Intro: In California’s political calculus two variables loom large, not disappearing any time soon. They are the piling on of enormous governmental debt and the related undercurrent of massive legal and illegal immigration surely eroding the ‘Golden State’. Indeed, in the last decade or so reactions to these trends have given rise to populist movements that gain frequency, most current being Trump’s election. As we enter a new phase of white Populism, ‘state-split’ campaigns across the country have found new momentum, even here on the West Coast (for example, in Eastern Washington as well as several in California).
However, the California state-split movement is usually identified with State of Jefferson— a small rural civic nationalist movement which has kept the dream of an independent Northern California alive. Besides Jefferson, there are a number of other existing division proposals. The more serious likely belongs to Timothy Draper (Silicon Valley venture capitalist and bitcoin billionaire) who proposed in 2013 a six-way split and in 2018 a three-way one (aka. 3CAs). California has seen as many as 200 proposals for subdivision since the first years of its constitutional legislature in 1850.
Demographic Divide: In my own travels driving northward from Alameda County, I’ve been struck by the demographic difference whenever crossing San Pablo Bay or Carquinez Strait where most counties become white-majorities. In recent years the so-called Altright has articulated several important concepts related to retaining majority status, including the idea that collective power– or sovereignty– is the ability of a people to create and exercise their own Laws within a specific geographical space. Another basic truism articulated by the New Right is rather than begin with an abstract philosophical belief (like classical Liberalism or Constitutionalism), neo-Rightists start with organic and concrete categories like Race or Ethnic Identity, and then reason from there toward relevant political commitments– the usual test being, “will it improve or preserve my people”? As I cross into the North Bay and upper parts of California, I see a white demographic that’s arguably potentially capable of both principles, namely, sovereignty and solidarity. So, I wonder if this part of California could rescue what remains of our ‘white’ way of life before it is crushed between the Asian Yellow-Tide on one side or the Hispanic Reconquista on the other?
Consequently, I did some calculations comparing prominent CA state-split proposals as well as developing my own division for a so-called “Northern California Republic“. The main difference between my NorCal Republic proposal and SOJ is making solidarity with white-majority counties rather than prioritizing political party identification. This also allows some good flexibility with Draper’s plan. My data was mostly collected from 2017 population estimates determined by the US Census Bureau, the California State Registrar of Voters Office, as well as 2016 Presidential election results. I tried to use the most recent data as possible with the hope their evaluation will show a “NorCal Republic”– not only a middle-way between SOJ and Draper’s 3CA– but the most realistic future for white-majorities in California who wish to regain ‘representation’ or sovereignty. An Excel worksheet detailing the county-profiles for each proposal is provided further below as well as here. Meanwhile, let’s look at some of the strengths and weaknesses of our scheme as well as a couple others.
State of Jefferson (SOJ): The oldest living state-split campaign belongs to SOJ. SOJ activists are mostly concerned with keeping a state where Rural interests predominate, resulting in polity with strong conservative political bearings. Activists tend to measure the latter by Republican Party registration but more recently they’ve been using Trump voters (although the data for CA shows little difference). In the last five years, SOJ has rapidly expanded southward, mostly through the old Gold Rush counties of the Sierra Nevada. That recent expansion has created an odd looking ‘tail’ for SOJ that ends with a hook protruding into the Central Valley. Currently, SOJ is pursuing its goals for ‘representation’ by Court Case, perhaps naively expecting their Originalist legal arguments to prevail in a court system that (in their own words) is ‘corrupt’ or pragmatic in philosophy. While a favorable verdict in the Courts triggering state-split is unlikely, the SOJ has raised a surprising war chest to keep their legal Case moving. More importantly, leaders like Mark Baird and Terry Rapoza have organized the Jefferson ‘state of mind’ into a tangible entity. The present extent of proposed SOJ is shown in the map above, depicting the counties of Mariposa with Stanislaus composing the hooked-tail. If SOJ succeeded, the Jefferson territory would be on the small-end of states, possessing a total population of 2.7 million with a white populace of 1.6 million (61% white). Republicans would have a slight 3 pt. lead against Democrats, being 37% vs. 34% of voters respectively. But, this fact alone ensures the SOJ bid is probably DOA given the philosophical bent of powerbrokers in Congress.
