Always Be Seceding

1,321 words ^[1]

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 ^[2], 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 ^[3]). 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 ^[4], 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 ^[5] also wish to be purchased by the United States ^[6].

As with anything there are pros and cons. Gregory Hood ^[7] 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 ^[8] 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 ^[9] 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 ^[10] and a murder rate which is five times that of the United States ^[11].

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 ^[12] (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 ^[13], anything that challenges the notion of existing borders is a good thing metapolitically, whether it’s neighborhoods wanting to split off from a city ^[14], or counties ^[15] or entire regions ^[16] campaigning to switch state allegiances ^[17], 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 ^[18]. 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 ^[19], 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 ^[20] 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 ^[21] or my own ISEE Model of White Survival ^[22]? ^[1]

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.