Thread by @Blair_A_Nathan

Get out your dodecahedral dice and officially licensed reproduction of Gandalf’s staff, because we’re going to LARP a bit.

Specifically, I am going to dedicate this thread to the attached map—what is it, why is it, etc.

This is a variation of my map of what an internally autonomous American homeland might look like. I’ll get to the orange-shaded counties later, but the main difference from before is that red America is divided into two distinct regions here.

The white part of the map is the “empire.” That may or may not be internally subdivided into two or more regions. It’s all the same to me.

But, for the sake of brevity, let’s call this the “tripartite scheme”—Blue America, the South, and the Homeland.

I should say from the outset here that I’m not necessarily /advocating/ this scheme. I just want to bring it up and consider it. I’m thinking aloud here.

In general, we’re used to talking about “red America” and “blue America,” and, when the subject of major devolution or “national divorce” comes up, the default assumption is that the country would be bifurcated into two (1 red + 1 blue) regions, representing red and blue tribes.

But it’s worth noting that this supposed duality of American interests & identities is, to a large extent, an artefact of our 2-party system.

Undeniably, the “red” and “blue” shorthand reflects real overall differences in the two political coalitions, but they /are/ coalitions.

So, how many “Americas” are there? You could certainly make the case for two. But you could also make the case for, say, a dozen.

Generically speaking, the tradeoff here is between the relative merits of “lumping” and “splitting.”

Lumping means simplicity and economies of scale. Splitting means a more refined and specific degree of representation. One isn’t inherently better than the other.

So, having said that, let’s consider a scenario with two autonomous red American regions.

As you can tell with a cursory glance, the principal function of this scheme is to handle the Southern Question

The southern states highlighted in red are certainly part of red America, at least for now. They’re arguably the default expression of what people mean by “red state.”

If the ultimate “blue American” is, say, a journalist in New York or a professor in Boston, the ultimate “red American” might well be a rural white in the Deep South.

So I think it’s self-evident that the South is very different from Blue America.

At the same time, it’s hard to integrate the South into the core of an American ethnic homeland.

The most obvious reason for this is that there are, and always have been, a lot of black people in the south.

If America had remained a country with two principal races (one of them being a stable supermajority), it’s quite possible that the state of America’s original race relations issue would be better than it is. But that’s academic, because we can’t turn back the clock.

So we have a situation in which white Americans (from an objective standpoint of biological fitness) must learn to be more ethnocentric, and it’s hard to square that with fully integrating a population that still overwhelmingly supports an increasingly anti-white party/coalition.

Moreover, aside from the demographic issue itself, it’s hard to overstate how central North/South conflict on racial issues is to the mythology of American libs & leftists.

Black people are the Jesus Christ of American civic religion, and I’m not really exaggerating about that.

The idea of including the old South in an American ethnic homeland would be intolerable for a lot of progs, perhaps intolerable enough to fight a war over

It would imply that the Civil War and its hundreds of thousands of deaths was maybe not the greatest of all possible worlds.

Idk how sincere their concern over surrendering their black countrymen to the supposed Simon Legrees of a Homeland would really be

Sincere in some cases, perhaps just a pretextual cover for tribal amour propre in others

But it would be a deal-breaker either way, & I want a deal

Finally, the other problem with the south is that it’s the home of Ponzi-scheme Sunbelt Republicanism.

Yes, I know, this isn’t entirely their fault. Republican politicians didn’t invent the wonders of air conditioning.

Nevertheless, the south’s scalawag conservatives don’t seem to care much about conserving things, least of all their demographics. Their policies tend to empower corporate liberals and immigrants, two constituencies that (roughly speaking) often have no affinity for the GOP base.

Texas is a prime exhibit here. It’s a quintessential red state, but how is it going to stay that way when whites are deeply in the minority among the youngest generations? And, in any case, why would you want to be a minority, even if your party /can/ still win?

So anyway, my point is not to bash the south here. There are a lot of things I like about the south. I think it gets a bad rap in American culture and media (which are not exactly southern institutions).

But I think it has to be kept at arm’s length from the “core” Homeland.

At the same time, I think the Homeland and the South need each other. They’re both part of the broader “red America.” Both are, in their own way, alien to the principal GAE bughives of the Acela Corridor and the West Coast. And we need each other’s numbers to push thru partition.

In any case, I think the South would end up “okay” once emancipated from the direct authority of the blue-state Cathedral.

It’ll become what we might call the “Brazilian Office Park.” Not optimal, but it will never be pozzed like the Upper West Side of NYC or Cambridge, MA.