When comparing the state-split schemes, keep in mind California’s current demographics (which we’ll call CalExit). Whites are presently 37% of the population with twice the number of registered Democrats to Republicans (in other words a 2:1 ratio). Though Jefferson would do much to reverse this ailing trend, the US Congress and Supreme Court verdict would never create a ‘red state’. Nor does this include incurred resistance at home from Democrats. Nonetheless, SOJ would produce a smaller state with scant monetary and human resources, compounding the problems above. Although SOJ tends to overemphasize political party affiliation, it has received ‘progressive’ counties such as Mendocino and Humboldt with Democrat to Republican ratios greater than 2:1 (higher than the state generally). Jefferson has likewise approved ‘edge’ counties like Sutter and Stanislaus that might lean Republican yet are more Latino than non-Hispanic white. All these tendencies are within the pale of SOJ which oftentimes comes off ideologically ‘pure’ in terms of its Constitutionalism. Nonetheless, SOJ is about as close to a Pacific ethnostate as we can imagine but unlikely due to current political realities. This dilemma is reinforced by the group’s shunning of pragmatic alliances, say, with liberal-republicans like Draper.
Draper’s 3CA: Billionaire-eccentric, Timothy Draper, is on his second bid for California state-split. Now proposing a three-way divide, Draper’s version of Northern California would include the entirety of SOJ but add the San Francisco Bay Area as well as Sacramento County. Such additions of massive Democrat and non-white populations drastically change the character of SOJ and would be suicidal for ethno-nationalist Californians. The new state would increase current California Democratic numbers by 5-pts, rendering ‘progressives’ more dominant (from a 1.8 to 2.2 advantage) than they are now! Secondly, the non-white populations of the Central Valley (like Merced with the lowest white proportion at 28%) and the SF East Bay (such as Alameda County at 32% white, also with large numbers of Dems) would be incorporated. This would effectively lower white representation in SOJ from 61% to 45%. While a 45% white population is still better than the status quo (see CalExit in the chart below), Draper’s Initiative would frankly ruin the circumstances of conservative whites already under the thumb of the Democratic Party. Perhaps the only thing Draper’s plan has going for it, unlike SOJ, is a much greater chance the elite or political class would approve this state-split– producing four more Democrat Senators and a similar number of House Republicans. QED: solidifying their “progressive” hold over the Union. Consequently, between each scheme, Draper’s has the best legs but not surprisingly the worst outcome.
A NorCal Republic: What NorCal whites need is a plan that combines the ‘legs’ of Draper with the fighting spirit of SOJ. Whereas the fortunes of SOJ hang upon a court case predicated on rather strict Originalism, Draper would give the whole of Northern California to ‘progressives’. Let’s consider a middle-course between the two, maybe calling it a NorCal Republic? In answer to both problems, this “NorCal Republic” would include all (or most) counties with white-majorities remaining (above the North Bay to the Mokelumne River– see red line in side graphic) regardless of political affiliation . We also might want to omit long ‘tails’ since Congress as well as various legislatures and voters tend to prefer states with fairly ‘neat’ or straightway/latitudinal boundaries.
The outlines of this NorCal Republic therefore either resemble the state split proposed by Assemblyman Statham in 1991 or the boundary proposed by Draper in 6CA (see second image below). It may include a reduced Gold Rush tail or simply bisect its lower border for a clean-cut close to the mid-portion of the state. It may include white-majority Marin County despite disadvantages of spill-over ‘progressivism’ from nearby San Francisco (with Marin’s 4:1 Democrat lead). Unlike SOJ, the NorCal Republic has no qualm about including other white-majority counties like Sonoma (64% white), especially given the larger white populations they add (namely, 1 million more whites than SOJ). Other ‘edge counties’ like Solano and Sacramento (39% & 46% white respectively) could be later reformed or ‘assimilated’ by other, down-the-road factors (see various ideas at end of post) .
