Counter-Currents
Image courtesy of Wikipedia.
1,284 words
Talk of secession usually focuses on red states, but it can also apply to blue states, perhaps even more so. This is because Republican politicians have generally proven to have less political willpower than Democrats, so a Republican administration is less likely to be willing or able to stop a blue state from breaking off.
Although they rarely follow through, it is common for liberals to claim that they will move to Canada if a Republican wins the presidency. If they are willing to entertain the idea of moving to a foreign country because of politics, even if mostly in jest, becoming their own country is not that far-fetched by comparison.
California is the most likely blue state to secede. Indeed, there is already an active Left-wing “Calexit” movement. Due to its size and a number of conservative enclaves such as Orange County and rural Northern California, there is a question of whether California would break off as a single unit, as multiple nations, or perhaps resolve the question county by county. For example, YesCalifornia proposes a “Calexit 3.1” in which the coastal region around the Bay Area breaks off as the sovereign nation of Pacifica, with the rest of California remaining in the United States.[1]
While California under this plan would still be majority Democrat at 59%, this is a lot less than the 75% of Democrats in Pacifica. Along with being fewer in number, it is likely that the Democrats in California would be less extreme than in deep-blue Pacifica. It is possible that a libertarian-adjacent consensus would emerge in California’s internal state politics once the Pacifica radicals are no longer part of the equation, which would reduce polarization and gridlock. Under this plan, California’s reliably Democrat electoral college votes would drop from 54 to 40 or 41. The House of Representatives would also see a drop in deep-blue Congressional districts.
While YesCalifornia’s Calexit 3.1 proposal is interesting, let’s examine what California would look like if it broke off entirely as either a single state, or if the rest of California broke off alongside Pacifica as a second sovereign nation.
What would an independent California look like?
California has a rich and exciting history: the Spanish missions, the Gold Rush, Hollywood, and surf culture.
California is 163,696 square miles in size, with a population of 38.9 million and a Gross Domestic Product of $3.598 trillion. In a ranking of 195 recognized sovereign states, an independent California would rank:
- 90th in size. For comparison, Uruguay would be 89th in size, and Suriname would be 91st in geographic size.[2]
- 37th in population. For comparison, Canada would be 36th and Poland at 38th in population[3]
- 5th in GDP, between Japan at 4th and India at 6th.[4]
You can buy Greg Johnson’s Against Imperialism here.
After losing California, the US would still rank at 4th in size, 3rd in population, and even 1st in GDP despite losing 14.7% of its GDP.[5]
There is an issue of how California’s departure would affect the balance of power in the Electoral College and Congress. Currently, California has 54 out of 538 winner-take-all electoral college votes which are reliably Democrat. California provides two reliably Democratic senators. Of California’s 52 Congressional representatives, 40 are currently Democrats and 11 are Republicans, with one vacancy.[6]
California leaving the Union would be a cause for liberals in California to rejoice, as they would be liberated from a conservative Supreme Court and the possibility of a Republican presidency. Conservatives in the remaining United States would also enjoy a minor tilt in the balance of power to their favor if Pacifica left, and a major tilt if all of California left. However, conservatives in California would naturally be concerned if California would swiftly change into a Leftist dystopia such as Canada or the United Kingdom, while liberals in the remaining US would naturally be concerned about the shift in the electoral balance of power.
The concerns of liberals in the remaining United States could be mitigated by allowing Texas to break off alongside California. (What an independent Republic of Texas would look like has been discussed elsewhere.) This would be similar to the way in which free states and slave states had to be added in pairs to maintain the balance of power in the early nineteenth century. A gradual National Divorce in which red and blue states break off in pairs of states which are roughly comparable to one another would facilitate support from both parties.
The Republican enclaves in California could be granted autonomy to assuage their concerns. There is already a precedent for this with liberal “sanctuary cities” refusing to enforce immigration laws and California legalizing marijuana, despite the fact that this is a blatant violation of federal law. There is no reason why conservatives can’t make use of this same tactic and create sanctuary regions for gun rights, although this arrangement should be officially recognized to avoid betrayal. And the existence of liberal enclaves in Republican nations would provide an incentive for both sides to reciprocate in respecting the rights and customs of their political minorities.
California’s economy would largely be based on technology. For example, Apple, Nvidia, and Blizzard Entertainment are headquartered in California. Eleven of the Fortune 100 companies and 53 of the Fortune 500 companies are headquartered in California.[7] California is also home to Hollywood and the film industry, for better or for worse. California has some of the largest ports in America, with Long Beach being the sixth-busiest in cargo volume nationally and Los Angeles the ninth-busiest.[8]
But despite being only a sliver of its GDP, California’s greatest strategic strength is its agricultural sector, which has the highest output of any state, growing over half of America’s fruits, vegetables, and nuts.[9] Because 40% of California’s water consumption goes toward its agricultural sector, however, this strength leads into California’s greatest weakness, which is water.
