1,321 words 
Many of us remember “ABC,” the salesman motto from the 1992 film Glengarry Glen Ross. It stands for “Always Be Closing.” A salesman should never waste time chatting with a prospective client, and focus always on closing the deal. This is all that matters. Likewise, white advocates should adopt a similar strategy, and, in our minds at least, “Always Be Seceding.” This is our way of closing the deal. Short of mandating our majorities by law, it’s all that matters in the long run.
This is why I mildly approve of President Donald Trump’s desire to purchase Greenland. I cannot say the same thing about his talk of making Canada the 51st state or taking back the Panama Canal. Despite whatever Trump says about Canada, I think he’s simply trolling Canada’s liberal elite and signaling that under his watch the United States will better look after its economic interests when dealing with them. As for the Panama Canal, I think Trump is just dissuading the Panamanians against overcharging US shipping as well as getting too cozy with the Chinese (such as when they recognized Taiwan to be part of China). I doubt Trump really wants to invite the international hell storm he would get if he were to take the Canal back by force. Remember, this was the president who did next to nothing to stop the Summer of Floyd riots in 2020. He’s also bragged on countless occasions about how he didn’t start any new wars in his first term. It is possible he will hard-bargain America’s way back in control of the Canal, but with the Canal being so valuable to Panama, that prospect still seems a bit farfetched at this point.
Greenland, however, is a different story. If it is going to happen at all, it will be a financial transaction between the United States and Denmark, hardly different than the transaction which took place between the United States and Russia over Alaska in 1867. (And, as with Canada and the Panama Canal, I am ruling out military intervention since I simply don’t believe Trump would authorize a hostile takeover of Greenland short of a hot war with Russia or China.) Of course, with its mere 56,000 people, Greenland would be a territory rather than a state. According to reports, many Greenlanders wish to be independent from Denmark, which will give the Danes a motivation to sell to Trump while they still can—rather than have the independent Greenlanders doing it themselves. Some polls suggest that a majority of Greenlanders also wish to be purchased by the United States.
As with anything there are pros and cons. Gregory Hood points out that, while 56,000 people isn’t a lot, there is a lot of anti-white sentiment among the 89 percent of the population which is mostly Inuit. It makes little sense to invest good money into non-white populations whose loyalty and appreciation is suspect. Greg Johnson explains that the economic benefits would not improve things much beyond where they stand now and would not offset the hostility from Europe that such an acquisition would engender. Morris V. de Camp provides cogent historical arguments against modern super powers like the United States getting all land grabby. On top of all this, Greenland has its share of problems, such as the world’s highest suicide rate and a murder rate which is five times that of the United States.
All good arguments for not purchasing Greenland. On the other hand, could it be that gaining easier access to Arctic shipping lanes and the trillions of dollars of natural resources sitting under glaciers might be worth alienating the European powers who may not stay alienated for very long? I’m sure Donald Trump will be quick to remind the Danes or the French or anyone standing up to him how the United States provides nearly 3.5 percent of its GDP to NATO (which is 2.5 times the 1.4 percent Denmark provides) as well as over $800 billion annually (which is over $700 billion more than second-place UK). So while Denmark is technically in charge of Greenland’s defense, we all know whose responsibility it would be if the chips were to fall all the way down.
Furthermore, perhaps Greenland as a US territory could one day become a white flight destination as the US population continues to brown. Who knows? I don’t have the expertise to opine much further than this, but I do agree with Hood’s belief that Greenland “is not an existential issue for white advocates.” Whether the benefits ultimately outweigh the deficits with this acquisition is less important in my mind than the very fact that Trump and everyone else is now talking about this formerly marginal topic.