Keep in mind that Florida is a pretty diverse state, but it has gotten redder. In some ways this is because Florida Man is too fun-loving and tropical at heart to be an austere pious Gay Race Communist like they are up north.

Florida is unique in some ways, but I think the South in general might end up like this. A bit Third-World in some ways, but more Christian and small-government and less fanatical than the blue-state hubs of the GAE religion. It might well endure as Conservatism Inc: The Country.

For those of us would be residents and/or citizens of the Homeland (yellow/gold on the map), what would be the advantages of having the South separated from blue America?

I’m assuming here that any partition scenario would be peaceful, both in its origins and in its execution. Anything else would be intolerable imo.

Having said that…

The most fanatical opponents of our self-determination would be in the Empire, and it would be prudent to deny them any potential strategic domination of us.

An autonomous South gives us abundant Atlantic/Gulf access, a supply of oil and gas, and other strategic benefits.

The South doesn’t have to be /our guys/. They just have to not hate us, and I think that’s a reasonable thing to expect.

Again, I’m assuming here that /all/ the American nations would still coordinate closely and get along with each other. They’d have to, for this to work…

But that’s all the more reason to ensure that blue America /couldn’t/ bring a homeland to its knees, lest they be tempted to ever try. Keeping the South out of their hands helps accomplish that.

At the same time, allowing the South to become the Brazilian Office Park while the homeland becomes a kind of American ethnostate should go some ways toward assuaging lib concerns about Southern blacks.

To the extent libs want to keep the South out of /our/ hands, well, fine.

Moreover, I think it would be good to have another “red” polity, in addition to the Homeland, in order to drive the kind of self-sorting we’d need to see in order to consolidate and preserve any political autonomy we’d gain.

In this respect, smaller is better for the Homeland, because every territory outside our borders is a potential population source for our kind of people and a potential population sink for theirs.

If we make the homeland too big, we couldn’t concentrate the necessary assabiyyah.

So, ofc we would have bidirectional, voluntary population transfers from our territory to and from blue America. But we would also have bidirectional, voluntary populations transfers to and from the south.

In both cases, I think we’d be better off for it. Perhaps I’ll make a diagram later of how I’d expect population self-sorting to play out under this tripartite scheme

As such, a Brazilian Office Park for people who aren’t blue Americans but aren’t “based” either could be useful.

Finally, I mentioned those orange-shaded counties within the homeland earlier. What’s the deal with those?

I highlighted those because I think they might qualify as targets for strategic settlement.

As I’ve said before, I think we need to give some direction to the ongoing “great sort” so that it happens in the most advantageous way. We need a “Zionist movement.”

The counties shaded in orange represent metro areas that are valuable for some combination of political, strategic, and/or aesthetic reasons, and that we should wish to keep in the hands of the American nation in the sense that we understand the term.

Some of the highlighted counties are metro areas that could give us control of swing states, which would be important in terms of actually pushing through implementing any partition scheme, given the (nominal) sovereignty of state governments within the union.

These metro areas include Pittsburgh in PA, Columbus & Cincinnati in OH, Grand Rapids in MI, Green Bay in WI, and Duluth in MN

If control of these states could be established, then they could be partitioned on terms favorable to us, and problematic parts could be transferred out

Other highlighted metro areas include Vancouver WA and Eureka/Arcata CA, both of which would help to expand our limited Pacific access.

Ofc I don’t expect to /ever/ control either WA or CA at the state level, but if we have a local majority that would help us make a claim.

Finally, there are a couple highlighted counties that are largely aesthetic—the Reno and Flagstaff metro areas. But there’s a strategic element in both cases—Reno would anchor our claims across the Great Basin and maybe even tip the statewide scales in Nevada.

In the case of Flagstaff, control of Coconino County would link Utah with red areas of Arizona like Prescott, which is important because the obstacles presented by the Grand Canyon and Lake Mead might otherwise leave our claims in Arizona isolated.

I realize claiming both rims of the Grand Canyon would be a very big ask, so I’ve modified my previous homeland map by writing off claims made in the Central Sierras and into the San Joaquin Valley. This gives blue America Yosemite NP (even though it’s in red counties).

As I’ve said with previous versions of this map, my goal isn’t to describe my ideal scenario. Obviously I’d /like/ to take all the nice things from the Empire.

But my goal is to outline something that is ambitious enough to inspire, but also fair enough to be plausible.

Okay, I think that’s the thread for now. If I think of something I’d like to add later, maybe I’ll append it. Again, this is kind of a “thinking aloud” thread, so I apologize for any stylistic or organizational shortcomings in the thread.