Thursday, July 12, 2018

How California's "Cal-3" Initiative Will Expose the Left's True Nature

The nation should pay attention and pay attention closely to California's "Cal-3 Initiative," because it will be one of the rare moments an entire political party will expose its true nature to the world.  This is a rare sight, even rarer than last year's total solar eclipse, because most political parties have to hide their true nature, lest moderate voters find out what their true agenda is and vote them out of power.  In this particular case, "Cal-3" - the initiative to split California into three separate states - will force the American left and democrat party to show Americans their true colors.

How will this happen?

Well the left faces a paradox when it comes to California.  It claims California, specifically the cities, are leftist political, economic, and sociological successes.  They have banned bags, have emissions standards, pay for illegal aliens' education, and a whole host of other socialist merit badges that renders these municipalities "socialist utopias" in their minds.  But these socialist successes are the coastal cities of California, not the ignorant, heathen interior of the state that wishes to secede.  And the Californian left LOATHES the "ignorant, CIS gendered, white hick scum" that populate said interior.

So here's a question any moderate...or any American for that matter...should ask themselves:

If the left is so confident in its policies AND it detests the conservative scum in the interior of California, wouldn't they WANT to divorce themselves from the rest of the state?  According to them those rural and suburbanite ignoramuses are only holding the intellectually superior left back from achieving their true utopia.  Besides, I know I WOULD LIKE to get rid of leftists out of my state/city/county/country, so why wouldn't the left want the same?

And here is where their hypocrisy (and a complete debunking) of their socialist ideology lies.

Deep down inside the left knows it needs those "no good dirty, hickish, ignorant, suburbanite scum" because the left is completely financially dependent on them.  They don't want to admit it.  They don't even want to admit it to themselves, but the professional left knows an entire "theoretical leftist utopian state" of social workers, guidance counselors, politicians, teachers, environmentalists, non-profits directors, welfare recipients, students, and other varied sorts of parasites cannot survive without an economic host to tax and live upon.  The California coastal cities, and their socialist utopian dream, NEED the people they hate the most.  The reverse is not true as conservatives do not need socialists because hosts do not need parasites.

This is going to create an interesting situation for California's leftists.  They're going to be forced to tacitly admit to the world they need the rest of the state more than the state needs them.  This is doubly terrifying for them because it will also prove their "socialist ideology" (which is all these people have) is unsustainable, unfeasible, and simply wrong.  But ultimately if the left votes against Cal 3, it shows what they truly want - the continuing of the partial enslavement of other people.  And if the voting public can make that connection people will vote in droves for Cal-3 and kick California's coastal cities out into their own little socialist beds they made for themselves.  So what's a leftist to do?

Well one thing they can do is come up with red herrings that have nothing to do with what Cal 3 is fundamentally about (sovereignty, freedom, and the right of people to choose).  One such measure is already underway where these morally-better-than-you leftists are citing environmental concerns as to why they need to keep sucking off your taxblood you shouldn't break up California.  You can expect more cowardly moves like this to obscure their real reason in keeping Californians enslaved to the socialist coastal towns as the vote approaches.

But the biggest thing leftists can do is simply "nothing" because I have some good news for my fine Californian democrat friends.  And it's what has been saving the democrat party since the JFK years!

Americans, especially Californians are ignorant, low IQ morons.  And nobody is going to be paying attention.

In addition to convincing millions of people to commute and enslave themselves into traffic-congested leftist municipal hell holes, I have to tip my hat to the left in another regard.  You have done a SPECTACULAR job in brainwashing a full three generations to become non-thinking conformists who simply...don't think.  At best they spew simplistic, feelings-based leftist talking points they've been conditioned to in K-College, but most are more concerned about what's happening on Game of Nice Chairs, their addiction to social media, or what the latest idiocy is in sportsball.  And to think the average American idiot, let alone his inferior Californian cousin, is going to be smart enough to make the connection between the left voting against Cal 3 and their continued economic enslavement of working Californians is laughable.

So don't worry California leftists.  Your socialist fiefdoms and slave plantations are safe.  The slaves aren't even smart enough to realize how California welfare spending has resulted in California traffic, so you have a green light to vote against Cal 3.  Nobody is smart enough to see what's really going on.
If you liked this article consider passing it along to a friend or sharing on social media!
Also visit Aaron's other cool sites below!


  1. I'm a Californian and you're right Cap, the leftists are scared to death of this. The truth about CA is that LA and SF are the leftest hotbeds, the rest of the coast is fairly red. "Northern CA" will stay blue because of SF (which is in big trouble with it's shit filled streets and drug infested neighborhoods). "Southern CA" will turn Red because, like you said, it's made up of all the farmers and ranches and all the people that actually produce something of value. And "California" will stay blue because of LA, which sucks because it includes us in the middle of SF and LA who are red through and through.

