You Go, The State Stays

We’re pleased to host another guest contribution from commenter DN Poolside. Be sure to give him the business in the combox.

There’s a land that was once proud and rich. It’s still rich, but only on the margins. This land has vast natural resources, but it has flirted with the frontier border between socialism and communism. This land is a basket case.

This land is actually lots of different lands. It’s California today, it’s Brazil in fits and starts, and it’s Venezuela tomorrow. The delusion of its people is such that an increasing number of them are enticed by the secessionist movement captured by the community college level marketing slogan “YesCalifornia.” One word; not even a lousy Jeb!esque exclamation point.

The decisions of maniacs are often left in the hands of the sane. We’re not quite at that point, but since we’re all so uplifted from our recent winning, it might help our mental balance to contemplate some of the difficult decisions ahead for us if YesCalifornia gets rebranded and Spanglished to SiCalifornia! and really starts picking up momentum.

First, some of the particulars. The initiative is now on track to be on the 2018 ballot. There are 7,000 volunteers working to get 585,407 signatures by July 25, 2017. If (when) they do that, they’ll be on the ballot. The ballot question will be to determine if there should be a special election in 2019, the purpose of which would be to put the wheels in motion to secede. The good news here in the languid pace is that nothing can likely be completed before 2020, and we’ll all be able to enjoy the prospect of California having another temper tantrum as a state, not an independent country, when president Trump is re-elected.

Among the vanguard of this movement is one Marcus Ruiz Evans. Mr. Ruiz-Evans recently opined that “No one is going to invade, no one is going to stop trading – there is too much money invested here, too many deals going on. The world would not let the California economy be disrupted.” There are so many fun ways to dissect that.

First off, Breitbart reported that 9,000 companies left California from 2008 to 2015. How many businesses with a choice will want to stay to see the confiscatory value transference that will escalate as California embraces economic policies unhinged from the Commerce Clause? What foreign businesses will want any assets in jeopardy there without the transparency and predictability of the US government? Colorado and Washington better have infrastructure plans at the ready for the influx.

Next off, what is “the world” going to do about anything? Exploring just one hypothetical, what the hell will China do, let alone Mexico or Canada, if the rump US decided to blockade Los Angeles harbor and San Francisco bay, and generally halt trade? The world needs just about nothing of what California produces. Movies? They’ll be glad to make their own and stop getting our filth. Wine? Napa Valley, meet your grandad, Monsieur Bordeaux, your nephew Senor Medoza, and your redneck cousin in Australia, the Barossa Valley. And those are just the reds. Tech sector? The 1% who innovate and invest will be just as happy to do so anywhere in the world that won’t tax them at 65% and force them to live behind barbed wire. So they’re left with agriculture. I’d pay a lot more for asparagus from Michigan to screw them over if they manage to break away.

Lastly, if too much money is invested there, in what denomination is it invested? Even the eye of Soros, sympathetic as I’m sure he is to the cause, won’t be happy about either a California rupee or a devalued greenback.

Continuing on, Ruiz-Evans pointed the finger of stupid to himself and the new California Attorney General when he said, “A lot of people said this was unconstitutional. If it’s unconstitutional, how come the AG approved it?” Looking into the surely eminent legal mind of the California AG, I found myself getting reacquainted with the same political succubus who had entered our consciousness for about 9 seconds last year, when he was being simultaneously bandied about as a possible VP candidate, and teased for being Hillary’s water boy; Xavier Becerra. This was in the time before Tim Kaine and his eyebrows invaded our children’s nightmares. Anyway, I’m not qualified to evaluate Becerra’s legal opinion, and learned all I needed to when I saw a picture of his house that was on the GOP website here. The point of the GOP article was that Becerra had spent $1.4M for a house in Maryland while representing California in Congress. I didn’t care so much about that, as I was just amused that the Becerra family had not one, but two of the obligatory Democrat Priuses (Priae?)in the driveway. A corresponding picture of a low T man and a high T wife pulling out each morning to their government jobs was easy to imagine.

Plus the lawn is a carbon sink!

Plus the lawn is a carbon sink!

Even the left is dubious of this venture. Conor Friedersdorf will go to his grave being a goodwhite, but he sees things and says things that his fellow SJWs either don’t want to see, or don’t want to say. So I really liked his “And did I mention Colorado River water?” observation that concluded his lengthy article on why Calexit would be a bad idea. I’m sure Nevada and Colorado and Wyoming would gladly scrap the agreement that since 1922 has been giving California an outsized proportion of the river’s water.

NY Magazine was also honest enough to say “The state is drifting even further away from the rest of the country in cultural attitudes and public policies.” It’s mildly interesting and quite out of character that they didn’t blame the country for drifting from California.

California has been imposing its immigration beliefs on the rest of the country since 1999, when Gray Davis refused to fight a judicial stay of the law (sound familiar?). Since the immigration restriction ballot initiative was passed in 1994, California has traveled so far as to have a pending law that would prohibit state and local law enforcement agencies from responding to requests from federal immigration authorities. In 23 short years we went from the people saying “No More!” to the government saying “No Limits!”

