Counter-Currents
Greater Idaho:
A Vision for a Red Super-State
The Homeland Institute
1,553 words
The following is reprinted from the Homeland Institute(website, Telegram).
The Greater Idaho movement promises many benefits, and particularly to white Americans. In this article we will explore what the State of Greater Idaho would bring to its new residents, and what challenges this project faces.
Greater Idaho’s Conception
The official website of the Greater Idaho movement states: “In 2019, supporters of joining Idaho who live in eastern Oregon interacted online with State of Jefferson proponents in southern Oregon.” The State of Jefferson is a movement which has long sought to extricate the counties of northern California and southern Oregon, which are overwhelmingly white and conservative in character, from their current states and to form a new state by the name of Jefferson.
From these interactions between the supporters of the State of Jefferson and the Greater Idaho movement sprung the “Move Oregon’s Border” initiative. This initiative was founded by Mike McCarter, who is today the current President of the Greater Idaho movement. This humble beginning from online chatrooms, predominantly on platforms such as Facebook, quickly snowballed into action. Mike McCarter and his supporters took to e-mailing their county clerks, seeking to place advisory questions about moving the border on local ballots. A successful move in February and June of 2020 has led to the votes held thus far.
The Potential of Greater Idaho
Thus far 12 of the 17 counties of Oregon which the Great Idaho movement seeks to incorporate have voted in favor of joining Idaho. A 13th county is set to vote in the near future, and four counties have yet to decide on holding such a vote. Significantly, not a single county has yet voted against joining Idaho, and all of those which have are in a contiguous formation.
This is a remarkable development considering that the movement only came into being in early 2020. This rapid progress shows the solid thinking of the movement’s founders, much of which is tailored to justifying the idea to the liberals who might otherwise oppose it.
A Greater Idaho seeks to soothe liberal fears of a more conservative United States government, because unlike the creation of a new state, the Greater Idaho plan does not add two new senators to the US Congress, thereby not undermining Democratic power in that institution. Furthermore, it would be an entire decade before Greater Idaho would receive additional members in the House of Representatives, as reapportionment only occurs every ten years, after the census results are released. Greater Idaho is about the immediate needs of the population in eastern Oregon, not about attempting to wrest federal control from the increasingly dogmatic establishment class which currently has this power.
The power of the federal government is often the primary feature of discussion in American politics, but the reality remains that the vast majority of services provided to Americans remains the purview of state governments. Americans also interact with their state government more than any other level, local or federal, as they seek out work benefits, Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) food assistance, a new driver’s license, and a myriad of other documentation, licensing, and benefits to go about their lives.
A fantastic example of the way in which states can offer meaningful policy choices even in the modern age of federal overreach is in the area of affirmative action, one of the most controversial and anti-white policies ever devised. Idaho is one of nine states, pictured above in yellow, which has laws against affirmative action in workplaces and by government. Oregon, as indicated by the blue coloring, does allow affirmative action, and in fact to a rather significant degree. The whites of eastern Oregon would find relief from such a policy should they join Idaho.
Residents of Greater Idaho could also expect much higher investment in the future of their children, by nature of a more conservative and demographically cohesive environment. Idaho invests nearly $10,000 per student per annum, while Oregon invests only $6,000 per student per annum. Idaho generally ranks several points above Oregon in the quality of its schools. Tertiary educational opportunities also abound, with in-state tuition for students in Idaho costing an average of $16,300, which is $7,300 cheaper than in Oregon.
You can buy Greg Hood’s Waking Up From the American Dream here.
Another way in which a Greater Idaho would appeal to the political views of eastern Oregon’s population is on social issues. Idaho bans abortion entirely, while abortion in Oregon up to the point of birth is legal. Idaho also bans same-sex marriage, though of course this cannot be enforced due to a Supreme Court ruling. Oregon also officially possesses a same-sex marriage ban, though it is doubtful this policy would survive judicial review.
There are also policy benefits for the substantial Democratic voter base in northwest Oregon, where 79% of the state’s population resides. These liberal-minded urban voters would no longer be responsible for the large tax transfers which occur between the various regions of the state as is currently constituted. Furthermore, the long-fought battles over county autonomy, the minimum wage, and spending on infrastructure projects (such as public transit in the dense urban heart of the state) would finally come to an end as the nearly completely blue rump of Oregon would cease to face substantial opposition from a conservatively-minded hinterland.
