Author: David

By David Zsutty

In American elections, candidates who outspend their opponents tend to win. Some question whether correlation is the same as causation because donors may want to bet on the stronger horse to ensure access after the election. But when the top spending Congressional candidate usually wins 90% of the time or more, its hard to explain this away as anything other than primarily causation. This is especially true since the problem of democracy devolving into rule by money is not a new phenomenon. Decades ago, Oswald Spengler observed in The Decline of the West that “Democracy is the completed equating of money with political power.”

read more…

By David Zsutty

Several days ago, I had the pleasure of attending a nationalist conference about remigration in Spain hosted by Hacer Nación. There were many fine speakers, with Martin Sellner being the highlight. I look forward to what his Remigration Summit 2025 will bring in Milan.

read more…

The Homeland Institute is now raising funds for 2025. Our goal is $100,000. We have already received $20,000 of that sum. Thus we have $80,000 to go. Full information on how to give appears below.

The Homeland Institute has been active for a year and a half now on a shoestring budget. In fact, our Executive Director, David Zsutty, has been running Homeland as a volunteer, so that all of our money can be spent on research.

read more…

By David Zsutty

Originally published on Counter-Currents

The latest Homeland Institute poll corroborated mainstream polls showing that support for mass deportations of illegal immigrants is widespread. But support for legal immigration is still disturbingly high, even among young Republicans. Pundits and podcasters lampoon the centrist stance that illegal immigrants are bad but legal immigrants are great as a “boomer meme,” but almost 70% of white Republican voters aged 18-29 agreed with the statement that “Undocumented immigrants are a net negative, but legal immigrants are a net positive.” This was almost the same for Republicans as a whole. Additionally, far fewer young Republicans disagreed with the statement on the grounds that legal immigrants are a net negative, too.

read more…

One of the most common arguments against a National Divorce is that the states could not survive without federal funding. But why would one oppose red state secession if red states are essentially charity cases? Why would opponents of red state secession be so eager to continue funding people whom they openly despise? This is contrary to common sense and sounds like gaslighting in an abusive relationship: “You can’t live without me!”

The truth is that scarcely any money is “federal money” to begin with. The only way money should be considered federal money is if it comes exclusively from federal activity. Otherwise, it almost always comes from the citizens of the states. Federal funding is nothing but a fancy redistribution scheme with an inefficient, unnecessary, and controlling middle-man who insists he’s doing you a big favor by giving some of your money back to you.

read more…

Talk of secession usually focuses on red states, but it can also apply to blue states, perhaps even more so. This is because Republican politicians have generally proven to have less political willpower than Democrats, so a Republican administration is less likely to be willing or able to stop a blue state from breaking off.

Although they rarely follow through, it is common for liberals to claim that they will move to Canada if a Republican wins the presidency. If they are willing to entertain the idea of moving to a foreign country because of politics, even if mostly in jest, becoming their own country is not that far-fetched by comparison.

read more…

By David Zsutty

South Korea’s birth rate per woman fell even lower in 2023 to 0.72, which is roughly a mere third of the replacement level of 2.1. The BBC even published an article exploring why women in South Korea are choosing not to have children. While terrifying, South Korea is an informative case study in demographic decline because unlike most Western countries, they are not run by a hostile elite. To the contrary, several South Korean politicians have sincerely declared their low birth rate to be a “national emergency,” and not just as a pretext for mass migration. Neither does South Korea suffer from white guilt. This allows us to isolate and study other variables and thus formulate solutions for when our hostile elites have been removed from power.

read more…

By David Zsutty

Originally published on Counter Currents on February 2, 2024

The showdown between Texas and the federal government over border security highlights another equally nebulous border: the border between federal and state power. While the latest ruling on the matter was not a final decision, the invasion will not stop in the meantime for legal niceties.

read more…

A recent poll by the Homeland Institute of white American voters found that support for a national divorce was still relatively low. Only 25.4% of all respondents and 32.2% of Republican respondents agreed at least a little with the concept of a national divorce.[1]

Part of this was undoubtedly because while respondents were pessimistic about partisan gridlock, political violence, and polarization, they were also pessimistic about whether a national divorce would ameliorate these issues. These findings were buttressed by an Axios poll which also found that respondents were pessimistic about whether a national divorce would ameliorate a number of other issues.[2]

But what if relatively low support for a national divorce can also be explained in part by an inability to envision creative solutions?

The Homeland Institute is therefore launching a series of case studies called New Nations, in which we will envision in concrete terms what several states or collections of states would look like as their own independent nations. We hope this will spark creative thinking and dispel arguments that secession is impractical.

read more…

By David M. Zsutty

Originally published on Counter Currents

In December of this year, Ilya Somin reviewed Christopher Zurn’s book Splitsville, USA: A Democratic Argument for Breaking up the United States, which was published in May. Somin offers several good-faith critiques of Zurn’s position on national divorce, and even praises Splitsville as “. . . the most significant, fully developed, and intellectually respectable, defense of the claim that breaking up the union is actually a good idea.” Somin’s main concerns are the feasibility and effectiveness of a national divorce. As a staunch proponent of national divorce myself, I would like to reply to Somin’s counter-arguments.

read more…