Counter-Currents
1,119 words
A recent poll by the Homeland Institute of white American voters found that support for a national divorce was still relatively low. Only 25.4% of all respondents and 32.2% of Republican respondents agreed at least a little with the concept of a national divorce.
Part of this was undoubtedly because while respondents were pessimistic about partisan gridlock, political violence, and polarization, they were also pessimistic about whether a national divorce would ameliorate these issues. These findings were buttressed by an Axios poll (see section 14) which also found that respondents were pessimistic about whether a national divorce would ameliorate a number of other issues.
But what if relatively low support for a national divorce can also be explained in part by an inability to envision creative solutions?
The Homeland Institute is therefore launching a series of case studies called New Nations, in which we will envision in concrete terms what several states or collections of states would look like as their own independent nations. We hope this will spark creative thinking and dispel arguments that secession is impractical.
We will begin with Texas, as they already have a robust independence movement: TEXIT.
Texas was already an independent country between 1836 and 1846.
What would the Republic of Texas look like?
Texas is 268,596 square miles in size, with a population of 30.5 million and a gross domestic product of $2.356 trillion. In a ranking of 195 recognized sovereign states, an independent Texas would rank:
- 39th place in size. For comparison, Afghanistan would be 41st in size, and Turkey is 31st in size.
- 49th place in population. For comparison, Venezuela would be in 52nd place and Saudi Arabia is 46th in size.
- 8th place in GDP, between France in 7th and Italy in 9th.
After Texas declares independence, the United States would still rank at fourth in size, third in population, and even first in GDP despite losing 9.2% of its GDP.
There is the issue of how Texas’ departure would affect the balance of power in the electoral college and Congress. Texas currently has 40 out of 538 winner-take-all electoral college votes that are reliably Republican. Texas provides two reliably Republican senators. Of Texas’ 38 congressional representatives, 25 are currently Republican and 13 are Democrats.
You can buy Greg Johnson’s Toward a New Nationalism here.
Losing Texas would undeniably be a huge blow to conservatives across America. But as will be discussed latter, changing demographics would mean that Republicans wouldn’t just lose 40 Electoral College votes sooner or later, they would have to contend with those 40 votes flipping to the Democrats. Losing Texas in the Electoral College would thereby serve as a much-needed wake-up call about what would have inexorably happened had Texas stayed in the US. This would highlight the grave political implications of replacement migration, and perhaps encourage other states to break off alongside Texas.
Texas’ already large GDP will grow after leaving the Union. For example, TEXIT cites a study claiming that excessive federal regulations have shrunk Texan paychecks by 75%. That’s a rather bold claim. But even studies with more modest claims show that ever-expanding federal regulations contribute toward the Texan poverty rate and income inequality. Freeing the Texan economy from the shackles of federal overregulation would undoubtedly increase Texas’ already large economy.
As of 2022, Texas had been the top exporting state for 21 years in a row. 93% of all exporters are small businesses, which means that Texas is not reliant on a few mega-corporations that could pull out in order to sabotage a national divorce. As of 2017, Texas was the fourth-largest exporting state of agricultural goods. Texas has the most farms of all the states in the US, both in terms of number and acreage, along with the most cattle. Texas also produces the most cotton. The Dallas-Fort Worth International Airport is the second-largest in the US and fourth largest in the world. Texas is likewise the top energy-producing state, and produces twice as much energy as Florida, which is in second place. Texas is the top producer of both crude oil and natural gas, accounting for 41% of national crude oil production and 25% of national natural gas in 2019, and its oil refineries represent 31% of national refining capacity. Texas will clearly be energy and food independent.
This leads into a possible weakness in an independent Texas, which is a reliance on importing fruit and vegetables. Man cannot live on carbohydrates and meat alone. Most of Texas’ fresh produce comes from Mexico — but Texas could easily transform this weakness into a strength. The US as a whole is reliant on imports of fresh produce, especially from Mexico, and 55% of US imports of fresh produce from Mexico passes through Texan ports of entry. Thus, any attempts to sanction or blockade Texas would force much of the Mexican produce headed for the eastern US to travel a more circuitous route by land or sea, thereby raising the price. Furthermore, 30% of Texas’ agricultural exports go to Mexico, so continuing trade regardless of whether Washington, DC approves of it is as much in Mexico’s best interests as it would be in Texas’.
Militarily, Texas has the potential not only to defend itself, but to be a regional power. 118,000 Texans were on active duty as of 2021 out of a total of 1.195 million in the US military, which represents 9.87% of the total. More importantly, 164,000 were on active duty in 2017 out of 1.3 million active duty troops, which represents 12.6%. Due to the ongoing recruitment crisis, which is mostly driven by political issues, the 2017 statistics are the most informative regarding Texas’ military potential. Texas also has 15 military bases.
TEXIT has signaled that they are open to a NATO-style military pact with the US. If Texas spends the NATO target of 2% its GDP on defense spending, they would have an annual defense budget of $32.78 billion. This would put Texas at 11th in the world for defense spending. Texas clearly has the warriors and dollars to defend itself, whether that be alongside the US or otherwise.
