Subscribe via RSS Feed

It contains all the colors of the rainbow, from white to white.*

[ 183 ] July 11, 2013 |

Before you laugh, you should know that intellectual heavyweights like the Internet’s own Jeff Goldstein are a crucial part of the movement to make “North Colorado” the 51st state. The movement’s “willing to make our voices heard even while being labeled kooks and ‘fringe’ elements,” which is a good thing, since it sounds like something concocted by kooky fringe elements. Who are these people? Don’t know. But according to Jeff they

represent a growing number of contiguous outlying counties that surround the Denver/Boulder doughnut hole owned by the hipsters and Democrats, and the many out-of-state (and illegally out-of-country) imports who have taken over Colorado government, at least for the time being[.]

I wonder what those counties have in common? Let me see now:

  • Kit Carson – 94.8 percent white
  • Logan – 92.2 percent white
  • Morgan – 92.8 percent white
  • Phillips – 96.9 percent white
  • Sedgewick – 96.0 percent white
  • Washington – 96.2 percent white
  • Weld – 93.4 percent white
  • Yuma – 97.5 percent white

They “represent” a group wants to form a state that will be on average 94.94 percent white. They specifically want to exclude urban areas like Denver County, which threatens their Great White Fever Dream with its 10.4 percent blackness. Not that their desire for a white state prevents them from explicitly comparing their plight to the Civil Rights Movement. Except if you scroll down, you’ll see that their new white state will require that “the streets run with blood like we’ve never seen before.” (That sounds ominous until you remember how low a benchmark that is for shut-ins like these.) So it’ll be just like the Civil Rights Movement, only with lots of guns and violence. I bet Jeff’s sitting at home right now thinking about rolling naked on the floor — I mean grappling — and choking the life from some dusky liberal relativist.

Because there’s nothing racist about wanting to create a white state if it’s just an accident of ideology that everyone invested in its creation is white. Unrelatedly:

*Stolen from a comment David Cross made when I saw him perform at the Irvine Spectrum Center many years ago.


Comments (183)

Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed

  1. anthrofred says:

    Oh Jesus, someone invoking Glenn Beck invoking Martin Luther King. Just when I was getting over the gun rights march being compared to satyagraha.

    Sometimes I think people are doing it just to fuck with and parody liberals, like those utterly confused “Capitalist” bumper stickers I keep seeing that mimic “Coexist”. But sometimes people really do think they’re taking up the mantle of pacifists and civil rights leaders, and that’s when I despair for the U.S. educational system.

    • Fosco says:

      I’d never seen those “Capitalist” bumper stickers before.
      …What the hell?

    • Heron says:

      No you’re right to think that. As someone who was born and still lives in Texas, and thus spends lots of time around conservatives, I can confirm for you that, while the specific policies conservatives pursue are chosen on the basis of what makes life hard for women, non-whites, and the poor while making life more profitable for the wealthy and big business, the way they go about arguing for those policies is chosen almost entirely on the basis of what they think will piss off liberals the most. US Conservatism has been about trolling the left for as long as I’ve been aware enough to pay attention to such things.

    • Cthulhu says:

      You give them far too much credit. The Reich wing doesn’t understand sarcasm, or nuance, so the likelihood they could come up with bumper sticker like that borders on nil.

  2. Shwell Thanksh says:

    Godlstein seems to be trying to top his own impressive record for crazy. A desperate grab for more of the sweet rush of another tasty, tasty Internet panflash.

  3. “Organizers of the secession effort say their interests are not being represented at the state Capitol.”

    That’s because they’re not in the majority any more.

    Rather than the current 35 Senate districts, each of the 64 counties would have its own senator.

    “We need to figure out way to re-enfranchise the people who feel politically disenfranchised now and ignored,” Conway said.

    There’s a word for enfranchising the minority at the expense of the majority.

    • SEK says:

      “Originalism”? “Constitutionalism”? “REAL TRUE democracy”? “OUTLAW”?

      Don’t leave me hanging, dude.

    • Scott Lemieux says:

      There’s a word for enfranchising the minority at the expense of the majority.


      • That was a good one – that and Grey v. Sanders. It’s amazing how controversial they were at the time, given how axiomatic they seem today.

        Everett Dirksen himself led a charge to overturn Baker v. Carr, Grey v. Sanders, and Reynold v. Sims, via constitutional amendment – and got 57 votes in the Senate, 7 short. He then went to the states and got 32 states to call for a convention on the issue – two short of the threshold.

        Way too close for comfort.