Where Northern California actually begins with respect to the mid-section of the state has always been a question. But, please notice the boundary marked by the thin red line in both side-graphics. There are advantages to a border copied from Draper’s 6CA Initiative which follows the county lines along the course of the northern fork of the Mokelumne River as well as westerly San Pablo Bay. Not only does the public usually prefer thinking of Northern California in terms of a latitudinal bisection, but a key mover and shaker in recent state-split schemes, Timothy Draper, has drafted this particular boundary in 2013. So, it does not belong to us but is an idea previously endorsed and promoted by Draper. However, nothing is set in stone, and we can be open to making ‘tails’ (like Statham’s) which stretch through the Sierra Nevada. I personally like the idea of having physical features (like Bays, straits, and rivers) composing state borders.
Following our principle of ‘solidarity’, or starting with counties where whites retain some kind of majority status (giving secondary consideration to party-affiliation), we can hand Draper a few concessions which he likely believes important. Evidently, Draper wants two things: first, a NorCal that include part of the Bay Area. Second, a future NorCal should have a large metropolitan core (rather than mid-sized cities) like either San Francisco or Sacramento. Therefore, if we must include some San Francisco Bay area counties in order to gain Draper’s help, let’s avoid the worst types. ‘Assimilable‘ Bay Area counties probably would be North Bay counties that have either a rural character (like Solano) or those with white-majorities that are oddly liberal (like Marin and Sonoma). If compelled to choose between Sacramento or San Francisco (Draper wants both), we might allow Sacramento but insist on nixing San Francisco (keeping in mind Sacramento has a larger white population and is about four times more conservative than SF). These concessions not only make NorCal ‘digestible’ for some Democrats, but they give us some crucial starting points toward a long term goal.
Although our proposal does not automatically create a ‘conservative’ or ‘red’ state like SOJ, it does reduce Democratic party numbers placing us at “striking distance“. In fact, depending on what configuration of counties we want– recombining parts of Draper’s NorCal (from 6CA) with Statham’s 1991 proposed split– we may massage the ratio of Dems to Republicans, creating a range of scenarios where political contest can result in our side winning. The trick is to retain a progressive veneer while setting the stage for a political and social environment that we can make headway within and win. Evidently, in California every decision comes down to whether Dems gain more power. This is the immediate attraction for progressives, especially if they expect to seats in the federal government. Their trade-off, whether obvious or not, involves giving us an environment where we can slowly turn fortunes around. Here is a chart summarizing schemes below with the ‘winning range’ delineated:
Orange County Scenario: Getting a state-split to pass the halls of power essentially rides on keeping Democrats in power. However, their perceived advantage can be rendered more or less an illusion. What we need to ask if 1) the new state will be majority-white; 2) if Democratic power will be any weaker? Draper fails on both questions. SOJ passes with flying colors, but it is unwilling to concede anything to perceived opposition and thus is impotent. The above chart lists the main schemes according to ‘practicality’ with the determinate factor being above-water Democratic point gaps (orange column). Once we cross the inflection point where Republicans acquire a lead in registration (‘SOJ Official’ model at 0.9 or 3pts advantage), the odds of a new (red) state becomes basically zero. Of course, the practicality of the idea increases in probability as the Democratic advantage widens (D:R Gap). What one should notice is there’s a range of scenarios where Dems are apparent majorities yet conservatives may be within striking distance to ‘win’ or carry the projected state in even mass elections. That striking range would be wherever the D:R ratio is below 1.4 (but not ‘1’) -OR- under 10 pts.. Winnable scenarios include ‘the Northern California Republic’ (with least a 1.4 ratio) to a unaltered or ‘pure’ Statham plan incorporating most of the SOJ’s ‘tail’ (this has a 1.1). Our goal would be to optimize white % with these poli-advantage ratios. Also, take notice of the NorCal version which omits Marin County. I likewise calculated a Statham that incorporates Sac County. Many other variations could be made but they need to follow realistic rules of politics or at least mass psychology (like people vote for straight lines not tails, etc.). My Excel worksheet can be downloaded here.