Water has been a critical weakness and source of conflict since California’s earliest days. For example, Mulholland’s titanic aqueduct project allowed Los Angeles county to bloom, but at the expense of the wholesale exploitation and destruction of the Owens Valley’s water resources .[10] Much of California’s water supply comes from its northern mountains, and is transported to its drier but more populous southern regions. Additionally, about 25% of southern California’s water comes from the Colorado River, which originates in Wyoming and Colorado and then passes through and drains portions of Utah, New Mexico, Arizona, and Nevada.[11][12]
This weakness is not insurmountable. While the threat of the United States turning off California’s water supply could provide great leverage against California, California also has great leverage against the United States with its exports of fruits, vegetables, and nuts. An escalating water dispute would lead to the mutually assured destruction of both side’s economies, so there is a strong incentive to cooperate. Furthermore, the Nile shows that nations can cooperate in sharing a river. Despite the Nile basin including the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Tanzania, Burundi, Rwanda, Uganda, Kenya, Ethiopia, Eritrea, South Sudan, Sudan, and Egypt, the Nile has been marked more by cooperation than competition.
Demographically, California was only 34.7% non-Hispanic white as of 2020, so allowing California to break off would help slow the Great Replacement in the remaining United States.[13]
In 2018, California provided the federal military the largest number of troops.[14] California is also home to 32 military bases, including several highly important ones.[15] There is no doubt that California could defend itself. Furthermore, California could have a NATO-style military pact with the United States and/or its other successor states.
California has more than ample resources to survive as an independent nation. Whether those resources would be used wisely is another question. But if used unwisely, California would have nobody else to blame but themselves.
Notes
[1] https://www.yescalifornia.org/
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_and_dependencies_by_area
[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_and_dependencies_by_population
[4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(nominal)
[5] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_and_territories_by_GDP
[6] https://ballotpedia.org/United_States_congressional_delegations_from_California
[7] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_California
[8] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_ports_in_the_United_States
[9] Ibid., see also https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agriculture_in_California
[10] https://www.americanheritage.com/water-war
[11] https://www.nature.org/media/california/california_drinking-water-sources-2012.pdf
[12] https://rebuildsocal.org/southern-ca-tap-water/
[13] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_California
[14] https://worldpopulationreview.com/state-rankings/military-members-by-state
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.
13 comments
California was once a near paradise with ample space and plenty of opportunities for success. Now it’s overrun by low class aliens and far left extremists that hate their own kind. Prop 186 being overturned was the death knell for the state. I feel like any region that commits to multicultural existence is doomed over time since the minorities will band together against the whites. California would have no choice but to be such a state. Texas would still have too many Mexican residents to truly be a white enclave. I still think divvying up the country based on current levels of actual citizens rather than residents would provide each minority their own space. Ours could run from the Colorado River to the Mississippi River and all land in between. Military bases would transfer to the locals as would immigration enforcement. Of course we’d have to be diligent on our borders. I know it’s a wild dream, but I’m free to dream.
Other benefits:
Other nations could better regulate California’s tech and entertainment, (highly intertwined), sectors with laws. Of course, they would have to be immune from bribery. They could also foster rival tech industries and if DIE continues in California, be a source of recruiting talent to build rivals.
Border walls and deportation programs could be created.
Interior/Red nations would not tax subsidize California, though their oceanic port situation could mitigate that advantage or make the situation worse.
Major Downside:
One big issue with the current arrangement and secessions following it is that Blues/Leftists would control every single deep water port and thus trade with other nations on the interior. This is something for us to keep in mind. Our initial Asturias would likely be on the interior, which in America is fine given the vast interior waterways. Nonetheless, we would need to have ambitions to secure at least one Pacific and on Atlantic facing deep water port, or conceive of some way to have defacto ownership of them.
Remember that a major reason for Russia’s historic disadvantage is having no 365 days a year warm water ports. An interior Asturias would have a permanent 0 day situation to contend with.
How are the other separations going? Parts of Oregon into Idaho? The rest of Illinois leaving Chicago on its own? New York State from NYC? Are they pipe dreams?
They’re trying to proceed by asking permission from their opponents rather than doing it the only way that would work: unilaterally.
“While the threat of the United States turning off California’s water supply could provide great leverage against California, California also has great leverage against the United States with its exports of fruits, vegetables, and nuts.”
Hey California. Let’s play a game! Winner take all. All of us “racists” will see how long we can go without fruits, vegetables and nuts, while you guys will see how long you can go without water. Ready, set, go!