Why? Because my “Always Be Seceding” senses tingled when I first heard about Trump’s Greenland ambitions back in September. For someone who has long trumpeted the idea of Red State Secession, anything that challenges the notion of existing borders is a good thing metapolitically, whether it’s neighborhoods wanting to split off from a city, or counties or entire regions campaigning to switch state allegiances, or countries using the art of the deal to annex previously unattainable territories. All of this serves to change the mindset of white people for the better. The last thing we want is for white Americans to accept the status quo as permanent and never question it. No, those of us who dream of a white ethnostate in North America want white people to question the permanence of everything about today’s culture, especially when it comes to borders.
And this can come from all quarters. For example, Canada’s Green Party leader Elizabeth May, in a fit of petulance earlier this month, floated an unrealistic plan for Canada to annex Washington, Oregon, and California. She touted Canada’s universal healthcare and strict gun control laws as selling points for disaffected American liberals. Of course, this was merely a lame attempt at trolling the master-troll in Donald Trump. Furthermore, I am in 100 percent agreement with Greg Johnson in his opposition to annexing Canada under any pretext. However, the blind sow Elizabeth May just might have stumbled across an acorn with her proposal. How about a land swap with Canada, wherein the United States cedes, say, the west coasts of Washington and northern Oregon in exchange for swaths of British Columbia, Alberta, and/or Saskatchewan, which are some of the whitest, most conservative parts of Canada? If enough people on both sides of the 49th parallel are onboard with such a change and are willing to hash out the details, why not? Such a trade would be a boon for the American right since the US would pick up red areas and shed blue ones. The remaining rural parts of Oregon and Washington could be incorporated into greater Idaho, a reliably red state which would then wield more electoral votes in presidential elections. Such a shift would so destabilize the political balance in America that many of the remaining blue states and cities would be sorely tempted to secede rather than submit to the right’s obnoxious rule. Imagine Calexit becoming a reality, or Chicago and some of its suburbs opting to join Canada as well.
This would not be the hubris and empire Johnson correctly describes. Instead, this would be blue-state secession, which is hardly different than red-state secession. Isn’t this what we want? Wouldn’t this make America whiter and more conservative? Wouldn’t this ultimately facilitate deportations and stricter immigration control within the restructured United States? Wouldn’t this get the ball rolling towards Johnson’s Slow Cleanse or my own ISEE Model of White Survival?
We have Donald Trump to thank for opening our minds to such a paradigm shift—simply because he can’t stop running his mouth. With all his rhetoric about annexing Greenland, Canada, and the Panama Canal, this is one instance in which I wish Trump would continue talking the talk. Whether he ends up walking the walk, however, is not quite as important.
22 comments
It is just as likely that this opens the door to the imperial project to turn America into a North American super-state that incorporates Canada and Mexico and post-America. I don’t know if that is good or bad, but it needs consideration and deliberation.
I think a first step in the coming decades is building and protecting redoubts, and most important instituting our own comprehensive education system. We need to deal with deracination and the deconstruction of our identity on a mass scale before there is sufficiently wide spread will to even own and run a town properly. That prioritizes education. The Christians are far out in front on this one – which is a positive development.
I think Trump’s 2024 disposition is the most important development. I think his sons and the sons of his entourage and all of our young men watching what happened to Trump and the natural conclusions one must draw from it all are the biggest win. The borders in young men’s minds; the walls of the ghettos of the post WWII consensus have been demolished and/or there has been a pause in their construction. That is where the opportunity lies.
One such shift is recognizing that post-America is a colony; a multi-colony. We can and should treat it like one. We extract all we can from it, and like the other successful groups, bring it back to our domiciles to strengthen and bolster our plans and our cause.
I don’t think the Greenland and Panama stuff has much to do with us, but gobbling up Canada could break our way.
My basic theory here is that 1.) Newfoundland is the most obvious place for a White ethnostate in North America (the most natural name for such a state is Vinland, and Newfoundland is actually Vinland). 2.) Canada as a whole is unlikely to agree to merge with the US, but if it can be partially dismembered beforehand, then it becomes more plausible for the rest of it to fall into US hands.