There remains a collection of other policy differences which would require a lengthier analysis to fully explore, but which are no less important to the average white American seeking to raise a family in safety. The tax burden in Idaho is significantly lower than in Oregon, there is much less crime, and Idaho ranks among the top ten in the nation for the protection of Second Amendment rights, while Oregon ranks in the middle of the pack in the most generous of surveys.
Holding Back a Greater Idaho
While we have outlined the relatively simple process for changing the state borders, which requires the consent of all involved state legislatures and the approval of Congress, it remains to be seen whether popular will can overcome the liberal desire for utopianism and the establishment desire to dominate the lives of all citizens. The Governor of Idaho has come out in favor of the Greater Idaho movement, even going on FOX News to affirm his support. The government of Oregon has said remarkably little as regards this movement, though Republican representatives of the areas which wish to join a Greater Idaho have introduced a bill to the state legislature which would begin the process.
While the Greater Idaho movement has tried to prove it has no immediate desire to threaten the Democrats’ control of the federal government, this is likely not going to be enough. As displayed during the COVID-19 pandemic and aftermath of the 2020 election, the establishment ruling class seeks to impose its policies and views on the entire population. Oftentimes, it would seem as though the establishment relishes opportunities to punish conservatives for various types of wrongthink and ideological transgressions.
It also remains to be seen if a Democrat-controlled US Senate would consent to the exchange of territory between Idaho and Oregon, as Democratic senators from other states such as California, Washington state, Colorado, and Virginia may worry about the precedent which this sets. After all, if Oregon and Idaho can change borders, then what democratic principle could possibly be employed to prevent the integration of white and or conservative areas from other blue states into neighboring red ones? It is worth noting that if redrawing the border is successful in the currently-targeted 17 counties, the movement plans to expand its scope, and will seek to incorporate coastal southern Oregon and the areas of California which would form the State of Jefferson.
With this being the case, control of both houses of Congress will be crucial to forwarding the Greater Idaho movement. Republicans could incentivize blue Oregon with federal dollars for various Democrat programs the state is currently unable to fund, along with various other concessions.
Perhaps the most remarkable implication of this entire saga is the evolution which it represents. States have steadily become more politically entrenched. Voters in red states become ever more conservative, while voters in blue states become ever more convinced of the superiority of their ideas. More and more states have trifecta governments in which a single party controls every branch of government. Currently, only 11 states — Alaska, Arizona, Kentucky, Louisiana, Kansas, North Carolina, Nevada Pennsylvania, Vermont, Virginia, and Wisconsin — do not have a state government dominated by a singular party. Republicans dominate 22 state governments, and Democrats the remaining 17.
It is a natural outcome that conservative voters in blue states who do not have not a single voice in their state government would want to seek a more representative polity in which to reside. It is also possible that this might expand to Democrats trapped in deeply red states, such as those largely black areas in northern Indiana or the blue areas of North Carolina which border Virginia, again largely composed of a black voter base.
In order to change the boundaries of states the legislatures of all of the relevant states must approve, and then the entire plan must be approved by both houses of Congress. Compared to most other changes, such as adding an amendment to the Constitution, this is a relatively simple process. But the likelihood of such a change in borders happening, even if backed by overwhelming popular support, remains an open question.
* * *
Like all journals of dissident ideas, Counter-Currents depends on the support of readers like you. Help us compete with the censors of the Left and the violent accelerationists of the Right with a donation today. (The easiest way to help is with an e-check donation. All you need is your checkbook.)
For other ways to donate, click here.
Enjoyed this article?
Be the first to leave a tip in the jar!
17 comments
“In order to change the boundaries of states the legislatures of all of the relevant states must approve, and then the entire plan must be approved by both houses of Congress.”
No, there is only one realistic way for this to happen: unilaterally. Waiting for their political enemies to give them permission is foolish. I believe supporters of Greater Idaho should accept and promulgate this reality. Counties that want to join Greater Idaho should follow these four “easy” steps:
1. Get their county officials on board, especially the executive and sheriffs.
2. Ensure their county would be a benefit to Idaho, not a drag, and could function independent of Oregon.
3. Approach the Idaho state government, make their case, and get their blessing.
4. Declare themselves part of Idaho, cease enforcing Oregon law and sending taxes to Salem, begin enforcing Idaho law, and redirect tax money to Idaho.