So, while we wholly reject Draper’s current scheme (6CA offered more in terms of party affiliation for conservatives), we could negotiate several future plans that visibly meet some of Draper’s objectives (or moderate liberals’) yet quietly improve our position. I will contend this position has a greater chance of occurring than an SOJ victory in the Courts– and even better if attached to revised Draper plan. Three-CA may indeed fail this November, but won’t Draper try again? Playing the game requires trade offs– allowing Dems some kind of slight advantage while improving our present political odds is not stupid. It can play into an unrelenting opposition as Lawrence Murray calls it (in other words, a conservatism that finally takes the offense).
Even the SOJ leadership has said situations where conservatives find themselves only a third of the electorate are still winnable. In fact, Mark Baird admitted a degree of possibility for Orange County reversing the consequences if caught in Draper’s 3CA. Suggesting Orange County might have enough clout to carry Draper’s SoCal state (among the three, Socal as the best prospects @ 33% Republican), Baird said, “We don’t know what the make up of three state would be. Maybe the Orange County part of it and find some backbone and lean a little more to the right. Maybe it’d be 4 to 2 or 3 to 3 [Dems to Republicans]. Point is we can impact that anyway” (see 1hr 47min to 54m approximately). Let’s call that an ‘orange county scenario’ which is surprisingly better than our current state Dem to Rep proportion. Listen below:
Conclusion: Thus, we have a range of NorCal futures, each based on a modified historical proposal, or having some kind of relevancy by precedent, even considering boundaries previously drawn by Draper. None give us a Republican majority state, but they do inch us away from the existing ‘CalExit’ baseline, therefore, improving our predicament. These politically viable scenarios exist between a range of D:R ratios 1.4 to 1.1. Hence, they stand the chance of approval with Congress and perhaps even the state Legislature. They also follow preconceived public impressions as to what a two-way split for NorCal should look-like. They also assume an alliance between state-split groups and Draper himself, representing a middle way between several, sometimes competing, aspirations. My belief is this approach would fair best at Draper’s next bout after 3CA fails. It is not the sudden and total victory white conservatives imagine for Northern California, but it’s improves our odds at a long term cultural and political battle, akin to Baird’s optimism about an Orange County scenario, in a state that is presently under an absolute Democratic Party lock hold. In other words, it opens that gates for a salvaging of the best parts of the state, giving us time to regather and make our own laws until we can repossess the American far-West.
Finally, here are some sublime political factors that could help NorCal move closer to the conservative ideal following the aftermath of a successful state-split whether by a modified Statham or Draper-NorCal scheme.
Cultural: In a future NorCal more politically conservative, Californians might be better prepared for a change in social views (even religious revival). New religious or cultural viewpoints might include or reverence larger families. This would be very needed for white families who are demographically NPG (below 2 children per married household). Until recent years, the political center in CA cleaved to traditional marriage, and we might see a white population re-embrace the natural sensibilities and affections of their forebearers if more confident by Populist victories. Leveraged, rural counties might tilt the balance of cultural influence (mainly by law, to some extent demographics) finally in their favor. Larger families can reclaim ‘edge’, or already ‘tipped’, counties like Solano and Sacramento. It might even happen from overspill emigration emanating from neighboring, victorious, majority-white counties into the ‘edge’ or semi-urbanite, more liberal ones– again, like Sacramento County. However, it’s admittedly difficult to imagine rural overcoming semi-rural regions like this without certain protections and economic reform.
