A call for serious Christians to leave behind electoral delusions, libertarian fantasies, and digital nation LARPing — and begin founding new sovereign countries rooted in myth, law, and land.
First, I write not as an American, but from Europe (Finland to be precise) — and not to promote any narrow national vision, but to pose a serious global question: What happens when Christians, cultural traditionalists, and the disinherited of the West can no longer vote, speak, or live freely in their homelands?
That question, I believe, transcends electoral cycles and national borders.
Second, I don’t claim that all plans are execution-ready. What I’m advocating is what the Left and Islamists have always done better than the Right: envision and prepare. We don’t need 10 million people and a GDP right now. We need serious people forming serious frameworks — so that when opportunity knocks, we don’t meet it with excuses.
The Left had CHAZ-CHOP in Seattle ready to go. The Right, when collapse comes, will have…a podcast?
If we do not articulate alternatives — and yes, even give them flags, names, law codes, and territorial concepts — then we leave the future to those who will.
Hyperstitional Territorial Sovereignty is not escapism. It is foundational thinking. That includes realistic economic and defense planning, as you rightly emphasize.
Not every settler outpost in history began with a nation. But many nations began as settler outposts.
And while I understand the instinct to dismiss all this as fantasy, I’d offer a counter-question: Was it more realistic to declare a republic in the New World in 1776, or to prepare a digital meme-country on Ethereum in 2026?
To me, one of those still feels like an actual path forward. The other already feels dated.
Again, grateful for your engagement — I hope this clarifies the spirit and purpose of the project.
1980's South Africa discovered that to be sovereign, a country must have a very significant portion of the world's GDP, and a significant portion of the world's military spending.
First, I write not as an American, but from Europe (Finland to be precise) — and not to promote any narrow national vision, but to pose a serious global question: What happens when Christians, cultural traditionalists, and the disinherited of the West can no longer vote, speak, or live freely in their homelands?
That question, I believe, transcends electoral cycles and national borders.
Second, I don’t claim that all plans are execution-ready. What I’m advocating is what the Left and Islamists have always done better than the Right: envision and prepare. We don’t need 10 million people and a GDP right now. We need serious people forming serious frameworks — so that when opportunity knocks, we don’t meet it with excuses.
The Left had CHAZ-CHOP in Seattle ready to go. The Right, when collapse comes, will have…a podcast?
If we do not articulate alternatives — and yes, even give them flags, names, law codes, and territorial concepts — then we leave the future to those who will.
Hyperstitional Territorial Sovereignty is not escapism. It is foundational thinking. That includes realistic economic and defense planning, as you rightly emphasize.
Not every settler outpost in history began with a nation. But many nations began as settler outposts.
And while I understand the instinct to dismiss all this as fantasy, I’d offer a counter-question: Was it more realistic to declare a republic in the New World in 1776, or to prepare a digital meme-country on Ethereum in 2026?
To me, one of those still feels like an actual path forward. The other already feels dated.
Again, grateful for your engagement — I hope this clarifies the spirit and purpose of the project.
1980's South Africa discovered that to be sovereign, a country must have a very significant portion of the world's GDP, and a significant portion of the world's military spending.
I believe it's better to help Texas or Louisiana lead the red states out of the Union because it's too easy for the next Janet Reno to bomb a colony of right-wingers if they're not mixed in with sympathetic figures like blacks, women, and liberals (as Janet Reno did at Waco). https://redstatesecession.org/why-texas-and-the-south-would-benefit-from-federating-with-other-red-states
Do you address this issue in any of your writings? Wouldn't the UK prevent a right wing colony from forming in South Georgia?