Done! Step 2 is perhaps the hardest part, as rural counties don’t boast much of a tax base and service provision is less efficient. Some counties may depend on others for power or water.
It would be a tremendous boon to the project if the most promising counties simply switched allegiance to Idaho right now. That would change the “facts on the ground” and put the ball in their hands. Other counties would be itching to follow. Democrats will never let those counties go, even if that hurts them financially, so waiting for their blessing dooms the project.
Maybe Congress needs to agree for Congressional reasons, but as you wrote, this is not about gaining federal power but local autonomy. The bridge of Congressional representation can be crossed when we get there.
Insofar as I can recall, a similar idea, albeit much larger in scale, emerged from the Canadian ant-Trudeau trucker movement known as Diagolon; it intends to establish a diagonal conservative state, from the southeast of the United States to its polar opposite in Canada.
“This rapid progress shows the solid thinking of the movement’s founders, much of which is tailored to justifying the idea to the liberals…”
“A Greater Idaho seeks to soothe liberal fears of a more conservative United States government…”
“… thereby not undermining Democratic power in that institution. Furthermore, it would be an entire decade before Greater Idaho would receive additional members in the House of Representatives…”
“it would seem as though the establishment relishes opportunities to punish conservatives for various types of wrongthink and ideological transgressions…”
For chrissake how long are we going to keep playing this game. I wish Mr. Johnson (personally) would review rules for radicals, instead of the usual gruel we get. Lets learn from the winner not the losers
Usually, I just delete comments like this, but it is a brilliant example of how not to start a conversation. The author strikes an obnoxious tone, assumes that we already understand where he is coming from, and then proposes that I take on more burdens rather than shouldering the task of explaining what he is getting at. It’s all so tiresome.
As for changing borders in Democratic majority areas which are comprised of Blacks, I say let’s get a little more ambitious. Rather than redrawing the map to put these areas in another state, or a new state entirely, they could spin off into their own countries. It’s where they already live, so it’s not like we’re losing our own territory.
As for Blacks, they’ll never be happy as long as they have to live with Whites. The way they tell it, we’re responsible for all their problems. Well, fine then – let them be independent and manage their own affairs by themselves.
Blacks hate us, but they don’t “not want to be near us.” If they wanted to not be near us, they would have gone back to Africa 100 years ago.
They know that they’re inferior, and they know that being closer to whites means the electricity won’t go out, the water will run, the grocery stores will have food and won’t have iron garage doors on them at night, etc. They know it means money for colleges they don’t belong in, they know it means reduced standards in jobs, they know it means access to housing where crime is nonexistent and the roof isn’t leaking. They know that they’d suffer without us, yet they simultaneously support measures that will destroy whites. It’s almost like they’re willing to go down in order to bring us down. A rather horrid cognitive dissonance.
Leaving blacks to their own devices and separate from whites will result in Haiti. We could build them their own Manhattan, Los Angeles, glorious suburbs and beautiful rural neighborhoods in one, 7,000 square mile piece of land equivalent to their own Israel, and they would destroy it within 3-5 years. Even if we offered them a bat signal for “when things break” they’d still be angry because whites would have to save the day when they ruin things — yet they’d expect you to help and get angry again. You can’t win with them.
Them having their own area would also prove that white racism and police brutality have literally nothing to do with their downfall, and that only black-on-black violence and lesser genetic abilities are what hold them back. They’d see Detroit, Newark, and Baltimore bounce back in less than a year if they leave it and whites take it back. They’d see New York City and Chicago more prosperous than ever. They’d get angry once again, because the formerly black areas becoming white again would result in heaven on earth, while their black territory that WE built for them is in ruins. Blacks are no doubt stupid people, but they do know what would happen if they actually separated from whites. They have everything to lose, and our gain would definitely prove that demographics were the reason why Detroit failed and why it came back when whites returned.
There is literally, literally, literally, no solution with blacks in the United States with them continuing to live on this continent. None. Not sharing the same government, not separate from whites in their own carved-out territory governing themselves, none.
Shy of getting blacks out of the country altogether, we will always have problems with them. At the very, very least, you’d have to find a way to phase out blacks under a certain age, like 35–40. Let the older ones finish up and that’s their finale here.