So then if the US were serious about absorbing the better part of Canada’s land, we can see how their interests might align with ours. I know the Quebec independence movement (which would sever their access to the St. Lawrence) is the more obvious candidate for this role, but a little extra dismembering couldn’t hurt. Even better would be a Cascadia in the West that includes Vancouver, and a WN state in the east, cutting-off Canada’s warm-water access altogether. Then the vast interior would be easy pickings for the US.
Who do you bring to the table to do this deal with? What brings them to the table? What gives you the power/leverage at the table that you need to get the deal that you want?
Who do you bring to the table to do this deal with?
The American and/or Canadian governments, I assume. Maybe the Quebec government, if they are independent by then.
What brings them to the table? What gives you the power/leverage at the table that you need to get the deal that you want?
You don’t think we can just appeal to the goodness in their hearts?
I won’t pretend I have any special insights into negotiating my way to having the government give me a state. All I know on that is what everyone else does—that we need to make our cause far more popular, and to translate that popularity into a lot more money and power.
Speaking of money, maybe the Greenland scenario is relevant to us. If the US does buy Greenland, I can’t help but wonder how much is Newfoundland worth to Canada? I see that the entire province (including Labrador) has a GDP of 33 billion Canadian dollars. So that’s like $20 billion or so, I think. If we had with us a dozen or so very, very generous billionaires willing to liquidate 80-90% of their assets, would that be enough for a down payment? Yeah, I know one of their governors is running around wearing a ‘Canada is not for sale’ mock maga hat, but maybe one day parts of it will be. Especially if Quebec is already gone, making it inconvenient for them to control the eastern provinces anyway?
I know this sounds pie-in-the-sky, but that’s only because the circumstances for it today are not ripe (i.e. we are not nearly popular and prominent enough).
ArminiusMaximus: January 21, 2025 at 10:18 pm Who do you bring to the table to do this deal with? What brings them to the table? What gives you the power/leverage at the table that you need to get the deal that you want?
—
Very good Questions, Arminius. Ryan is a dreamer who has not thought this through. Neither have others here who are participating in the topic.
For red states, secession, with their unrepresentative racial boundries and mixed-race demographics, are no more plausible than Whites fleeing to Newfoundland.
Who will sort all that out when the SHTF? The shit will hit the fan before we know it and we had better be organizing ourselves now instead of then.
For serious White preservationists the sales pitch must be “Always be separating” — us from Jews, other non-Whites and Whites who are not serious racial separatists.
Build from the community level that we will control, not from some democratically-run red state of the democratically-run “united” states. That is still doable as eligible, determined, like-minded Whites gather. That is not for everybody reading this, but count on me to “always be closing” with this strategy: What is the National Alliance? | National Alliance
Donald Trump, with his Jewish team for building a “Golden Age in America,” will not be our leader. Sorry. He may buy us some time with long overdue policies like ending burthright citizenship, but don’t be complacent with half-measures. Always be separating. Always be race-thinkers first.
Yes. This talk is way too far out in front of things. If we could build a robust, easily scalable home school curriculum and interconnected network of home school sub-networks that would be worth a lot of intellectual effort. Next, we could build around that another layer of things for our people that would then become a foundation to be used to build up a system of patrimony.
In terms of politics and territorial control, we have to prove we can settle a small territory, protect it for ourselves and exercise full dominion over it in such a way that the people there are thriving.
It is a lot of big plans to show up in Berlin and play Paganini’s 24 Caprices as an overture, and then stand in front of the orchestra giving a command performance of the a concerto, but we haven’t mastered the first etude in the first book of beginner etudes and then a suitable beginner piece to apply and prove we have mastered those fundamentals.
I don’t intend to be mean. We could do anything, but we have to start with the fundamentals. We have to be realistic. As you point out, we elected Trump to put us first, and he has spent post 11/8 holed up in Mar-A-Lago with internationalists and Davos men figuring out how to do what the Biden cabinet and paymasters couldn’t, ‘Finish The Job’ of making this an oligarch’s rigged slot machine.