The rest of the country holds the whip hand here. It is for us to determine what is best for us. As much as I’d like to excise the gangrenous foot, it would only ensure that the rot spread. The tide of leftist insanity needs to be reversed, not ignored. The world is full of once prosperous places.

The winning mentality has to be that we are better off with California, but without the current Californians. We have to fight to retrieve the land and our victimized California brethren. “Screw ‘em. Good riddance!” is not a viable option, because once they leave, goodbye Hawaii, New York, and eventually others. Besides, it’s ours, dammit. The solutions are difficult not because we don’t know what they are, but because they will be fought with the same tenacity as any hot war.

Anyone reading here knows the path. Winning starts with enforcing current immigration law, and continues on with implementing mandatory eVerify, elimination of birth citizenship and other immigration actions. Simultaneously, eliminate all welfare for non-citizens. No more food stamps, no more Social Security disability, no more Medicaid. Then stamp out the underground economy of California with the same vigor Elliot Ness pursued Al Capone. Every taqueria , every neighborhood grocery store, hell any business painted yellow in California needs a cash-intensive business audit from the IRS. Make it more miserable to be here than it is to be in Mexico. Lastly, if allies are needed, look no further than the 13% Asian population. A large chunk of them had their first American experience at a university, with all of the attendant liberal brain washing, so they go along to get along with what they think is the current dominant culture. But in the end, with a little courting, their innate order-loving “Hey, Hey, This is Library!” selves will choose our side if we make it a situation that requires choosing.

Don’t give up California. Take it back.


18 thoughts on “You Go, The State Stays

  1. No, winning starts with admitting this is a fight to save the white race.

    “The solutions are difficult not because we don’t know what they are, but because they will be fought with the same tenacity as any hot war.”

    The solutions are difficult because we can barely even say it yet.

  2. Another fun option: Investigate the incidence illegal voters in California.
    Which is sky-high, considering that any contact with the state, including getting a drivers licence and collecting welfare includes voter registration without any citizenship check whatsoever.
    When it is proven that there are literally millions of illegal voters, Trump can state that because California has no controls in place to insure voting integrity that their votes will not be counted in federal elections & their illegally elected senators & congresspersons barred from taking office.

  3. Might I also suggest dividing the state up into 2 or 3 separate states? CA is too large, population-wise – even after a potential future mass deportation of illegals.

    • No, take it back. The die is cast. Everything is in the balance. Not just Cali, people, Everything. It’s now or never. If the Don does not blink, we can win. It will be tough, there will be a huge amount of economic and societal disruption, but now is the time. There is no turning back.

  4. DN, good post. I have a slightly different take. If California wants to secede, and a majority of the people there want to, then it’s only fair that counties that want to remain a part of the US be allowed to secede from cali be allowed to as well, right? After all, something like 75% of the landmass there went for Trump. All we are really talking about is a dozen or co counties in places like LA and SanFran. We can let just those counties go with no loss whatsoever. Fuck em.

    Another reason I don’t think anyone on the left has really thought this through – the dems will never, in any of our lifetimes, win another national election. They can kiss their chances at a senate/congressional majority good by as well. So, what will they do with a big, hostile neighbor next to them? Not a whole lot of anything other than whine. That, coupled with all the illegals they will purposely import, would make for a pretty comical episode. After all those who want to leave account for a small area of land, crammed with people, many of whom are illegals, most of whom don’t work, in a area that produces NOTHING any of us actually need, on land that has no water and little in the way of resources. Theyd be dead (which is of course fine with me) or crawling back within 6 months, at the outside.

    Another point I sort of touched on, the whole ‘paying more for food from elsewhere just to fuck them’ wouldn’t be neccessary either. Most fo the food producing areas and people are pretty conservative. They aren’t going to want to work their asses off to provide food for the glorious People’s Republic for free. They’d be shipped everything they get out of the ground east, not to their own coast, and there wouldn’t be fuck all the new “government” in liberalstan could do about it.

  5. Pingback: You Go, The State Stays | Reaction Times

  6. Good read DN and I agree with you save for the fact that Asians aren’t us either and they are poring in. California is the thin edge of the wedge. Which state next, Texas?, Utah?, Colorado?

    The number of Asian immigrants grew from 491,000 in 1960 to about 12.8 million in 2014, representing a 2,597 percent increase. In 1960, Asians represented 5 percent of the U.S. foreign-born population; by 2014, their share grew to 30 percent of the nation’s 42.4 million immigrants.

  7. If all that water currently being piped to California were suddenly to become available to farmers in Arizona, Nevada, Utah and Colorado I wonder what crop production would be in those states? The central valley in California is largely desert, the soil is full of clay and hard to till and needs lots of amendments to make it produce. Without large amounts of water it will revert to its natural condition very quickly. And California has gone out of its way to not allow the establishment of new reservoirs for water storage so even drinking water will become a major problem. And how much electricity do they siphon from the big hydro-electric producers in neighboring states? I guess they can fill the state with windmills or maybe (heh) build a few nuclear plants.