But we have to stop with these ridiculous notions of “if blacks hate us, why don’t they separate from us or go to another country?” We all know the answer
You know and I know that they can’t build or sustain anything like the orderly societies that White people build, and Blacks should know it too. Instead of endless gratitude, we get endless complaining from them, to name just one of the ways they repeatedly bite the hand that feeds them. Again, you and I (and probably they) realize it’s a game on their part. Even so, I say it’s time to take them at their word and they can separate from their “oppressors” forthwith.
Great points. The whole point of the Orwellian, mis-named “Civil Rights Movement” was to break down barriers that separate the races and allow blacks into white neighborhoods and schools. Slavery stopped blacks from running away from whites. Civil Rights laws stop whites from running away from blacks.
Another point you make. Get rid of young blacks and let older ones just live out their days. This might have worked after the Civil War. They didn’t have to repatriate 4.5 million blacks, but only start with the young, the new borns, the ones who produce young. Keep the old with their zero birth rates. This was not feasible, but was a workable policy if the will had been there. Only have to repatriate 1 million over a period of years and crash their domestic birth rate.
Movements like this are foolish, for a litany of reasons.
But in a nutshell: It won’t work, it will not help whites (and severely limits us and our abilities) it isn’t desirable, and it will cause even more problems than we already have.
Need I even mention that there are plenty of Hispanics, Muslims, and even some blacks who have moved to Idaho in recent years?
I really wish whites would stop trying to turn us into Amerindians. This is getting ridiculous.
Why will it not help whites, limit us and our abilities, and cause more problems? You offer no reasons to believe you.
Perhaps I should write an article about it. It’s a lot to cover
It can work, but it won’t work as long as they wait for Oregon to approve, and listen to everything federal judges in Hawaii say. At some point, we and they have to say “Thank you for your opinion, but we’re going to do what’s best for our constituents.”
Great idea, but are the Latter Day Saints on board with this? Or I should say: how do you sell this to Mormons? Which is part of the larger “MQ”.
For every Ammon Bundy in the Basin you have three or more in the Snake River Valley, whose income depends on open borders. And all of them are kicking money up to corrupt elders and on and on until we get globalists like Mitt Romney and Mike Lee and Jeff Flake.
All of this is to say that Mormons are a white demographic reality and the strongest organized political force between the Cascades and the Rockies and were, within my lifetime, the most race-conscious North Americans outside of the South.
Hey Sarge, sell what to Mormons, exactly? What is being sold here?
I’m not really sure how Idaho benefits by getting a lot of rural Oregon ─ much of which is probably owned by the Federal government.
Having said that, I don’t see how Mormons would object to gaining rural acreage for the state ─ and besides there are a lot of Mormons living in Eastern Oregon as I recall from my BYU-Idaho school days.
The cultural disconnect in Idaho is that the panhandle has traditionally been Democrat and takes after the NW “ecotopia” vibe, whereas South and Eastern Idaho is more associated with the Wasatch Front in Utah ─ small business and farming.
Another extreme is the billionaire or Hollywood ski bum jet-set in the Sun Valley area. Ernest Hemingway’s lodge, where he used to drink himself into a stupor and ultimately blew out his brains is near there. Even the skiers giggle about “wiveswapping” when they see the obscenely wealthy mansions nestled near the Hemingway estate in the Wood River Valley. If Blaine County could vote for Doctah King they would. Nary a Negro around there.
Boise is kind of in the middle. Currently they are being inundated by immigrants from the Golden State ─ and while these folks are more White and Conservative than the typical Californicator, this does drive up the cost of living and of housing. Not every minimum wage schmo likes the idea of big city futurism.
The same phenonomenon is happening in the metropolitan areas of Eastern Idaho as well. Unless one works for a government contractor at say the Nuclear research site out in the nearby Arco desert, Idaho incomes are some of the lowest in the nation.
My octogenarian mother is a third-generation Idaho farm girl, and I don’t really see how their family income depended upon open borders.
I guess they sell Idaho russet potatoes to McDonalds for their freedom fries, but I don’t really see how that makes Mormons globalists.
The beet sugar factories that were started by the Mormons in Utah and Idaho over a hundred years ago have been priced out by imported cane sugar and high-fructose corn syrup. I guess the Church got their magic decoder rings out of sync on that one.