We have a beautiful road ahead though it is very difficult. We have to calculate our steps and take them one at a time.
Yes. Always Be Seceding is a mindset.
I like it when people share new ideas out, so this isn’t meant as nit-picking, but I do not see Newfoundland as an ideal location for a White racial-state.
One of the issues is that Newfoundland is located within the subarctic climate zone (it has a harsher climate than Anchorage, Alaska):
This means that it is too cold to be self-sufficient. It already imports 90% of its food:
https://greenfarmnl.ca/about/
The situation would be worse if it had to feed large numbers of White immigrants. It also has no major rivers comparable to those of the mainland USA, is less White than Nova Scotia (which is more temperate, has better forests, better farmland, etc.), and does not have a diversified resource portfolio. There is some offshore oil, but a web search shows that much of the refining is done at the Saint John plant in New Brunswick.
It would also be exceedingly difficult to move large numbers of Americans into Canada. The Canadian government would not want large numbers of ‘AltRighters’ moving into its territory. It would be easier to move Americans to certain Eastern European countries than to Newfoundland. This means any WN state on the territory of Newfoundland would have to be built by Canadians.
There is also no pre-existing organized pro-White community in Newfoundland. Any racial-state will first require a somewhat organized, somewhat active community with a sense of who they are (the history of the Anglo settlers in what is now Texas comes to mind).
Personally, if I were looking to create a racial-state (with the hope of it evolving into an ethno-state as the locals undergo a process of ethnogenesis) then I would look for a territory that:
Lies within a somewhat temperate climate. This could vary from being a cool place similar to Lithuania to the beaches of Bulgaria. It just needs to be capable of sustaining a few million people. It can’t be subarctic or desert.
Access to diversified resources and reasonable farm land. It is not inconceivable that a racial-state would either experience sanctions or lack the necessary maritime fleet to import X good from a foreign region.
Access to a major river to enable cheaper trade, transport, and port facilities. Barring this, access to a well developed port would be ideal.
A local White population that is friendly / not opposed to the goals of those leading the new nation.
A pre-existing community network.
There are only a handful of regions in North America that fit those criteria.
As a minor note, my bullet-points and the image that I shared were both deleted from the post. I think that this site only supports image links rather than direct copy-pastes and there may be some sort of glitch with the bullet-point option.
Well, I don’t disagree with all of your points, but I would put it this way: of the two places people most talk about as locations for an ethostate—the pacific northwest and northern New England/the atlantic provinces, and I agree those are the only two real options (in North America)—I think the northeastern option is more plausible. It has fewer extreme left-wingers, it is Whiter, and most importantly or all, it has fewer people period. Now it would be great to have everything from upstate New York north. But that’s 5-6 million people, maybe 3.5-4 million if we exclude a Portland/suburban New Hampshire corridor.
But if we can’t have all that, the best single chuck of it, for us, is probably Newfoundland. Not that it has the most productive land of that stretch, it doesn’t. But natural resources is only one of the factors to be considered. The others are total amount of territory (the more, the better), total pre-existing population (the fewer, the better), and sea access, with extra points for being an island. All those factors considered together, Newfoundland looks like the best option to me. It is an island over 80% the size of England, with a population of only 500,000. Cut out the Peninsula with St. Johns, and it is still nearly 80% as large as England with a pre-existing population of only 200,000. And the number of antifa among that number who would stay behind just to sabotage us must be pretty tiny—I assume the population there skews older, and so is less feisty that way.
One of the issues is that Newfoundland is located within the subarctic climate zone (it has a harsher climate than Anchorage, Alaska):
To me, the only major drawback with the climate is that they get ungodly amounts of snow, and have wicked ice storms. Temperature wise, it’s not that bad. The winter temperatures are basically like what we get in the upper Midwest (though it is like close to half the year). And summer temperatures are similar to the British Isles. Not precisely my taste, but livable. Also, according to Albion’s Seed, Massachusetts at the time of our ancestors’ settlement had a climate similar to what southern Labrador is like today, which I take as an auspicious parallel.