      • Cthulhu says:

        Sedition? Treason? Punishable by hanging?

    • cpinva says:

      “That’s because they’re not in the majority any more.”

      I have my doubts as to whether or not they ever were. according to the 2010 census results, the 8 counties listed had a total population of 333,641, around 7% of the total population of the state of Colorado, and 250,000 was in one county alone.

      rural counties, almost by definition, seem to always have a small population, and these counties fit that. the reason they have little political clout, is because they represent less than a drop in the bucket, by comparison to the state’s population of approx. 5 million. sorry, when you’re that negligible, you don’t get political power, in a democracy.

      this also leads to the question of just how, exactly, this “new” state would be able to support itself? I feel certain those 334k rugged individualists won’t want to be taxing themselves, and what local commerce they have is pretty limited. my guess: they will be expecting the federal gov’t to provide most of the money needed to run the state gov’t. gotta love me some “rugged individualists”!

  4. rea says:

    And of course, they want to take their two senators and their one representative and vote themselves farm subsidies, while taxing urban areas to pay for them and cutting food stamps.

    • Cody says:

      Yes, I’m very curious how economically viable just rural counties would be.

      Who keeps up all the roads? My small town couldn’t afford anything! The County/State poured a lot of money into us because we were just a bunch of farmers with an elementary sitting in the middle.

  5. snarkout says:

    Ignore the stupidity and racism for a moment — the best they could do for a name to stir the hearts of patriots is “North Colorado”? Show some pride and creativity, Colorblancans!

  6. wengler says:

    Lesson #1 of secession: Never secede in a landlocked area wholly surrounded by the (now)enemy country.

    Lesson #2: Never forget that hipsters, gays, feminists, etc. can learn very easily to pull a trigger. Chances are they are already much fitter than the average North Colorado conservative. They probably also skew much younger.

    Lesson #3: If you can’t deal with the fact the world has changed in the past 60 years, you are very close to both Wyoming and Idaho.

    • Jordan says:

      Argh. Idaho already has plenty of white flight Californians.

    • Sue says:

      Don’t forget Nebraska.

    • “Lesson #2: Never forget that hipsters, gays, feminists, etc. can learn very easily to pull a trigger. Chances are they are already much fitter than the average North Colorado conservative. They probably also skew much younger.”

      To all oppressed minorities in states that have the Stand your Grand law: carry a blade, or, if possible, a concealed firearm. Preferably an M1911 model.

      I’m tired of hearing about couples getting jumped and harassed. Here’s my philosophy: if someone verbal abuses you, steel yourself to act quickly and deadly. If they approach you, prepare yourself to either 1.) jam your blade directly up and beneath their sternum, or 2.) keep enough distance to line up a shot (if you’re hit by a 45ACP then you’re pretty much done for).
      If they continue to make threats and are within your radius of personal space, tell yourself that they’re going to make an attempt on your life and that you’re acting in self-defense. Use whatever dirty trick you can to fatally wound them and ensure that they won’t hurt you.
      Since I imagine that the act of killing someone might require some time to contemplate on life and reality, you’d probably want to regain your composure.
      Either way, call 911 and report the transgression. Make sure you have a buddy to testify that you acted in self-defense.
      You can’t be charged with anything b/c the SYG law allows the use of deadly force in threatening circumstances.

      Oppressed minorities (colored people, women, gender/orientation diversed) need to make it clear that inappropriate behavior will not be tolerated.

      1.) if you’re stupid enough to antagonize someone because of the fact that they’re unique, open-minded, and millions of times more interesting than you, then you deserve to die.
      2.) Darwinism endorses the elimination of stupid people from the human gene pool.
      3.) it protects human rights.
      4.) learning how to take a life is good experience for the coming Liberal Revolution.
      5.) if you’re a writer (which I am,) well, that’d make an excellent life experience!

  7. Warren Terra says:

    You’ve buried the lead:

    This bunch of people isn’t just almost uniformly highly reflective – they also are far from numerous. As of 2011, these 8 counties had 339,207 people in them (3/4 in one county, and 90% in three counties). Hell, even Wyoming is almost twice that at 576,412 (in 2012). The average House district represents more than twice as many people as would live within their proposed State.

    This lily-white bunch of rural peckerheads want an are with not even 1% of California’s population to get the same number of Senators? Even Harry Reid wouldn’t let that happen.

  8. Keaaukane says:

    How does this deal with the Constitution, Article IV, section 3, “No new State shall be formed or erected within the Jurisdiction of any other State… without the Consent of the Legislature of the States concerned as well as the Congress”?

