It’s one thing to advocate for states’ rights, and it’s another to think it beneficial for most of the Pacific Coast to turn into an enemy enclave.
The Yes California campaign is gearing up to collect signatures to put their California secession initiative on the 2018 ballot. In preparation for that effort and a hoped-for ballot initiative, Yes California supporters opened California’s first embassy in Moscow Dec. 18.
As a supporter of the Anti-Federalist, Jeffersonian, Madisonian, Calhounian, et al. view of federalism — which posits that the States are independent until or unless they voluntarily assign some of their prerogatives to the federal government, and that they can revoke the federal government’s ability to use those powers at each State’s wish — I have no constitutional quarrel with those who wish for Calexit, Texit, or any other secessionist movement at home or abroad.
However, given that California is not simply the sum of its electoral votes and its population demographics, a little more analysis is necessary before pro-white advocates start chomping at the bit for the Golden State to become an independent nation, allegedly permanently realigning the electoral college balance of power.
Not that Democrats couldn’t win the White House without California — because they easily could.
Let’s start by looking at what constitutes California. Yes, it is 55 electoral college votes. It’s many other things as well, some of which would be great to retain in the fold of the American republic, and some of which would be great to be rid of.
Racial composition: 38.8% Hispanic, 38.0% non-Hispanic White, 14.7% Asian, 6.5% Black, 3.8% Two or more races, 1.7% American Indian, 0.5% Hawaiian/Pacific Islander
Religious composition: 32% Protestant, 28% Roman Catholic, 27% No religion, 2% Jewish, 2% Buddhist, 2% Hindu, 1% Muslim, 1% Mormon, 5% Other
Linguistic composition: 57% English spoken at home, 43% Non-English spoken at home (28% Spanish, 3% Chinese, 2% Tagalog, et al.)
Area: 155,779.22 square miles
Coastline: 840 miles
Pro-white advocates of Calexit contend that it would be a win-win, whereby the conservative, white majority of the United States gets a demographic and political boost by jettisoning the leftist, plurality-Hispanic state. Left-wing advocates of Calexit acknowledge the same, stating,
We’re operating on the premise that they would want us to leave. We’re always imposing our ridiculous environmental laws and godless ways on them. This a mutual agreement between all parties. It’s very popular for the heartland of America to wish that California would fall into the ocean. This is us granting them their wish.
While slightly amusing, this response is in the final analysis disingenuous. The intent of Calexit advocates is to establish a left-wing, anti-Christian country. While they give lip service to ideas of local control and respect for conservative Christians who live in California, for as much as heartland Americans may look down on the fruits and nuts who live in Haight-Ashbury and the porn kings who run San Pornando Valley, the demonic demagogues who run the Left Coast hate — HATE — white Americans, their traditions, their morals, their values, their family structure, and especially their existence.
The idea that Calexit would benefit us — the people that Calexit’s main proponents hate — is naive to the extreme.
When did surrendering territory to Marxists ever get us anything good?
And that’s before we even get to the really serious stuff. What kind of military might and allies might an independent, ardently left-wing California bring to bear against its “backwards,” “Neanderthal,” “bigoted,” “racist,” “xenophobic,” “gringo,” “cracker” neighbors to the north and east?
What’s to stop an independent California from becoming the literal beachhead of communist China? Already the Asian population in California is nearly half the size of its white population. Race realists are too wise to assume that all those Asians magically became defenders of the Constitution by virtue of stepping onto our sacred soil. We are not like those who think that foreigners would never do anything to benefit their homelands across the Pacific. While China aggressively buys up real estate and expands its military and political reach around the Western Hemisphere, it would be incredibly unwise to allow a foolish Californian government to become the home to “forward placed” Red Chinese troops.
What would stop the left-wing residents of Washington State and Oregon from following California out of the Union? Those two Pacific Northwest states are even more strongly anti-white and anti-Christian than their neighbors to the south. In 2012, these two states were among only five in which white men preferred Barack Obama to Mitt Romney. Not even California enjoyed that dubious distinction. (The others were Maine, Vermont, and Massachusetts.) Despite the right-wing impulses of those in Oregon and Washington State’s interiors, the literal Marxists in Seattle, Portland, and the I-5 corridor would inevitably follow California out of the federal Union.
Think that’s implausible? The same thing happened in 1861 when one small state, South Carolina, decided to leave the Union. If the most populous state in the Union leaves, its even more left-wing neighbors next door will certainly leave with it, in order to form a Marxist alliance that ensures as much economic and military power as possible.
With whom would this new Pacific coast union seek trade deals and military alliances? Not with the United States. They would have just left the U.S., and they already earnestly despise us Trump Republicans. No, it would be Canada, Mexico, China, Cuba, and other left-wing militaries whom they would invite to join them for combined training exercises on the Pacific coast. What would their training scenarios look like, I wonder? Practice delivering humanitarian aid to starving Haitians? Perhaps. But more likely they would be field exercises and command post exercises oriented around the all-too-easy “liberation” of Nevada, which literally sits within California’s grasp. How about the “liberation” of Arizona, New Mexico, and perhaps even Texas, which is just down I-10 from Los Angeles and San Diego? What about Idaho and Montana, just a stone’s throw from Washington and Oregon across I-90 and I-84?