This means that it is too cold to be self-sufficient. It already imports 90% of its food:
https://greenfarmnl.ca/about/
From my cursory research, I think you’re concern here is justified. But 1.) I assume part of the reason for this is that it is simply more efficient to get produce from elsewhere, not that they couldn’t grow much more food there if they really needed to. 2.) At the risk of exposing myself as a simpleton, can’t you grow potatoes pretty much anywhere, which I believe are highly nutritious. 3.) What about cattle, eggs, and milk, etc. Couldn’t we still do that? 4.) At the risk of sounding even sillier, what about claiming land from the sea, and making that into cropland?
Part of the reason the potential for farmland isn’t great is that it is mountainous, so I have to think there is some mining potential there. It’s also very windy, so wind power is a possibility.
One other concern about the land is, to judge by online maps and lists of settlements there, it seems as if a vast stretch of the south-central part of the island is virtually uninhabited. I don’t know what that’s about. I would hope it’s just that the fishing is best to the north and east of the island. On that note, I assume that the historical dominance of the fishing industry there is also part of reason why the farming and other natural resource potential has not been better exploited.
I hadn’t noticed the lack of rivers, but it does have a lot of lakes that might be connected by canals. Or maybe the mountains will get in the way. I don’t know. Hopefully we’d be able to have a decent train network anyways
It would also be exceedingly difficult to move large numbers of Americans into Canada. The Canadian government would not want large numbers of ‘AltRighters’ moving into its territory. It would be easier to move Americans to certain Eastern European countries than to Newfoundland. This means any WN state on the territory of Newfoundland would have to be built by Canadians.
Yes, but on the plus side, I feel like advocating that we should be given a chuck of a foreign country is less likely to land me in a gulag here. You’re right though, we would need our brothers up in Canada to get the ball rolling for us. But if the movement for an ethnostate becomes prominent enough here, I’m sure it would spill over to there (and I would hope that the ‘Vinland’ name would attract adventurous/idealistic Scandinavian racialists).
Besides the historical/mythological significance, I like the fact that Newfoundland is a nation-state-sized island with such a low pre-existing population. This is not to say that if the powers-that-be conceded to us something like Maine’s second congressional district and northern New Hampshire, that I would turn my nose up at the offer. If events transpire that a potential ethnostate emerges in the great plains/mountain west, I could get behind that too. But if we’re going to be landlocked, it better be a very, very large state. The problem with getting this though, is that we would be in the rest of the country’s way. That’s why I hardly consider it as a possibility. The only way I could see it working is if events followed Quinn’s model of red-America seceding from the US and the ethnostate seceding from red-America.
To me, the only major drawback with the climate is that they get ungodly amounts of snow, and have wicked ice storms. Temperature wise, it’s not that bad. The winter temperatures are basically like what we get in the upper Midwest (though it is like close to half the year).
Those cold temperatures mean the soil (which is far lower in fertility / quality than that of the Midwest) is frozen for a large portion of the year and you can’t grow anything in icy soil. This is not as easy as farming in a place like Wisconsin, which has rich black soil and a hot summer.
2.) At the risk of exposing myself as a simpleton, can’t you grow potatoes pretty much anywhere, which I believe are highly nutritious. 3.) What about cattle, eggs, and milk, etc. Couldn’t we still do that? 4.) At the risk of sounding even sillier, what about claiming land from the sea, and making that into cropland?
^Potatoes can grow in some parts of Newfoundland, but they grow much better in milder climates like Ireland or Idaho.
^How are you going to feed those cattle? Newfoundland has poor grazing land and if you are using the small amount of cropland to feed your population then you won’t be able to use that land to grow animal feed.
^That would require a huge amount of funding and would take years to yield results.
Yes, but on the plus side, I feel like advocating that we should be given a chuck of a foreign country is less likely to land me in a gulag here.