    Seems to me they are just jacking off.

    • Benjamin says:

      Nobody has standing!

      You’re also letting that ellipsis do more work than you realize. The complete quote is:

      “New states may be admitted by the Congress into this union; but no new states shall be formed or erected within the jurisdiction of any other state; nor any state be formed by the junction of two or more states, or parts of states, without the consent of the legislatures of the states concerned as well as of the Congress.”

      Congress can’t consent to erecting a new state within Colorado — it’s simply forbidden. They’d have to grab parts of Wyoming too.

      • Craigo says:

        You’re putting an awful lot of weight on a semicolon in a document riddled with spelling and typographical errors. Yes, Congress, can certainly do that.

          • Colin Day says:

            Did Massachusetts object to the loss of Maine?

            • wjts says:

              Some people did, I’m sure. But given that the secession was only approved (if I remember correctly) after both a popular vote and a vote in the Massachusetts legislature, I don’t think it can be said that Massachusetts objected.

              • Lee Rudolph says:

                Rather later than that (end of the 1800s), Massachusetts and Rhode Island agreed to turn some of Tiverton, Rhode Island, into some of Fall River, MA. Suitably enough—I don’t know if it’s actually related to that transfer, though fairly clearly it’s consequent to it—the last street in Fall River on the (present) side of the border is named Last Street.

          • JosephW says:

            I’m not sure I get what you’re referring to with that. Congress did NOT create a state out of another state nor did it create a state out of parts of two or more existing states with the Missouri Compromise. Missouri was created out of the Missouri Territory, as was permitted by the Constitution (the remainder became unorganized territory after Missouri became a state).

            Maine became a state only after Massachusetts (which controlled Maine) had agreed to permit a secession referendum; if a majority of Maine voters supported the referendum, Massachusetts would allow the region to apply for statehood (IOW, Maine received “the consent of the legislatures of the state[s] concerned as well as of the Congress.”) The Missouri Compromise merely opened the way for Missouri to become a state as well.

        • Keaaukane says:

          I was trying to convey the reading that Benjamin has, only he did it clearer than me. That begs the question, how do the Colorado jack offs deal with the reasonably clear words of the Constitution?

          • Craigo says:

            Benjamin’s reading is wrong.

            See Virginia, West.

            • Craigo says:

              And the great state of Maine, as wjts reminds me.

            • Sharculese says:

              See Virginia, West.

              See: circumstances, extraordinary.

              • Craigo says:

                The argument against West Virginia’s admission (entirely from territory within the Commonwealth of Virginia) was not that Congress couldn’t do such a thing, but that the Wheeling convention was not the rightful government of Virginia, and could legally not consent.

                It’s a pretty weak argument, as there was at the time only one entity claiming to be the government of the US state of Virginia, and it was in Wheeling, not Richmond. But that’s entirely irrelevant to the question of Congress’ authority to erect the new state.

                • Sharculese says:

                  I should have been less snarky, but what I mean is that I’m honestly not concerned about the legal arguments. What I mean is that this does not line up with normal people’s idea of how the several states work in the 21st century, and I see that as a major roadblock.

                • Sharculese says:

                  Apologies for using ‘what I mean’ twice in a row. I’m about +4.5 right now.

                • Craigo says:

                  Go for 10.

                  Honestly the idea that these assholes could convince either a majority of both houses of the legislature and the governor, or a veto proof majority in both houses, and either a majority of both houses of Congress and the President, or a veto proof majority there as well, is a little far fetched, I agree.

                  But I almost wish it would gain a littletraction, so that people will finally start noticing the horribly malapportioned Senate, which outside this blog and a few other places, nobody seems to give a shit about.

          • Incontinentia Buttocks says:

            No question was begged. A question was raised. Carry on!

          • zombie rotten mcdonald says:


      • Linnaeus says:

        “New states may be admitted by the Congress into this union; but no new states shall be formed or erected within the jurisdiction of any other state; nor any state be formed by the junction of two or more states, or parts of states, without the consent of the legislatures of the states concerned as well as of the Congress.”

        The error I think you’re making here is that you’re treating the clause “but no new states shall be formed or erected within the jurisdiction of any other state” as standing alone. It should be read in conjunction with the clauses that follow it. Read that way, you’ll see that the section is saying that, Congress alone cannot create new states from within the jurisdictions of states that already exist – the state legislature(s) of the state(s) from which the new state would be created must also consent.