As farfetched as it may sound to readers at present, a newly-emancipated Left Coast alliance would position itself to strike if and when the opportunity arose. Don’t be blinded by your own rhetoric. Don’t depend on preconceived notions that the only tactics the Left knows how to use are nonviolent protests, hashtag campaigns, and occasional riots. There are too many Californians, and too many progressives, within the ranks of the U.S. military, to assume that the peaceniks in Sacramento would forgo the use of missiles, bombs, and tanks to achieve their goals. The communists in Moscow, Havana, and Beijing never did.
With the departure of America’s Pacific coast ports will go easy access to that ocean and to markets such as Japan, Australia, China, and South Korea. Once again Americans will have to make circuitous journeys to reach the Pacific Ocean for commerce, travel, or military purposes — or else pay a stiff fee to use those ports.
Hawaii would also join the newly-departed Pacific coast union, or else become completely independent. Why shouldn’t the left-leaning, majority-Asian island state do so? Hillary won that state with 62% of the vote Nov. 8, and it has a long history of independence.
If the West Coast goes, what would compel the Northeast to stay? As mentioned earlier, white men in Maine, Vermont, and Massachusetts voted for Obama after four years of reasons not to. While New Hampshire (48% HRC) might be a Northeastern Switzerland, it is highly likely that Connecticut (54% HRC), New York (59% HRC), New Jersey (55% HRC), Maryland (61% HRC), Delaware (53% HRC), and Rhode Island (55% HRC) would follow Massachusetts (61% HRC), Vermont (61% HRC) and Maine (48% HRC) out of the Union. If Northern Virginia and Tidewater voters can exercise enough sway, the Old Dominion (50% HRC) could depart as well. If both Maryland and Virginia left, Washington, D.C. (93% HRC) — as the national capital and cultural icon of what embodies America — would also be lost. The great seal of the United States would pass into the hands of our enemies, a psychologically devastating event akin to Sauron getting Frodo’s ring.
Again, while to conservative ears that might sound like a dream come true (“No more California and New York liberals! No more Beltway bureaucrats!”), the fact is that with those States would go a considerable chunk of the American economy, including access to many of the Atlantic coast’s most important ports – New York, Baltimore, Providence, Boston, Norfolk. Our military security along that portion of the Atlantic coast would erode for the same reasons as the departure of California would. We inhabitants of flyover country would face antagonistic, vindictive foes with tanks and jets pointed at us just across the Pennsylvania-New York border. And given the right conditions, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Illinois, Michigan, Wisconsin, Minnesota, and Iowa could also depart. If the West Coast and Northeast can leave, what’s to stop the Great Lake states from doing the same? Only four years ago they had voted — for the second time — to support Barack Obama. Together, the Great Lake states and Northeast could form a highly antagonistic, fearsome union.
Then there’s Colorado and New Mexico, which have become blue bastions and could be used to divide the Rocky Mountain states from their Plains and Southern brethren. All it would take is a push up I-25 from Denver through the old fields of Wyoming and into Montana. California alone has the population equal to that of all the Western states (from the Mississippi to the Pacific) combined. Seizing that territory would be feasible. Economically strangling that territory would be probable.
Calexit supporters have a great goal in mind: a home for our people. But how would you like to lose half the Atlantic coastline, be cut off from the Pacific coast completely, be potentially cut off from the Great Lakes, with antagonistic foreigners across the Rio Grande, along the Pacific-Mountain time zone line, north of Kentucky and east of the Dakotas? Better yet, with the symbol of legitimacy — Washington, D.C. — in their hands, and plenty of justifications for launching Sherman’s Second March Across Georgia…and Wyoming…and Texas…and Nebraska…and…?
Geopolitically, that is a nightmare waiting to happen.
Could our ethnostate survive in such a condition? Maybe. Perhaps none of these worst-case scenarios would come to pass. Perhaps the liberals would be consumed by their gender-fluid Pulse nightclub empire as it collapsed on itself.
Perhaps the threat of nuclear retaliation could prevent any hot wars between the former members of a disintegrated American republic. But given their possession of Washington, D.C., and the sites of many military bases in the West and Northeast, it’s likely that the liberals would have their own share of nukes as well, thus reducing us all down to conventional weapons and manpower. Just like the 1860s.
Just because people can live on Pop Tarts and Coke doesn’t mean they should. Nor should they assume that they’ll be able to win a fight while living on that diet. The breakup of the Union could lead to an ethnostate surrounded, outgunned, delegitimized, economically and diplomatically starved, and without serious foreign allies. (Do you really think Russia will risk war to save your “fascist,” fundamentalist American ethnostate?)
In the final analysis, I conclude that an independent California (a) would not offer the moral argument pro-white advocates need to succeed in their quest for an ethnostate due to the duplicity of our enemies, (b) would become a more dangerous enemy without than it has been within, and (c) could precipitate a worse geopolitical and economic situation for conservative, white Christians than we currently face.
A more effective solution is to work for long-term change in political and religious public opinion, while preserving our psychological, geographic, military, and economic defenses and extending our gains.