My Salmon, Idaho-born Grandmother was a registered nurse in the Pocatello and American Falls area, and disliked the Mexican patients because they never paid their doctor bills. The difference between the Beaners then and the Beaners now is that today they don’t migrate back home to Aztec Land in the off-season, and commit gang-related crimes for the whole year now. Some like Pedro from the movie Napoleon Dynamite are certainly nice people, but what does this have to do with the LDS?
LDS clergy are not paid except the highest echelons, so I don’t see how they are grifting off of member’s tithes.
These church salaries are transparent, and unlike some churches, the LDS General Authorities do not get sinecures. The current LDS President is a former elite heart surgeon who is pushing age 100. He ain’t doing any of it for the money.
The Church does invest a lot of its income, and that is controversial, but most churches no longer run money pits like hospitals any longer either. The LDS Church mostly does not run any secondary schools. The father of my roommate in college had been the president of the Church College of New Zealand, a rare LDS secondary school that has since been closed.
Perhaps you are using the word “corruption” in some way that is unfamiliar to me.
Mormons were not initially impressed with reality-TV show host Donald Trump when he started his campaign in 2016, but they warmed up to him when Trump made immigration his signature issue.
The late Arizona State Senate President Russell Pearce is the man who started the modern immigration backlash. His coreligionist and ideological nemesis, former U.S. Senator Jeff Flake, opposed him on this. The Mormons were not monolithic on immigration ─ but not too many churches are. The LDS are holding the line against LGBTQ, however.
Most Idaho LDS regard Ammon Bundy as a bit of a nutjob. However, I do remember that some of them supported the 1992 Presidential candidacy of Bo Gritz of the Populist Party.
Bo Gritz was an isolationist ex-Green Beret that inspired Hollywood tropes like Rambo and Col. Kurtz. At one time Gritz was LDS, but he seems to have broken with the Church in that they objected to his not paying his income taxes ─ not being fully honest or something like that.
This does not mean that the LDS church has not had lots of tax protestors in its ranks. In 1984, my Congressman, George V. Hansen, a Mormon Republican who fought legendary battles against the IRS, was defeated by only 66 votes to a BYU-Idaho History Professor and Democrat named Richard Stallings.
Congressman “St. George,” whom I admired, took the dragon-slaying a bit too far, however, and as a History major myself, I knew Mr. Stallings ─ and while I was not a Democrat, I cannot fault his honesty.
I don’t follow Utah politics much. Our family moved away before the infamous 1974 Hi-Fi murders where a pack of Negroes who were stationed at the Air Force Base where my Dad worked as an aerospace engineer, murdered and tortured some kids in an Ogden, Utah Hi-Fi shop during a botched robbery. The two Negroes were finally put to death many years later ─ no doubt victims of those rayciss Mormons.
I don’t know much about Sen. Mike Lee except that he was born in Mesa, Arizona in my current neck of the woods, and he graduated from the J. Reuben Clark School of Law at BYU. J. Reuben Clark was a Columbia-educated lawyer and diplomat who is regarded today as a racist, anti-Semite, and an Isolationist. Hey, I thought Mormons were Globalists.
Well, they are neither cosmopolitan nor insular. We can debate this I suppose. I will defend Mormons if criticism is warranted since three-quarters of my ancestors were LDS pioneers.
Mike Lee was a Tea Party type who “primaried” my sister’s father-in-law in the U.S. Senate ─ justifiably in my opinion ─ because the incumbent voted for the bipartisan TARP bank bailouts.
I disagree that the Mormons are an especially organized political force. They do not want to repeat any kind of Theocracy.
They constantly counsel their officials to be apolitical and not to favor Republicans over Democrats. The late Senator Harry Reid was an LDS Democrat ─ as was the first female DNC Chair (1972) who also happened to be my cousin or whatever. She was a New Deal and Kennedy lunch pail Democrat, and in her memoirs she had no kind words for Liberal Jewesses who wanted to subvert the anti-War McGovern campaign for sexual bolshevism.
The LDS just finished their semi-annual General Conference last week, where the leadership speaks to the faithful through the magic of Radio and Television ─ and apparently there was a reaffirmation of anti-LGBTQ doctrinal policies. I noticed immediately that there was much weeping, wailing, and gnashing of teeth accordingly from the usual Libtards and liberal Mormons on social media.