I completely agree that it would be hard for the US government to oppress racial advocates who wish to leave. However, in order for that type of policy to be effective the ‘target territory’ would need to be controlled by a weak government that can be bribed / incentivized towards looking away from what is happening for a number of years. Then once the settlers are in a position of strength, they could seize power.
This is what happened when the Anglos arrived in Texas. It was a territory with rich cropland, few locals, and there was a strong culture divide between the Mexicans and the Anglos so the two populations didn’t blur together.
Canada is not the best place to do that. They deported Ernst Zundel after jailing him several times, and he was not a radical. They also have harassed Frank Eckhardt (whose crime was sending emails denying the Holocaust).
You’re right though, we would need our brothers up in Canada to get the ball rolling for us.
They would need to do 90% of the work, including establishing an independent nation-state that allows Americans to move there.
Wouldn’t it be better to focus on a plan where Americans could be active from the beginning?
But if the movement for an ethnostate becomes prominent enough here, I’m sure it would spill over to there (and I would hope that the ‘Vinland’ name would attract adventurous/idealistic Scandinavian racialists).
I’ve known members of the NRM and other Scandinavian groups… the vast majority of them will not move to a North American WN state. They have a sense of blood and soil nationalism and are fighting for their nations. Their long term geopolitical goal is to create an economic union / league among the Nordic nations and possibly some of the Baltic ones. They have a detailed series of economic, racial, ethnic, and geopolitical objectives to pursue within their sphere of Europe.
Spencer, I love your idea for a property swap with Canada. I worked in Alberta as an expat for five years and considered Alberta the Texas of Canada with Oil and gas and cattle ranching. Saskatchewan is the bread basket but it comes with lots and lots of feather Indians in the northern areas. Same with BC – tribes all over the north. Lazy and troublesome with a “what have you done for me lately” attitude. Eastern Canada is very liberal. Forget them.
Not much hope for re-trading the Canal deal. That ship sailed when Jimmy “the peanut farmer” fumbled it away by trying too hard to please people that hated us. I think we can and should force Panama to aid in the stoppage of migrant caravans from S. America. That would be a win.
Ideally we would steer clear of the northern areas of Saskatchewan and then build a wall if necessary.
[A]nything that challenges the notion of existing borders is a good thing metapolitically…
Perhaps. The chief problem that White Nationalists and Concerned Whites have is that we are unable to deliver anything politically if an opportunity presents itself.
Any action that destabilizes the liberal strategy of stopping time by the continuous recycling of WWII political propaganda has to be welcome to the overall goal of revolutionary political action.
But only if the ‘revolutionaries’ have a plan and resources to take advantage of either the resulting chaos or power-vacuum.
And I don’t see that we do.
Trump is shaking the tree and seeing what falls out.
Is there any part of White Nationalism prepared to capture some of the falling fruit?
If the red states secede and form a loose federation, then the states that are already 85 or 90% white will have the constitutional right to remain so because they’ll be allowed to control migration from other states and abroad to their state. Also there will be significant voluntary emigration.
Red-State Secession: January 21, 2025 If the red states secede and form a loose federation, then the states that are already 85 or 90% white (sic) will have the constitutional right to remain so because they’ll be allowed to control migration from other states and abroad to their state. Also there will be significant voluntary emigration.
—
You’re kidding, right? The only three states that still have 90-91% White populations are Maine, Vermont and West Virginia. The first two are solidly blue and full of ineligible White separatists.
And though WV has wisely transitioned away from the crazy blue Democrat Party to the reddish GOP, and is a logical southern Appalachian White redoubt, the state is full of nutty evangelical Christians. Biden’s buddy, the ex-Klansman Robert C. Byrd, likely would not be elected to the Senate there again today. Then there are the issues raised by Jared Taylor, here: What Jared Taylor Gets Wrong About West Virginia.
You speak about “Constitutional rights.” That document that served our race early on, but has been turned against us in the past century and longer, will be little more than an unenforceable scrap of parchment when the SHTF.