Obviously, I’m kidding.
Seriously though, maybe something like this could eventually be a path to orderly dissolution, but that said, as many have already recognized, the lack of ocean access can be a real drag to landlocked countries. If I recall correctly, this may have been at least part of the reason Saddam Hussain invaded Kuwait in ‘91. That is, by its very existence, Kuwait was literally blocking all, or at least most, of Iraq’s access to the Persian Gulf.
Giving up much of our coastlines to the various Peoples Republics of Globohomo might be a serious problem; but that said, just like Arminius mentioned above, maybe Florida, Alabama, Texas, South Carolina, plus other select parts of the coastlines, east and west, would be enough. There’s always the Panama Canal factor, too.
I use the term The American Asturias with strong intent. If one or more of the southern/Atlantic states you mention do not go, then, at some point the descendants of the American Pelayos get some ocean ports. Perhaps Seattle and/or Portland with some Anglo-Canadian-American breakaway and then Baltimore, Charleston and something in Virginia to get some bi-oceanic trade.
It isn’t clear that Florida is more than a colony of Latin America in practice at this point. It certainly has a governor considered a great American patriot who shows it by abrogating American’s most important rights on foreign soil. That is how pathetic this situation is.
In any case, step one is salvation and some territory. This whole exercise makes me very sad. When you think about the geographic position of America we had a paradise. We had a more or less peaceful ethnic brother to the north and a dysfunctional state to the south and two gigantic coastlines with many deep water ports making this a hub for world trade. We had a relatively small per square mile population that was highly productive and high trust.
The immigration pause starting in the 20s was probably infused with that thinking. Just spend 100 years consolidating the gains and forming a deep American identity with the European ethnic mixes. If we had spent 1945 to 2030 or so rejecting empire and forging this deep American identity, and remaining the world’s largest creditor nation, we would effectively have a massive island with nuclear weapons that could never be invaded or subjugated. It would be populated by a pioneering, highly inventive and self reliant juggernaut of a people with high spirit and tremendous martial prowess – pursuing mostly peaceful high achievement.
The crimes against America are many, The Great Replacement first and foremost, but the opportunity that will never be is really something that a wretched ruling class squandered in very short order. It is one of the great tragedies in world history. We would have made Rome at its highest functioning episodes seem like child’s play. Well, let’s raise up a bunch of those Pelayos and hope that in a few generations they can make their play for a reconquista.
I moved to Northern California 30+ years ago and have travelled extensively throughout the state. It is one of the most beautiful places on God’s earth. What it has become grieves me.
David is a hands-on strategist. I am more of an imaginer.
My fantasy is that the US breaks up and one of its parts becomes a White ethnostate out here in the West, bordering California. Over time, and surmounting very great obstacles, this country becomes strong enough, while California has become self-inflictedly weaker and chaotic. At the right time, our ethnostate, the continuing of White America, states its reclamation and invades this once magnificent member of our country, restores White governance and begins the process of cleaning out the detritus that, with the treasonous help of White and Jewish elites, ruined one of God’s best creations, to become Golden once more.
Don’t worry, you’re not alone. I’ve literally run through this exact same fantasy scenario in my mind. It’s probably dumb and overly militaristic, but it’s also hella cool, you gotta admit.
I’m a 50+ native Oregonian. My generation and older were raised to despise Californians. They were relatively civilized people back in the day, but the Western equivalent of carpet baggers. Today, the prejudice can hardly be said to be harsh enough.
That being so, I have seen and experienced more of California than most Americans. It IS a miraculously beautiful land with a once great white culture.
I pray posterity will one day enjoy the privilege of properly stewarding it on behalf of our people.
Excellent premise and article. I’m embarrassed that I did not know that Germany’s GDP had exceeded Japan’s. I do question, however, the methodology used to calculate GDP; in particular, I think CA’s GDP is overstated. Still, I have no doubt that a fully independent Californian nation would have a GDP in the Top Ten of the world.
Moreover, another attraction for them, one that would increase effective per capita GDP (ie, what individual Californians would actually experience financially), is that California could negotiate a simple basing treaty with the US: “You can keep American military bases on Californian soil in exchange for defending us.” The US will never give up those bases for obvious strategic reasons (ditto Hawaii’s), nor would it allow California to have a militarily independent foreign policy (eg, inviting China to build a base on its soil). This, however, is a huge advantage for California, as it means they get FREE defense. All those CA tax dollars currently flowing to the Pentagon could stay in CA wallets, which would be a huge boost to the CA economy (which would continue to benefit from American base local expenditures, too). And this would be a good economic deal for the US, too, as the huge diminution in Democrat political power that a Calexit would effect would empower the GOP, which in turn would translate into better, pro-capitalist economic policies, leading to greater US prosperity.