Law: Another factor is better law enforcement and less welfare, starting with drug addicts and illegal immigrants. Consistent enforcement of Law alongside stricter welfare qualifications might send the unworthy poor out of the state (aka. much of it including self-deportation) , reversing some demographic trends presently active in NorCal. There is also the plus of ‘unfriendly signalling’ where certain kinds of immigrants are plainly discouraged by the general climate of law and order. States can protect their borders from criminal entry. This is only the negative side, and positive law would be far more comprehensive as suggested above by advancing native population growth in white rural areas, perhaps masked as ‘rural renewal’.
State Capital: Once a state-split ensues, the political class (and its enormous staff) in Sacramento will also depart for new state capitols outside NorCal (with as much as two-thirds of the present bureaucracy possibly leaving). This amounts to a significantly smaller bureaucratic class in Sacramento proper and therefore less Democrats in that particular county. How large a government would leveraged rural norCalifornians want? Sacramento could be parceled between new governments, thereby a degree or more smaller.
Note: I assume an elitist view, mainly because in judging history until local elites (at least) invest in popular movements, the latter usually go nowhere. However, augmenting ‘nationalist populism’ might involve strange alliances with DSA-Sandernistas (Sanders supporters) who share a populist and anti-establishment (perhaps even anti-neoliberal) tone. This approach has been discussed here, serving as an update to 2016/2018 Trump election results which this older post heavily relied upon. However, all the above fit into the Vexit mold– blue counties uniting or recombining with each other (and even a few purple) apart (as much as possible) from red or heavily democrat portions of state. I’ve given purple counties leeway if favorable settler-demographic.
Last week JazzHands at Fash the Nation made an important point about our Judicial system, and I was starkly reminded of it this weekend while attending a State of Jefferson meeting. As explained at the meeting, the State of Jefferson (SoJ) is suing the sate of California for lack of representation and failure to supply a Republican form of government. Surprisingly, they have raised a substantial war chest to fund their court cases and expect to set their grievances before the Supreme Court sometime soon. Thus far, sounds like a solid strategy. However, the arguments prepared for the Justices have so far been strictly ‘originalist’, or rigid constitutional ones, in nature. My question is how will that fair against a court system that is pragmatic and situational legal philosophy? In other words, how will they make headway among Judges who believe the Constitution to be a “living document” and not bound by the letter?
In my mind, “originalism” is is ultimately a handicap if dogmatically pressed in a legal environment that is wholly activist. While it may partly vindicate itself by enjoying the moral high ground (i.e. or does it?– the courts have been unconstitutional since 1865), Originalism won’t win the court case. Sadly, the dominant outlook of the courts today, says, Dr. Rod Dreher, is “Who, Whom”. In other words, what concerns the Left is ‘who’ gains power, and ‘whom’ will lose. It is a purely situational or pragmatic philosophy, not only among our Justices but political class in general. Dreher explains it as a subversive idea,
“It is in the Marxist principle that there is no such thing as truth; there is only power. Lenin understood this well. This is the meaning of his famous dictum, “Who, whom?” In Lenin’s view, co-existence with capitalism was not possible. The only question was whether or not the communists will smash the capitalists first, or the other way around. One way of interpreting this is to say that the moral value of an action depends on who is doing it to whom.”
The consequence is the Court(s) tend to work backwards in the legal arguments according to the outcome they desire. In this context, Originalism has no footing. Last April, Fash The Nation discussed this very problem, weighing Neil Gorsuch’s ‘autism’ in a decision defending illegal immigrants who commit non-violent crimes. “Jazzhands” (the commentator) said Justice Alito understood the court’s philosophy and would have never sided with the Left side of the bench.