I am speaking of the next constitution, not the current one. This makes all the difference. The next one makes it a loose federation, where each state controls its own borders.
Many states will be more than 85-90% Anglo, because only 41% of red-state blacks tell pollsters that they’d stay after a National Divorce.
Red-State Secession: January 22, 2025 I am speaking of the next constitution, not the current one. This makes all the difference. The next one makes it a loose federation, where each state controls its own borders.
—
I see. So there will be a Constitutional convention of the loose federation of seceding red states. When and where?
Will they be contiguous red states? Any idea which ones will be seceding from the remaining states?
—
Many states will be more than 85-90% Anglo, because only 41% of red-state blacks tell pollsters that they’d stay after a National Divorce.
—
Many states, you say? Any idea which ones at this point?
If 41% of Blacks in unnamed red-states, in an unnamed poll, will remain in those red states, that’s a lot of Blacks! Will those Blacks who choose to remain be sterilized so they cannot continue to piss in what remains of the White gene pool?
What to do about Jews and other non-Whites in your “seceding” red states? How about all the red state Whites who have non-White dependents? How about the degenerate red state White freaks in their LGBT communities? Will they be welcomed?
Is your plan enunciated anywhere by red state Whites who use there given names so we can review it? If not, why not?
Lots of other questions.
Will, I wrote a whole website about this. It is here: https://redstatesecession.org/partition-of-the-u-s-is-the-peaceful-way-out-of-the-upcoming-troubles
The Anglo states (white states) are in the northern West (Mountain Time and Central Time)
Trump should secede from (((NATO))) before that organization succeeds in provoking a nuclear war with Russia. Then he can use the money for all sorts of things.
Spencer Quinn: January 22, 2025 Yes. Always Be Seceding is a mindset.
—
Yes, but in the sense that a fixed state of mind is inflexable, unyielding. I say Always Be (racially) Separating, is our bottom line, if that meets with your approval. If not, go with you plan to secede.
The State of Franklin was a good, early example of secession that worked for a while, though it was not necessarily for racial reasons, it was in an already White region where I now reside: (183) The Secessionist State of Franklin — Can it Happen Again? – Page 5 – White Biocentrism
Red-State Secession: January 24, 2025 Will, I wrote a whole website about this. It is here: https://redstatesecession.org/partition-of-the-u-s-is-the-peaceful-way-out-of-the-upcoming-troubles.
—
Thanks for that. I found your solution there:
The Solution
The solution is to leave some territory for the Left: the blue parts of the blue states. This is a solution that can be achieved without force, and without forced migration. If the problem is that the electorate is not conservative enough to maintain a free, solvent country, then the solution is to retrench to a position of strength by cutting off part of the electorate, by drawing a new border. Israel learned this lesson; it separated from Palestinians and then built walls, which have proven to be well worth the cost.
Ah, the Israeli solution: peacefully separate White reds from the blue folks “without force,” but build walls and checkpoints to keep them out, again, “without force.” A lot of Bible study and praying.
Of course Jews use their Bible “history” to justify stealing Palestinian land. No mention of the US and UK backing the Jews’ theft of Palestinians homeland.
[T]here are hundreds of books available that were written before the current conflict between Jews and Palestinians began that provide demographic data on Palestine. Just before the First World War, in 1914, Palestine was a part of the Ottoman Empire. In that year the Turkish government took an official census. Of a total population of 689,000, just 84,660, or 12.3 per cent, were Jews, and many of those were recent immigrants who had come to Palestine as part of the Zionist movement… More recent Palestinian history, here: The Big Lie | National Vanguard
Our Bible for our people is hated by the Tribe: Cosmotheism: Religion of the Future by William Pierce – Cosmotheism. For starters, we are neither superstitious nor gullible to worship our enemy’s imaginary deity, Yahweh.
—
The Anglo states (white (sic) states) are in the northern West (Mountain Time and Central Time)
—
I see. Good luck. May the best strategy to preserve the White race prevail.
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.