Americans are a stateless nation, because masses of foreigners have obtained US citizenship. Americans can’t protect themselves, or their interests because there is no American military. Only US military. There is no American judicial system to prosecute their enemies or defend Americans, because there’s only a US system.

The Irish had the same problem until 104 years ago. They were a part of a union with Wales, Scotland, and England. Unlike Americans, the Irish clearly understood that they were outnumbered in their union. Even on their own island, some of their territory was majority-occupied by foreigners (Presbyterians from southern Scotland & northern England). By analogy, US blue states are majority un-American, judging by their voting patterns.

The Irish struggle for independence included dozens of mass revolts over the centuries, but after World War I their underground government was finally offered a deal: the Irish could have a homeland, with full sovereignty & independence to govern themselves, if they accepted that the jurisdiction of their government would not include the whole island, and their government didn’t try to conquer the whole island. Would you have taken this deal?

The Irish took the deal, and benefited greatly. They kept their culture, and they were no longer discriminated against by government. This deal didn’t leave out the Irish of Northern Ireland, because those were welcome to move south. Some non-Irish emigrated from Ireland. Until recently, Ireland had far, far fewer Asians or Africans per capita than the UK. Irish in the new state went from having half the incomes of the English in the UK at independence, to now having approximately 20% more income today (even after excluding the income multinational corporations are making using Ireland as a tax haven), which is roughly equal to the English when adjusted for purchasing power.

Would you take such a deal on behalf of Americans today? The US Right (RW) is in the position of the Irish before Ireland’s independence. We’re a minority that wants to rule. As a percentage of US population, poll respondents identify 30% as liberal, 40% as moderate, and 30% as conservative. Evangelicals are 23%. That includes Southern Baptists, who are 4% of US population. Only 18% of the US are whites in the South, and not all of those families are from the South. All whites, not including MENA or Hispanics, are nearing exactly 50% now. White Christians 41%. That includes white evangelicals, who are 13%, white Protestant non-evangelicals, who are also 13%, and white Catholics, who are 12%.

Most American balk at the idea of “losing” territory. But they don’t have any territory now, because the federal government doesn’t operate in their interest. Even red states, where they predominate, aren’t sovereign because they’re subordinated by fedgov. Like the Irish, we’re the weaker party in a power struggle. We don’t have a politically-realistic path to obtaining sovereignty over a 50-state union (except maybe by seceding first & then conquering). So secession is the way to gain 30 states, since we don’t have full control or ownership of any states to lose. Certainly some blue states are beautiful, and our forefathers won them. Take a photo, or visit as often as you like, but it’s time to move to a red state and build. Don’t accept Hollywood’s caricatures of red-state cultures.

I don’t see any way to put the Right in charge of the 50 states, any more than the Irish could take the whole island. Edward Luttwak, who wrote the book on coups, observed that they wouldn’t work in the West. A government needs some formula (argument) for why their leaders in particular should be obeyed. You’ll notice that the countries that still manage to disenfranchise much of their population have never been a part of Christendom, which tends to be anti-hierarchal. It’s hard for a government to have legitimacy (which is necessary for obedience) in the US without democratic input.

It’s possible that adding a fourth country on our continent could cause some conflict, but not as much as a civil war from trying to share a government would. Lifespans on both sides of the island of Ireland increased after the island was split. And at least we wouldn’t have a fifth column within our own society, government, and military.

Now from the British point of view, can you imagine how much grief the British would have suffered over the last century if they hadn’t let most of Ireland secede? For what benefit? Not financial. Not military. Just to make the UK look big on a map? Yes, it was a security risk to the UK to split the island of Ireland into two countries. It didn’t become a haven for Chinese or Soviet missiles. Irish are mostly Leftists who refused British rule. So Britain found it preferable to let them be independent. The military of a federation of red states can teach Californians not to bother us. We don’t need to occupy them like Britain occupied Ireland. I understand the Right desperately wants dominance, but governing Californians is bound to make our country less right wing even if we don’t let them vote at first.

The only stable way to get the policies you want is to live in a country where half the populace is to your political right.