At 44.30 min Jazzhands begins discussing our courts under the current Trump presidency. At 47.30 min & 51.20 min he begins to discuss Neil Gorsuch’s ‘autism’, which is often symptomatic of Rightwing Constitutionalism, much like the logic of the State of Jefferson’s case. In this sense, the Right typically hinders itself with courtesy in procedure while the Left argues no less than by what results they desire. Jazz says, “He [Gorsuch] should have sided with the correct side of the court, not the Left. Problem with courts is not only they decide case in their favor, but also the precedents that a case would set.” Also, “they arrive at conclusion they want first and work back to justify their decision”. see http://fashthenation.com/2018/04/fash-the-nation-118-leveling-out/
In a related article, though not as articulate or fact-ridden, Justice Sotomayor is cited as evidence how low Situational philosophy has taken the courts. Evidently, courts no longer need to form decisions or deliberate on the basis of established law but may do so by mere ‘feelings’. However, is ‘constitutionalism’– which assumes the opposition intends to play fair– the best way to counter these trends? Perhaps more Brett Kavanaughs, rather than Neil Gorsuchs, are in order? Lawerence Murray makes a good point about what’s needed:
“we need a guiding principle of unrelenting opportunism. In other words, any decision, policy, appointee, or program must be based on the question: Does this advance the position of nationalists within the United States government?”
To me, the Left has been advancing its globalist interests for the last few decades in an increasingly unapologetic if not ruthless fashion. As they are more ‘deeply’ insinuated into the institutions, even the Courts, lawsuits like the SoJ become antedated, irrelevant, even a far shot. Most of us are already red-pilled on the general situation. Why should the courts encourage SoJ, especially where activists like Jim Baird, has said an SoJ win would give conservatives in other states a green light to split? Do the Justices want that, or anything which might create more Republican senators and representatives? Until we can pack the courts with our own people– slowly making a nationalist deep state–, we have to play, in part, their game, “be wise as serpents, gentle as doves”– even if dealing with traitors and invaders.
California state-split groups need a person or persons well-positioned who can advance, one way or another, a populist agenda. Amazingly, SoJ had a chance to cooperate with Timothy Draper– financier behind 6CA and 3CA ballot initiatives– but threw the opportunity for an Originalist court case that will likely be dismissed. Draper was patient enough to indulge, evidently, a three-hour conversation by phone punctuated by heated exchange. The fact he didn’t hang up sooner is amazing, showing SoJ might have been able to negotiate a more favorable division of Northern California. However, they would have to accept the political reality of “who, whom”, thereby giving something to Democrats.
Such a concession would likely include three elements: 1) incorporating part of the Bay Area counties, like Marin and Solano, into an expanded SoJ or projected NorCal; 2) taking in some urban centers like Sacramento and Santa Rosa; 3) allow a Democrat majority, even if slight. As I’ve written previously, this is not the worst case scenario and could have prepared the political topography for a populist direction. However, SoJ wasn’t willing to tarnish their standard, and it sounded as if they choose Orginialist or nothing. As Murray reminds us,
“There are many ways to work through these paradigms, and many ways to reorganize the government and how it is constituted to produce better internal and external outcomes. And it can all be done while remaining within the law, however stretched and bent it may need to become. Therefore, potential policies are as inexhaustible as potential scenarios the deep state would be faced with”
Part of the problem is lack of metapolitics or consistent worldview. If God determines the rulers, then we can’t be too picky about which authorities we must engage or influence under the all-wise hand of Providence. Draper’s wealth was something of a game changer, and could have put SoJ on a pathway (if they could meet the three criteria above). But SoJ was democratically orientated and did not want to collaborate with an Elite or even meet half-way.
I am still debating whether to vote for 3CA or not. I don’t see the state-split groups working together or with Draper anytime in the near future. We need to ‘nationally gerrymander’ the country in favor of Trump, and a state-splits are one way of doing such. Says Murray regarding a theory of opportunism,
“Civic nationalists would have to set up a deep state; they’d need to control the army, internal security, and intelligence bureaus, win the loyalty of the business and mafia classes or create new ones, redistrict legislative seats, change voting laws, gerrymander the whole country to give more power to rural and suburban (White) counties, etc.,”
At this point, Draper’s 2018 plan may be the best division we’ll get, and, if Draper attempts a third-stab (upon the failure of 3CA), the next boundary for NorCal is likely to be inched further southward. Meanwhile, SoJ remains an important symbol of a long-lived state-split movement in CA. Since our inception as a state, California has long been considered too large to properly govern. This is likely more true than yesteryear. Nor is SoJ likely to disappear given our budgetary and demographic trends.
