camp experiment (what ever that was). The general has a bit of Jim Jones in him. And Butterworth's caricature of all blacks as stupid and lazy along with the juvenile Fat Albert phonetics is stilted to say the least.
I don't get that they are "out" - one of the first episodes is about letting two lesbians in. What I do think is that those not "White Christian", are not going to be allowed to disrupt the "White Christian" culture. Really, if you think about it, Utah is very much that way. In my trips there I have discovered that if you aren't Mormon, they are civil and polite, but not overly friendly. They definitely leave the impression "you don't belong, but if you insist, we will tolerate it, as long as you don't try to change things"- If Colorado had done similar to our California immigrants, maybe we wouldn't be where we are now. Likewise, in my Lily-white hometown, the minorities ( being VERY MUCH a minority) "acted white" and participated in the dominant culture - you had to go to the ghetto to find the "lazy" blacks Butterworth portrayed the camps. I think that is what Butterworth's immigration quote is about - these are people who broke the law, and in so doing, demonstrated an unwillingness to assimilate into,and accept the rules of, the dominant culture. Butterworth was perfectly willing to put White, Rich, Suburban liberals into a camp to teach them a lesson about diversity, so it not like being "white" protected them from the NAR in any way. There is simply a difference between letting a tribe of invading foreigners live in the same place as you (Europe and Islam!) , and welcoming foreigners into your own group because those foreigners WANT to be part of it ( American Immigration using the already established path to citizenship)
Butterworth also specifically said the blacks bused to the camp were from the worse set, clooected in the last weeks, from the Ghetto. They had been pre-filtered to have only the very worst present. He said the black girl who was attacked was relocated to live with a "better class" of blacks, so he acknowledged there was such a thing. He indicated the lesbians would be okay if they just didn't make a spectacle of themselves, and so on. I just don't think Butterworth is portraying a "racially pure" society, but a culturally pure one, based on what he sees as Christian teachings. If such a society were to form, I do not think we would be wrong to assume that it would be predominantly white- especially when it begins in States that are predominantly white to begin with.
His writing is interesting and thought provoking but it is not Christian, not practical and highly improbable.
Its certainly Teotwawki porn, and I am not a "real" Christian by most people's standards, so I don't know if his writing is Christian or not. However I am not sure what is so impractical or improbable about it. Utah has basically been running itself like the NAR for the last 40 years. The First settlers were Puritans ( who ironically decided religious persecution of their own members was cool) and lived in that sort of society a long time. The Amish still do it. Never perfectly. Never justly. They are after all, people. The takeover of Liberal territory is a bit too much of a cake walk, but the premise is that the Liberals cut defense spending and the NAR concentrated on it, - eventually giving them a vast edge over the Old United States. If Obama weren't deliberately intending to Attack Americans you can bet that the police would not be getting tanks, drone research would end, and the Military budget would be cut to less than a 1/5 of what it is now. That is the United States the NAR is fighting. Well meaning pacifist morons, who let the NAR leave the US because they were to weak to force them back in , not Dedicated Marxists hell bent on "transformation"
He's writing himself into a corner assuming that California is going to sit and wallow. There are many very smart, disciplined folks there. When those hot Asians from Stanford, those professionals who contract to the military, and the oil companies gain political control NAR will suffer political and economic backlash.
But they won't - they have already reached the point of economic collapse as we speak. California is already hostile to Oil exploration - to the point where they won't let drilling occur where naturally occurring oil just washes up on the beaches. I went to an Ivy... . I know a whole bunch of people way smarter and more disciplined than me, and they are, almost to a person, die-hard liberals. Intelligence does not beget common sense. They, like most liberals, are happy to vote bullies into office to enforce their will, but they would never lift a finger personally to engage in violence. With no money to pay police or soldiers, you can't wage a war. With no principles to call your own, they is nothing to "fight for" - that is why the left plays identity politics - "War on Women!", "Discrimination against Blacks!", "Class warfare!" - translation: your tribe is being attacked! Because "Pigs get to eat apples in the farmhouse while the rest of you work!" just won't work as a rallying battle cry.
The South has such a large percentage of the "lazy" black, that I don't see anything but a massive race war there if these circumstances came about. I am not writing it off, but there would be a huge period of turmoil before anything resembling civilization emerged.