In a republic, political coalitions need to form a majority by representing a majority of voters. Thus, the demographic that the coalition tries to win are the median voter – voters who are to the Left of half the population but also to the Right of the other half. Theirs are the views that prevail, unless donors trick them into voting for the wrong parties, or the government is an oligarchy rather than a republic. Even in European countries that have multi-party legislatures due to a proportional representation electoral system, the parties still need to form a majority in parliament, which requires that coalition partners represent half (or nearly half) the voters.

Persuasion doesn’t work on Democrats because the Right can’t outbid Democrat Party patronage, whether it be financial handouts for unwed moms, abortion, racial privileges, sexual deviancy support, or funds for Leftist activism. If we can’t persuade them, we must leave them.

Many conservatives believe the US Left is like another nation from us. But how to keep them subjugated?

In the medium term, how would a truly right-wing government maintain control of the whole US?

• As a 1-party state like North Korea, China, Vietnam, Laos, Cuba?
• Or like Iran, where clerics vet the candidates?
• As an absolute monarchy like Saudi, Oman, Brunei, Eswatini?
• As a monarchy with limited democratic input from advisory bodies like other Persian Gulf states?
• A military Caesar like Niger, Mali, Burkina Faso, Guinea Bissau, Sudan, Madagascar? These are the only ones in the world, and they didn’t exist 6 years ago. Also Eritrea & Turkmenistan.
• Or a junta like Myanmar?
• In Thailand & Turkey (until recently), the military would coup the regimes it doesn’t like. This requires a culture that greatly respects the military, allowing them to get away with it. Even soldiers have homes & families.

It’s a bad idea to just limit suffrage in a democracy, because it’s so unstable that no country does it anymore anywhere, because a political party has a huge incentive to maintain a majority by giving them suffrage. Even if the constitution bans their suffrage, constitutions can be amended. As you can see on this graph, once a country becomes a republic, it doesn’t take long for even the most conservative polities in the world to give in to the temptation to grab an electoral advantage by letting women (or landless rabble) to vote.

• In Gulf Arab states, the majority of the population are guest worker non-citizens who can’t vote. The foreignness & vast numbers of recent arrivals, and the ethnic unity of the Arab citizens, eliminates the temptation to use their votes to defeat electoral opponents. South Africa & Rhodesia were similarly stable because the non-voters were so foreign & threatening to the voters. (Foreign interference brought down their regimes). The demographic situation is not that stark or clear-cut in the US, so limiting suffrage would not be stable here.

• The Netherlands still has Caribbean territories that are self-governing, so don’t vote for Netherlands’ leadership. But at 1.7% of the empire’s population, their population is so small that getting suffrage wouldn’t be enough to change control of Netherlands’ Parliament. No other empire has relatively more populous non-voting territories today than the Netherlands has. The US has 1% its population in territories, plus DC, which votes for president but not Congress. The risk in the US is the 2 senators that DC or Puerto Rico statehood would bring.

• Some countries have longstanding ethnic groups not acknowledged as citizens because of their foreignness: 9% of Latvia & 5% of Estonia are non-voting Russians. 3% of Cote d’Ivoire, 4% of Lebanon, & 1% of Myanmar are considered non-citizens (Palestinians, Rohingya).

• To maintain legitimacy, the vast majority of countries have a regime that poses as a republic, but gives preferences to favored groups & ideologies, & makes victory difficult for others. The Left eventually wins in such places because the people are retarded & they like money.

Even people who can’t vote still create political content & post it, volunteer, and donate. They serve as media, lawyers, professors. We need a place for our libs to move to, where they don’t have to care who wins our elections, because they’re not under our government anymore.

Military dictatorships usually don’t last, because they have a hard time justifying why they should be in charge Any form of government can produce good results if the personnel are good, esp. if the populace is good. So we need to focus on separating from bad populaces. We don’t think many of these strategies for minority rule are stable in the US context, so we favor red-state secession. More importantly, we don’t see a realistic near-term path to getting the power to implement any of these, except through secession.