    Another huge negative for the communist party is that it breaks up their 55 electoral votes that are currently a complete lock thanks to SF and LA.

    I'll be voting for the breakup and praying that LA has an earthquake and falls into the ocean.

  2. Mark Matis10:20 AM

    Well actually, all they'll do if the split is approved is divide the state so their hive shiite holes control the elected bodies. With San Francisco, Sacramento, Los Angeles, and San Diego, that is rather easy for them.

  3. Anonymous10:32 AM

    Hi Captain -- where were those beautiful photos taken?

  4. The lefties also cannot afford to split up the electoral votes. Every election nobody in the snooze media even remarks about the weight of Cali's blue guarantee. Are they really willing to split those up and give the inner and northern provinces a voice, doubtful.

  5. Anonymous5:34 PM

    They have banned bags, have emissions standards, pay for illegal aliens' education,

    While I find your occasional rant against California amusing/funny, you're way off the mark when it comes to reasons as to WHY California implemented many of its policies. (*Hint: It's not due to some underlying liberal/socialist agenda). For example, using the quote above...

    1. CA didn't ban plastic bags--they banned single-use plastic bags. You can buy as many reusable plastic bags as you need at the grocery store for 10 cents a piece that are very similar (actually, better) to the old single-use bags. The reason they did this was because those plastic bags were a constant source of litter in cities, freeways, beaches, sewers, etc. and cost the taxpayers extra for the cleanup.

    2. Every state has emission standards. You could argue CA has stricter standards, and you'd probably be right. There's a reason for that--LA back in the 50s to the 80s had frequent stage 3 smog alerts.

    3. You'd rather they'd grow up uneducated and be more likely to commit crime? Cost-benefit analysis, Mr. Economist.

    1. oughtsix3:25 PM

      AS to 3:

      They, immigrants, along with all other children in Cal, are NOT being educated, they are being indoctrinated, Mr. Smuglib.

      Cost benefit analysis was done years ago in the interests of tyrants; dumbed down voters are much easier to manipulate and highly likely to vote for empty promises and 'security.'

      But you know that, don't you?

    2. Anonymous4:18 PM

      Well, that's just fine, Anonymous. As someone who was born and raised in LA county, worked in Orange County and lived in the Kalifornia Soviet Republic from 1947 until 2002, I can appreciate your excuses. In The Good Book, such words are categorized as: "straining at gnats and swallowing camels." Let's not talk about rampant crime(I worked as a LEO for 30+years), disease(Hep-C all over SD), homeless camps along the Santa Ana River bike trails, working-class flight to adjoining states due to confiscatory taxes, etc. Just go ahead and keep coloring in your coloring book and praising the Marxists in Sacto, who have banned "single-use" plastic bags. Moonbeam is proud of you.

  6. A Texan6:57 PM

    Even better!

  7. ... except that San Francisco, for example, is part of N. California - therefore ensuring that N. California votes Democrat. I see this as a clever trick by the leftists, making most think that this is a "divorce" of kinds when that couldn't be further from the truth. In reality, this is on par with a Democrat president packing the Supreme Court. I believe what this really is a leftist attempt to get 6 (Democrat) senators out of California to give the Democrats a senate majority.

    1. I agree. Being a native of Red State California (Jefferson Territory), there is no way I would vote to become a citizen of a 'new' state that included San Francisco and Sacramento. That would change nothing, other that the magical creation of two new Dem U.S. Senators.

      Give San Francisco and Sacramento to somebody else that wants them. Nobody north of Rio Linda does.

    2. @Daniel
      You nailed it! Thanks for sparing me the need to type a comment.
      A Kalifornia expat

  8. guess this an actual "inconvenient truth"

  9. 3. You'd rather they'd grow up uneducated and be more likely to commit crime? Cost-benefit analysis, Mr. Economist.

    Sending them back across the border is even cheaper than paying to educate them and providing them with welfare/food stamps/etc.

  10. Anonymous7:49 PM

    Daniel, I agree with you 100%. I ran away to join the Air Force to get out of that shithole myself. The only reason this has been allowed to go as far as it has is because the Democraps think this will benefit them. So-Cal is dominated by Orange and San Diego counties, as well as San Bernadino. The red counties in comparison are very sparsely populated. The continued invasion from south of the border will seal that state's fate as a democrap stronghold for good. Cal is guaranteed to stay blue. Nor-Cal has Sacramento county AND San Francisco. All three states have a good chance of remaining Dem dominated. So now you have a net gain of 4 US senators. Plus you now need to have two more state capitols created with their bureaucracies and opportunities for parasitism.

    I'm willing to bet real money that they will seriously try to push for this to happen. I don't know 100% for sure if they will succeed but I think the chances are good it will happen.