  9. Carol says:

    Argh! There must be some right wing wind machine pushing this story! As of 3weeks ago this was a2day wonder, and now someone jumped on the month old story and started hyping it. I would like to find out who did that. The movement looked like it died a natural death but ZOMBIES!
    I am from Colorado and can attest that this is hooey.

    • Warren Terra says:

      Even the Washington State secessionist movement had a better argument:
      1) Sizeable area and population
      2) The Western half has 3/5 the population and the people around Puget Sound (especially in and near Seattle) have quite different priorities from the people east of the Cascades.
      3) God. (I didn’t say it was a great argument, just better).

      But, then, the Eastern Washington Secession movement fell apart because no-one could agree how to rename George.

    • Matt McIrvin says:

      I think the real danger is the right realizing that the next time they have a Congressional majority, they can start dividing up every deep-red state that is controlled by a Republican legislature. We’d end up with 100 or 200 states, most of which would be tiny white rural parcels with a few hundred or thousand residents, each of which would get two Senators and a Representative. (They might have to skip some of the Southern ones for fear of creating majority-black states in some of the pieces. But they could divide up Idaho and Utah as small as they want.)

      It’s the only way I can see that the Republicans can retain their ability to drive national policy over the long haul without widening their demographic appeal. All they have to do is dare to do it, and they’ve been doing things that are Not Done for quite some time now.

  10. […] * North Colorado, Whitetopia? […]

  11. NewHavenGuy says:

    Someone please tell me some good news? I am seeing something like a perfect storm. Genuinely frightened. Wages getting stomped flat- worse than flat, as shareholder profits go up. A Republican Party which is a few short steps from authentic Fascism. (Yeah, I said it. Not polemics, thinking of Paxton, Niewert, Altemeyer. Bad manners maybe but reality based.)

    Block grant Medicaid! Privatize Medicare! Social Security too, that worked out great for the right people under awesome Libertarian Bro Pinochet!

    (In real life translates to =LOL, suckers who play by the rules, fuck ’em! Rules are for inferior races and the poors, duh. Power! And looting, YAY! See also: Avignon Presidency, 2001-2009.

    Me? Dumb. I think that would be an economic disaster even without the military adventurism. Not to mention

    I’m glad there are no deep or venomous currents of race hatred in our American history. Whew! Otherwise, some other peoples would have to be punished horribly for the failure of Market Based Management(TM Charles G. Koch.) Good thing America loves all people, regardless of race, creed, etc. LOL.

    Sorry to ramble there, but more than a little frightened. A bad moon rising. One political party with 99 problems, and the other going all-in on something between 1930s Central Europe and the Old Confederacy.

    What to do, practically? I support Democrats, I support better (D)s too when feasible. I suspect that the death of labor politics and labor unions has much to do with it. But here we are.

    And fuck, I hope I am just WRONG about everything for once.

  12. Creepy Ass Cracker says:

    I got 99 problems
    And bein’ a creepy ass cracker is one

  13. Sharculese says:

    I will repeat the words of my center right college buddy, from when he was in the army and stationed in Oklahoma, on the possibility of Texan secession:

    I hope those motherfuckers try it. I would love the opportunity to put them the fuck down.

    • Cthulhu says:

      I think….inasmuch as I do think, that we should embrace the secessionists.

      And then load them all into cattle cars, ship them down to Texas, and kick Texas right the fuck out of the union. Build a wall around it, and let Mexico know it’s open season.

      It’s past time someone called them on this crap.

  14. Erik Loomis says:

    This sort of rural separatism in western states isn’t so uncommon–the State of Jefferson movement in southwestern Oregon and northwestern California being the one I know best–but usually they are all about land use and hippies with their big guv’ment liberals stealing public lands from ranchers or some such thing. But I suppose what with all the Mexicans coming up and whatnot, a more obviously racist message isn’t surprising.

    • The Dark Avenger says:

      The possibility of Jefferson vanished with the attack on Pearl Harbor.