Since May 2006, brave Americans in the Bay Area have defended themselves against the radical Left, and, consequently, a growing alliance of conservative Populist citizen groups have emerged, taking back the streets from militant marxist revolutionaries and finally breaking PC silence in our neighborhoods. This marked a turning point for the conservative right-wing not seen in many decades.
The NorCal CofCC (aka. NorCal Conservative Council or “Convention”) is one of several associations which joined the populist upsurge. Since the passing of CofCC director Gordon Baum, this blog has become independent of CofCC, and– though sympathetic– we no longer represent the views or opinions our earlier affiliation.
What is our associative philosophy? Here is the NorCal Council’s statement of principals. We are developing a platform, though modern, that is organically linked to the California conventions, namely, 1850-1875.
State Rights: The States existed prior to the U.S. Government. Any power which is NOT enumerated in the US Constitution is reserved and remains with the States. A true federal system of government allows sovereignty within the respective states of the Union. We have seen a constant diminishing of State powers over the last century. Furthermore, states possess the right to interpose federal law when such is deemed unconstitutional. A return to State rights is the best format for our ethnic preservation, securing the original ‘diversity’ of this country, and public liberty for those who value it.
County Activism: We want political power decentralized, leaving the County and municipality as normal spheres of government. Patriots need to be involved in city politics, schools, and neighborhood associations not only to reclaim their living space but build momentum with local campaigns that counteract political correct agendas. We don’t want people to view themselves as ‘world citizens’, but citizens of their family, town, county, and state–i.e., a politics that is personal and immanent rather than removed, abstract, and spectacular.
The Bible in Government: America was intended to remain a Christian nation with the Awakening as a backdrop. As the CofCC platform says, “Its government and public leaders at all levels must reflect Christian belief and values” (article 1). From a similar (non-CofCC) document (termed the White Book) Christianity is fundamental its government, “We magnify the Bible– as the basis of our Constitution, the foundation of our government, the source of our laws, the sheet-anchor of our liberties, the most practical guide of right living, and the source of all true wisdom.” (p. 23) So, Chillingworth said, “The Bible is the religion of Protestants”.
Religious Tolerance: Yet, we believe in freedom for every religious denomination, ‘provided they do not threaten the existence nor offend the moral feelings of Americans’. The same white book says, “Liberty in matters of religious faith and practice is the American citizen’s right and privilege… But this principle [of liberty ] does not mean that any church or organization is free to teach doctrines that will unfit any citizen for the loyal performance of his duties to the Republic, or which will strike at the foundation principles of our institutions.” (p. 81) In a similar, or reciprocal manner, the State’s role is [Dr. Fabricius says], “to protect church services and all church institutions with the utmost rigor against defamation and ridicule, in fact to repulse every act of violence directed against the church[es] and its representatives.” (p. 26)
Free Soil: Early Californians believed Western territories should be ‘white man’ states. Free Soil opposition to slavery was predicated upon keeping the both free and enslaved Negros out of California. The Free Soil principle goes hand in hand with keeping our Western states in the hands of white-majorities. What is a nation? In his 2006 book, State of Emergency– after quoting Gen. 10:32 and noting the British origins of America– Patrick Buchanan defines a nation as possessing a distinct racial and ethnic core by which other people assimilate, “Language, faith, culture, and history– and, yes, birth, blood, and soil— produce a people, not ideology” (p. 162).
Social and economic transformations are rapidly globalizing America. White Americans have every right to maintain our majority status and keep our religious faith within the same lands our Fathers settled. The scripture says, “Every man of the children of Israel shall pitch by his own standard, with the ensign of their father’s house: around the Congregation of the Tabernacle they shall pitch” (Num. 2:2). So, White Americans have pitched their ensign in the land the Lord has given us. The Land can be kept if we remain faithful to our Heavenly Father, cleaving to both His Commands and His Will as expressed in Nature and, in a similar way, the best parts of our Positive Law.