  11. Stealth Spaniel6:28 PM

    I will be voting yes on the break up of California, even if NorCal gets shafted with BOTH San Fran & Sacto. The interior of Cali has always been Reagan country. I can't begin to quote all of the anti BHO signs put up by farmers in Fresno, Stockton, Elk Grove, etc. The upper edges of California might as well be on the moon. I will bet fully 3/4th of the Imbeciles under the Sacramento Dome know where Lassen, Mendocino, or Siskiyou counties are on a map. The fault lines are starting to show: Feinstein didn't get the DNC endorsement. No one like Pelosi anymore since her alzheimers is showing.

  12. You're wasting breath on what won't happen.
    1) Flatly unconstitutional without a lot of other work, which has about as much chance in Congress as does science breeding a flying pig, with actual wings and feathers.

    2) It'll never happen, because without CA's monstrous winner-take-all electoral vote, Obozo was the last Democrat who'll see the inside of the Oval Office as anything but a visitor, for...ever. And Dems in 49 other states and Sacramento knew this since long ago.

    3) 49 other states won't give CA 3X the number of senators, ever. If they did, Texas would vote to form 37 states, and Connecticut and Rhode Island would try to split by counties. Everyone can see that elephant coming clear to the horizon, on plains as flat as Kansas. It will never even get started.

    4) Even if, in some fever-swamp nightmare, it came to pass, because magic and miracles, it would merely ensure civil war broke out in short order, and even harder and faster than what's otherwise likely. "NorCal" in that diagram would be SanFransh*tco and marin County against the entire rrest of the inland portion, which is redder than a sunburnt pig. They would be clamoring for another dissolution, and they'd probably vote with rifles as quick as ballots if it wasn't immediately forthcoming.
    Worse, the so called "blue counties" are not the 90/10 splits anyone imagines in NYFC or Phuilthadelphia precincts, where Dems get 106% of the registered votes. They're more like 55/45 as often as not. They would devolve into self-destruction too, all too soon, and both sides know it. People haven't been buying all those banned/unbanned/maybe gonna be banned "assault" rifles in CA for target practice.

    5) The entire state goes bankrupt in less than a decade at present course and speed, due to pension shortfalls. Then the whole Ponzi Game melts down in a 1989-Soviet-Union conflagration of biblical proportions. Start looking at that, not this nonsense.

    6) The measure splits nothing. It's merely an initiative to talk about talking about maybe, possibly, someday, perhaps, sort of thinking about splitting CA up. At some unknown future date. It is the ultimate "boob bait for the bubbas" on all sides, as every minute you're looking at that, you're not looking at anything they're actually doing, with binding consequences. Anyone discussing this like it's a serious thing, is the titular character in "Rope-A-Dope".

    This has less effect on your actual life, anywhere, than voting on the winner of Dancing With The Stars.
    If it passes, it's meaningless.
    If it fails, it's meaningless.
    See if you can figure out what that means for it, since before it qualified for the ballot.

    FFS, quit kicking this dead horse, and let this happy horsesh*t die a quiet death.

  13. I'm very much in favor of this split. At the same time I know damn well it is NEVER EVER GOING TO HAPPEN. It's a fantasy Jeffersonites use to masturbate to, but it is only that: a fantasy.

  14. Anonymous2:07 PM

    Jefferson State is way more likely then Cal-3. And the only thing we masturbate over is your soon to be shut off power and water.

  15. The original idea of splitting CA was to create a haven for non-liberal Californians. This specific 3-state solution ensures that the conservative population in each new state will be outvoted by the residents of the large liberal city within its boundaries. Not only ones this not solve the original problem, it gives CA three times the (left-leaning) voice in all federal actions and elections. BAD IDEA for conservative Californians AND the rest of the US.

  16. Anonymous3:24 PM

    Reagan "the Conservative" was actually a liberal governor of California on three issues: abortion, taxes, and gun control.

    On June 14, 1967, Reagan signed the Therapeutic Abortion Act, after only six months as California governor. From 518 legal abortions in California in 1967, the number of abortions soared to an average of 100,000 a year in Reagan’s two terms — more abortions than in any U.S. state before Roe v. Wade.
    (He was also not against abortion when he impregnated Jacqueline Park, a Warner Bros starlet who had an illegal abortion.)

    In 1967, Reagan signed the largest tax increased in California history up until that time. In 1970, he ran for reelection promising voters his feet were "in concrete" against a state income withholding tax. After this lie, he joked "that sound you hear is the sound of concrete cracking around my feet".

    Gun Control:
    Reagan signed the Mulford Act. The Mulford Act forbids Californians from carrying loaded guns. What good is an unloaded gun Ronnie?

    You’re right Cappy…Americans who believe Reagan is a Conservative are “ignorant, low IQ morons”

  17. The vote is off:

    Cappy was correct in predicting that the parasites would try to prevent it, under the guise of "environmental" issues.