      20th century
      In October 1941, the mayor of Port Orford, Oregon, Gilbert Gable, announced that the Oregon counties of Curry, Josephine, Jackson, and Klamath should join with the California counties of Del Norte, Siskiyou, and Modoc to form a new state, later named Jefferson.[4]

      On November 27, 1941, a group of young men gained national media attention when, brandishing hunting rifles for dramatic effect, they stopped traffic on U.S. Route 99 south of Yreka, and handed out copies of a Proclamation of Independence, stating that the state of Jefferson was in “patriotic rebellion against the States of California and Oregon” and would continue to “secede every Thursday until further notice.”[5]

      The secession movement came to an abrupt end, though not before John C. Childs of Yreka was inaugurated as the governor of the State of Jefferson.[6] The first blow was the death of Mayor Gable on December 2, followed by the attack on Pearl Harbor on December 7. Secessionists focused their efforts on the war effort, which crippled the movement. Coincidentally, the “state of Jefferson” was one of the few places in the continental USA to be the subject of an attack during World War II, when Japanese pilot Nobuo Fujita dropped bombs on the Oregon Coast near Brookings on September 9, 1942.[7]

  15. T. Paine says:

    These fuckers. I had to listen to one of them blather on the radio yesterday – get over it fuckface, we voted in a state government that doesn’t give a shit about your cracker-ass supremacy fears.

  16. timb says:

    Anyone who follows Mark Levin is either a dupe or an idiot

  17. Creepy Ass Cracker says:

    I got 99 problems
    And bein’ a creepy ass cracker is one.

  18. Thers says:

    I hate it when minorities get more rights than majorities. Seriously. Whenever I remember that Wyoming has the same representation in the Senate as New York, I get grouchy.

  19. Liam says:

    Fuck, that was me. But srsly, the idea behind affirmative action is that in many places minorities are represented even less than their proportion of the population at large. Which is the opposite of your point.

  20. Creepy Ass Cracker says:

    I got 99 problems
    And bein’ a creepy ass cracker is one

    • InnerPartisan says:

      What always amuses me about the mantra is that it semantically equates “racist” and “white” – yet at the same time, most of you scumsuckers get all huffy and puffy when being called racist.
      You’re just race realists, you claim. But then of course, the mishmash of discarded 19th-century “science” and libertarian fever dreams that even Ayn Rand would have deemed unethical is about as far from reality your lot from being taken serious anywhere that isn’t Stormfront or a Meth-infested trailer park.

      But hey, keep on fighting the Good Fight. I like my Nazis to be out in the open, and the mantra certainly helps with that.

    • So, JenBob, do you think the Holocaust is a work of fiction, or that it didn’t go far enough?

  21. zombie rotten mcdonald says:

    hmpf. If they take Coors with them, I am willing to fund a NASA project to create an “Ark B’ for the whole lot.

  22. Shakezula says:

    So it’ll be just like the Civil Rights Movement, only with lots of guns and violence.

    Um. There were lots of both during the CRM thanks to people like the assholes who want to create Whitedorado.

  23. witless chum says:

    I don’t think calling for extermination of the Jews is much worse than what our average troll believes, it’s just that this one is oddly honest about the antisemitism part. Ten years ago, they were keeping quiet about their desire for dead Jews, but were open about hoping we’d start nuking Mecca. It’s the circle of life and I tend to believe they’re probably more pro-genocide than they are anti-any group.

    But The Jew Kaufman would know best whether the troll needs to be expunged.

  24. smitty werbenmanjensen says:

    Forty. Million. Daggers.

  25. aimai says:

    All pancaking and jew kauffmann aside SteveM makes a good point–the Colorado counties in question may just be planning to rearrange the state Senate, and if they do that they will destroy the state by rendering it permanently undemocratic and ungovernable and all for the sake of a shrinking white rural population.

    At that rate its cheaper for the Koch brothers to “vote farm” by paying people to settle in rural areas which are overrepresented in the state legislatures than to bother to lobby the legislators directly. And you might argue that vote farming and redistricting fraud are going on when large prisons are settled in otherwise underpopulated states and regions which then are overcounted for the purposes of the census while not actually producing a viable vote from the convict population. Apologies if that is a bit complicated for a single post.

  26. MAJeff says:

    rendering it permanently undemocratic and ungovernable and all for the sake of a shrinking white rural population

    Sounds a bit like the national party as well.

  27. libarbarian says:

    Jeff Goldstein is a pussy and a coward who hides behind cops from harmless old cat-ladies.

  28. bspencer says:

    David Cross is prolly my favorite stand-up.

  29. SEK says:

    I wake up and this thread is weird. I’m glad to know that someone’s finally recognized that I’m a Jew. Cultural, mind you, but that’s enough for camping, no?

  30. Heron says:

    In similar news, here is an article written two days ago about how the Republican party is now, officially and structurally if not publicly, the party of racial segregation and White Power.

  31. Alan in SF says:

    Mr. Goldstein seems unaware that “white supremacy” would not generally include him.

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.