Of course, as the author notes, an independent CA nation, dominated by progressives, would likely become even more economically regulated and socialistic, and thus guaranteedly poorer in the long term (compounded by the enormous numbers of CA Republicans who would hastily emigrate back to America). Yet, I don’t think CA would completely die. There are many rich and productive persons there who like the CA liberal lifestyle, and they might well think that Calexit would be wonderful. Also, as the author notes, CA has many advantages, in terms of built infrastructure, natural resources, tourist attractions, the not-so-easy-to-relocate Silicon Valley, and, above all, its geographic placement as the bridge between the US and the Orient – the world’s most economically dynamic region(s).
An independent CA just might survive.
The real issue wrt CA, however, as I have broached in comments elsewhere at CC is, can the Union expel a state? I have long believed that the best thing for American preservation (and a massive slowdown – or at least the possibility of such – in domestic white dispossession and replacement) would be shedding CA (and Hawaii, and obviously Puerto Rico). It would buy ethnostatists much needed metapolitical awakening and political organizing time.
IMO – City States are more practical.
Look at Singapore that broke away from the British Empire after Japan Conquered it in World War II (Please use the photos of starving White British POWs in Japanese concentration camps whenever the usual suspects bring up Japanese American internment in California – Japanese Americans look well fed, not starving like the British POWs)
Hong Kong was quasi independent under British Rule for 100 years.
Of course the Greek City states, Rhodes, Malta, the Falkland Islands.
New York City and some suburbs could/should be a breakaway City State – no way some Black Attorney General from New York City – AG for New York State should have the power to lawfare Donald Trump and Vdare in other geographic still majority White places.
I’m still looking for another Populist Southern Governor to give the middle finger to the Feds, National Media – the last one we had was George Wallace in 1972.
How about some White populist Southern Governor declaring that law degrees, other degrees from Woke, anti White universities – HARVARD and YALE are now null and void in their still White majority Southern States?
That hasn’t happened, legacy Cuckservative GOP Families like the Bush Family, ROmney family are still sending their spoiled, work avoiding, war soldier avoidioing sons to Harvard and Yale and it still works for them.
Yalie, drunk frat boy, Yalie male cheer leader George W Bush Jr was made Governor of Texas and 2 time President of the United States. Rich dumb as* Texans and other Southerners, Utah LDS Mormons want to BE Like the Bush Family, the Romney family – be rich, be Governors, US Senators, Presidential nominees and not have to do any physical labor.
The author mixed up sq miles and sq km. Rather than slightly smaller, California is actually about 2 1/2 times larger than Uruguay.
Slightly OT: I don’t know that it is much of long-term obstacle, but the lack of imagination most people have on the question of new nations is kinda depressing. Take as an example the scoffing response to the ‘divided states’ map from the new Civil War movie that came out yesterday.
Everyone seems to think the idea of a California-Texas alliance is ridiculous because according to our narrow partisan paradigm, these states must always be on opposing sides. But, obviously, these are the two states with the strongest national identities, and the strongest secessionist movements (there may be more support for secession in the South than there is in California, but not as individual states). If both seceded, and came under attach from the US, why wouldn’t they form an alliance? If republican France and tsarist Russia can unite against Germany, surely Texas and California can be allies.
I’m reminded when I worked at a university and heard some of the students shoot the breeze. One student worker was from L.A. and extraordinarily cocky. “California is the greatest,” he said, “if we left America, it would fall apart. We’ve got one of the highest economies in the world, and screw America. We can do without it. We’d leave and LAUGH at Trump and all his idiots. California rocks!”
So, local patriotism.
Then I think of Warday, a novel written in the 1980’s imagining a nuclear war between Russia and America. Only a few nukes get shot, but that’s enough. NYC is wasted, 20 million die, and the Midwest is subject to radioactive dust storms (all those missile bases were damned good targets), and the southwest is a neutral zone where no one rules.
California, however, came out unscratched, and two reporters going there find it like the old America…lots of food, glamor, abundance, and couldn’t care less about the rest of America, as it joined the economic forces of Britain and Japan, becoming an investment Valhalla. Also, the border is sealed off and police will shoot anyone who tries to cross, and a surveillance state is in full gear to weed out refugees and dissidents…who all are white and trying to flee America. The author implies California is all white, seemingly ignoring the demographic tide of the era he wrote in.
I also remember Harold Covington wrote that it was vital a white homeland have viable ocean ports, and made a strong point of taking and holding them in his series of novels. He said the big reason Rhodesia collapsed was it had no viable ocean port, and once Portugal and South Africa cut off Rhodesia (to save themselves…how did that work out?) it was all over.
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