Demographically, Texas is 39.8% non-Hispanic white, 40.2% Hispanic, 12.8% black, and 6.1% Asian. Control over their own borders would allow Texas to stabilize their demographics. As of now, the federal government’s immigration policy could be better called an invasion policy. For example, the Biden administration has threatened to sue Texas if they try to prosecute people who illegally enter, and federal agents have cut Texan barbed wire to facilitate illegal crossings. Given racial voting preferences, Texas will be permanently transformed from a Republican stronghold into a Democrat one if they remain in the US. This would effectively disenfranchise millions of white and/or Republican voters, who never consented to and even vehemently oppose the federal policy of open borders.
If Texas remains in the US, they face a grim reality of poverty and invasion. The Republic of Texas, in contrast, would enjoy a free, bright, secure, and prosperous future as an independent nation.
Enjoyed this article?
Be the first to leave a tip in the jar!
* * *
Counter-Currents has extended special privileges to those who donate at least $10/month or $120/year.
- Donors will have immediate access to all Counter-Currents posts. Everyone else will find that one post a day, five posts a week will be behind a “paywall” and will be available to the general public after 30 days. Naturally, we do not grant permission to other websites to repost paywall content before 30 days have passed.
- Paywall member comments will appear immediately instead of waiting in a moderation queue. (People who abuse this privilege will lose it.)
- Paywall members have the option of editing their comments.
- Paywall members get an Badge badge on their comments.
- Paywall members can “like” comments.
- Paywall members can “commission” a yearly article from Counter-Currents. Just send a question that you’d like to have discussed to [email protected]. (Obviously, the topics must be suitable to Counter-Currents and its broader project, as well as the interests and expertise of our writers.)
To get full access to all content behind the paywall, please visit our redesigned Paywall page.
11 comments
I’d say that the demographics say all that needs to be said about the future of Texas.
Look at Kazakhstan or Kyrgyzstan for that matter, Both were conquered and saw massive waves of migrants and became minorities in their own homelands, Kazakhs were 30% of the population mid 50s iirc. Their own culture language writing were replaced and they were told they were Soviets not Kazakhs and of course the USSR fell and Kazakh patriots clawed their way back to prominence and power. Kazakhs are now 70% of the population their culture is being restored and their minority populations which once outnumbered them is much smaller. So it’s definitely not over as clearly demographics are not set in stone.
This “New Nations” initiative is excellent. The more we can illustrate what the future could look like in these new states, the more people will start to imagine the better future they could have.
As with a lot of our work, we need more social media activism. Not enough people know about the texas nationalist movement for example.
What would be the attitude of Zio-USA to a large, wealthy, independent, implicitly white nationalist state on the Gulf of Mexico? Would the plutocracy be able to persuade the populace of ZOGAE that it is moral and/or in their interests to destroy such a state, either by trade embargo or force?
You guys are naive to even think that global elite would ever let the USA fall apart. Many of you speak as if the rich residing in America are only running the USA. Nope, they are ruling the whole world. Even China and Russia are still under their sway as long as they are part of global capitalist economy. Even if America becomes 70% non-white and sinks into chaos, the rich will stay in power because they control global finance and media. They only need the large American coastal cities to remain more or less habitable and the upper middle class with their property intact (the top 15%).
Are we ever going to stop wasting time with absolutely childish ideas like this?
What’s childish about it?
There’s a lot to cover as to “why” this is neither a good or desirable thing
I would probably have to write an article of my own in order to address every point
Okay, put your cards on the table.
I’m with Ian. What’s childish, or at least naive, is contained in this one sentence:
“Demographically, Texas is 39.8% non-Hispanic white, 40.2% Hispanic, 12.8% black, and 6.1% Asian.”
Texas is majority non-White already, under 40%, and it will only become increasingly darker. So-called “non-Hispanic” Whites certainly have grounds to separate from state-mandated, forced racial integration of the past 60 years and more — primarily the preservation of our precious vulnerable gene pool. We simply form our own exclusive communities. Counties and states may come later when we have greater resolve.
Before any states can talk about a “national divorce” they should seriously be talking about separation — not just separation of members of the former, shrinking White majority from Jews and other non-Whites, but separation of a determined minority of eligible Whites within a minority of racially conscious Whites from many deracinated ineligible Whites.
Who are these racially responsible White separatists? First, they will read the following and agree to support the program described therein: What is the National Alliance? | National Alliance (natall.com) Applications to join or support this separatist organization, founded by Dr. William L. Pierce 50 years ago, are found at the bottom.
I love the New Nations approach and Texas is a natural candidate. So is the South, once denied, wrongfully, and twice again devastated: by Reconstruction then Civil Rights. Greg advocates establishing a black homeland in some part of the US. In an interview, I believe it was with Tara McCarthy, he suggested the black homeland occupy “several Southern states.” You are not going to establish a black homeland in the South. You want them, you take them.
Comments are closed.
If you have a Subscriber 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.
Paywall Access
Lost your password?Edit your comment