  8. With respect, this post is an exercise in fantastical thinking. None of the actions enumerated in your final paragraph are going to happen on a meaningful scale anytime in the near future, even with Trump in the White House. And even if some or most of them did happen, it would not fundamentally change the nature of California as a liberal blue state–the citizens of California are every bit as much the problem as the illegal aliens residing there.

    The winning mentality is to recognize that California is a cancer on the American Republic and if we don’t excise it from the Union the United States won’t survive another 20 years as a Republic in any meaningful sense of the term. By contrast, if we cut California loose the Republic survives another 50-100 years.

    Trump won the electoral college in 2016 by winning approximately 100,000 total votes more than Hillary in PA, MI, and WI. He eked out a narrow victory over a highly flawed candidate Clinton, who was embroiled in scandal and controversy. This is a time for humility, not hubris, among conservatives.

    Demographics is destiny, and Americas demographics still lean heavily in favor of the Democratic party.
    I expect big money Democratic party donors to force the Democrats to nominate a moderate, pro-business Democrat in 2020. It will be a challenge for Trump to repeat his 2016 performance in 2020.

    Even if Trump wins in 2020, demographic change will seal the deal for Democrats in 2024, and ever after. The Republican party may still dominate the Red states, maintain control of the House and sometimes the Senate, but there will be no more Republican Presidents. Democrats will open the immigration floodgates and normalize immigrants en masse, thereby guaranteeing continued Democratic electoral dominance. The supremacy of Federal law and policy, which will be decided by Democratic Presidents, guarantees that our Republic will be replaced by a Democracy.

    The choice is really this simple: evict California and the Republic survives; keep California and the Republic dies.

  9. Triggerman – thanks for the kind words!

    Helvetica – I agree on the Asian question. They’re allies of last resort.

    Kid J and Gator – I like the partition idea if, which as Guest points out is likely, the whole shebang can’t be saved. Get your wall building contractors ready in that event, though. If you’re familiar with the slightly-above-mediocre sci-fi show Colony, that’s what I’d have in mind. Complete with assassin drones, of course.

    Porter – when I submitted, you indicated you had a different outlook on the situation as well. Care to share? Thanks again for letting me post here!

  10. Great post, DN. My Southern Nationalist sympathies inclines me to say let ’em go, and then New England, and then whoever else, and along the way, Dixie. You make a good case against that, so I’m gonna re-read and think on it.

  11. Your article is very thought provoking. Historically giving land away has been a mistake–(Seward’s Folly and the Louisiana Purchase come to mind)
    But I can’t share your optimism in the ability of one man to effect the changes needed in California.
    Rather suddenly, the most important thing in the world is to get every one to America ASAP.
    The bar for entry is as low as possible: Maybe not a terrorist? You’re in. You deserve to be here. You enrich us.
    Your Ebola is welcome here. Families must be united here, not there.
    I have not heard a word uttered about limits.

  12. DN,

    As others have said, it was a fine piece. And my disagreement with its conclusions may be prima facie evidence of their soundness.

    Though I consider this topic in terms of priorities and probabilities. The absolute first priority is to secure a meaningful and viable habitat for ourselves and our posterity. Perhaps we’ll take that directive more seriously the next time around. A much lower priority is to preserve all we once had. So low, in fact, I find it to be a somewhat frivolous expenditure of finite resources.

    Everything you have detailed to reclaim California is conceivable. Though the costs and effort would be enormous, the resistance unrelenting, and the probability of meaningful success still quite modest. And of course that resistance would be spearheaded by whites (and the whitish), who gave their majority vote to Clinton, and who have dripped snot into their balaclavas since her loss. The Bay Area is so Soviet conservatives actually have to keep their meetings clandestine to avoid physical assaults.

    All of this can be overcome if we had no bigger fish to fry, but I see more productivity in tossing life vests to people who actually want to live rather than dragging lunatics out of the water by one foot as they kick me in the face with the other.

    The map below is allegedly the 2016 by-county white vote. Those other large blue splotches can be discussed later; but as for California, I would seek a bifurcation of the state as a concession to peaceful separation. The newly autonomous diversitopia could then snake up the coast on some negotiated parallels. Think of it as Allende’s Chile, except with MS-13 and Zuckerberg.

    It may feel like a territorial loss, but the loss of California occurred years ago. This is merely its formal recognition. And with that (and still 50 states including conservative rumpifornia) I’d wave goodbye to 55 dem electoral votes, an oozing left corner border sieve, and millions of mestizos, asians, and antifa, who would then be walled off snugly in their own Gaza Strip.

    I’m about as inclined to fight for the left coast as I am Puerto Rico.

    As an aside, it’s germane to note that the white vote carries much less weight in the absence of whites. And so to add some “color” to the graphic above I looked at the California county electoral map race regardless. That was basically Trump north of Sacramento (excluding the coast) with Clinton everywhere else. So the Chile model may work less well than the lop-off-the-top-block one.

  13. Why do we have immigration to here at all? as long as the USA is treated a cash register, it is doomed and so are the white people that created it.

  14. Pingback: This Week in Reaction (2017/02/05) - Social Matter

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s