I am one of those ex-Mormons that did not like that the Church wanted to become more cosmopolitan and colorblind, and triumphantly send missionaries all over the world.
But they are Christians, after all, and universalism is a defect with all Christians. The LDS church is far less profligate with “telescopic philanthropism” than most, where exotic brown pets overseas are somehow deemed more deserving of the grace of Jesus and the White Man’s Burden than one’s real neighbors are.
🙂
[1284 words]
In order for this movement to work in the long term, some mechanism must be put in place to stop Greater Idaho turning black and blue.
Look at California, as the lefties have made it a dump, the Californians moved to Colorado and now it is a progressive state.
Also, if Greater Idaho becomes successful (which is likely) what is to stop blacks and hispanics moving there?
Realistically the new state would have to as a minimum, stop welfare and section 8 housing which acts as a magnet.
I truly hope this works and maybe with the disintegration that the US is heading towards, this could be the start of a new country.
We will never have a constitutional convention for the rest of ‘American history’ (until it ends). There aren’t enough white men in power or demographically relative to nonwhites anymore. I see ideas like this not as worthless, but as a probing operation for whatever comes after the republic or to even hasten its demise. It is a great litmus test of futility similar to Brexit. Rightists have to see that following the rules and even clinching ‘victory’ within the current system is designed to nullify any actual changes via anti-fragile globalism. Every single rightist victory or meme starts off like a hurricane and then gradually trails off into a tropical storm upon impact: 2016 populist-nationalist wave, QAnon, Kanye, Elon Musk, #BanTheADL etc.
Great article. Very insightful. I’ve often contemplated the breakup of the US into regions. The problem with Greater Idaho is that it has no oil and no oil refining capacity. You can’t exist with electricity and petroleum.
Texas is a great contender for its own country. It’s big, has a history of independence, has enough agriculture to feed itself and has oil and refining capacity for mechanized existence and electricity production. Louisiana has oil, refining capacity, control of the mouth of the Mississippi River and is a natural partner for Texas. Ditto Oklahoma (oil and gas), Arkansas, Kansas (agriculture), Nebraska (agriculture) , the Dakotas (agriculture), Wyoming (coal, energy, agriculture) Montana (agriculture, mining), Idaho (agriculture).
Also part of this region would arguably be Missouri, Iowa, Minnesota as well as southern states, sough of the Ohio River as well as Indiana maybe Ohio.
Obviously certain states would have a natural tendency to break up on blue/red divides. These are Oregon, maybe Illinois, Wisconsin and Michigan. Also New York, Pennsylvania.
Most of left wing Illinois is in the Chicago area with much of the southern and western regions (along Mississippi River) are Red. Same with Minnesota and Wisconsin I think. Bitterly divided between Blue metropolitan areas and Red rural areas. Kind of like California (smile).
So many states have Red/Blue divides. Remembering back to the Civil War era, the Southern states had greater geographical area but the Norther states had the money and the population. Is this kind of divide going to happen again and how can the outcome be changed this time? It’s a vexing problem with many aspects.
I think some Oregon counties could openly rebel against that state and just de facto become part of Idaho. Would the US government send in troops to overwhelm them as being in revolt? Probably. Maybe for starters, just band together, form their own capital and stop recognizing Oregon state government. What happens when the Oregon state gov’t shuts off their electricity and their oil? That’s all they really have to do to starve out resistance movements in rural counties.
Will the Blue money centers (NYC, Wall Street, state capitols, etc. ) choke off the Red regions by denying credit, resources, etc. That’s what’s happening now. How do we fight that? Well one answer is have our own energy (Texas) and GDP (Great Plains states).
I think more US decline will have to happen. Greater drains of resources in wars and military decline. Hopefully central power sources would lose ability to over power Red regions in rebellion. A replay of the Russian Civil War between the Red and White armies perhaps?
It all gets back to the cabals that run the USA today. How can they ever, if ever, be successfully challenged.
If you have Paywall access,
simply login first to see your comment auto-approved.
Note on comments privacy & moderation
Your email is never published nor shared.
Comments are moderated. If you don't see your comment, please be patient. If approved, it will appear here soon. Do not post your comment a second time.