Author's note: This is a follow-up to my recent article "Amerikaner Free State."
Many people tell me that their fee-fees were hurt by my purely hypothetical map which only included the whitest contiguous areas of the United States and lacked a substantial coastline. This is because they would rather escalate a substantial military conflict in order to secure more territory than simply settle for minimal conflict and less land. I understand this view, but I am not trying to sell people WWIII and White nationalism in the same article. "Hey kids, want to destroy everything you've ever known," may work on nihilists and the most radical types, but it is not something you can sell to the median. This is not Call of Duty.
Maybe that sounds a bit hyperbolic to you, that creating a large White ethnostate in the United States out of both White majority and non White-majority areas would escalate into a global conflict. I believe it would since the latter areas are not going to want to live under a White nationalist government. I also believe that a partition proposal aimed at satisfying as many people as possible is the best starting point for selling the idea of ethno-nationalist separatism in the United States.
Despite my appeal to low time preference and the necessity of downsizing to a leaner and more homogeneous society in order to revitalize our sense of tribe and purpose, others wish to take the larger country + more minorities route. This just creates a smaller version of the United States as is rather than an ethnostate, and so poses many of the same problems as the former. Namely: what do you do with the millions of would-be foreigners living under a White nationalist government? How do you stop it from becoming Brazil? With the lean state, there are just so much less of these people that repatriation and setting up the incentives for it is much easier to accomplish. With the thicc state, there are enough of them to bind together into a substantial fifth column that will resist being cast out, simply because the balance of power is not as overwhelming as it could be had their share of the population been lower.
I am not of the opinion that we can deport 100 million people and deal with their White liberal allies and our international enemies. That is why I propose partition. If we increase our share of the partition beyond my initial proposal, we also increase the scope and odds of a future military conflict. At that point you might as well argue for keeping the entire United States and fighting a Taiping-tier millenarian war over it in the name of Christ and folk, knowing full well that the rest of the world are going to back the Qing and millions of people will die. And if you are going to go to war, why not simply fight for as much land as possible regardless of the demographic facts on the ground? Why settle for a smaller country if you think you have the ability to take more? I understand some of you are totally fine with this angle. I don’t agree with you. I think you are deeply underestimating what a civil war in the nerve center of the global economy would entail, what sort of third parties would take a deep interest in the outcome, and how "good" you are at fighting and logistics. And more importantly, I think you need to at least have a studio apartment before you can worry about lebensraum. World war is a much riskier dice roll than partition. We don't want to lose it all, do we?
So the map provided in this follow-up is more ambitious than the first and would absolutely require larger scale population exchange. And though it will not be pretty, I think it could still be feasible. Greece and Turkey, Pakistan and India, and Israel-Palestine and Jordan have together swapped millions of people in the 20th century. However, I still believe the immediate release of California, most of the Northeastern Megalopolis, and parts of the Southern periphery are the bare minimum for having an Amerikaner ethnostate as opposed to a multiracial United States run by White nationalists (which would necessitate a caste system and potentially having to fight an insurgency if not a world war).
Again I really don't want to dwell on the map too much because the demographics of areas could change very suddenly were the status quo in the United States to sharply deteriorate. Many people who've settled here very recently on the invitation of the hostile elite, though far from all, would leave in a pinch. Internal White flight could escalate. It is thus pure speculation to suggest what the borders of a country that has never existed should be (and arguing over the minutia is even less productive until we are in a situation where it is feasible to create such a state).
It’s also worth noting that the initial map could have been even smaller. Since the ethnostate is purely hypothetical, what is stopping it from just being the Midwest + Pacific Northwest, with no East Coast or Gulf ports? Conversely, what would stop it from including much of White Canada, which would be unable to avoid the consequences of an American revolution? Would losing the southern shores in exchange for the Great White North be a bad deal? And if you think that sounds too LARPy, Sweden and Russia once fought a war in which the peace treaty resolved to give Swedish Finland to Russia and to compensate Sweden with all of Norway.
Another thing to remember is that an independent California and NYC metro (or Florida) would act as magnets for people who we want to leave. Can you really say no to undesirables engaging self-exile to poz epicenters, in the name of fighting over San Francisco? Not worth the bones of a Pennsylvanian grenadier, etc.
What is important, if you take anything away from this, is that we are—to draw a parallel with the Zionist movement—still in our exile phase. There is no ethnostate for English-speaking European peoples in the New World. We're still looking all over the map trying to figure out where the best place to settle is.
We aren't Hungarians, or Japanese, or Egyptians, or Israelis. We don’t have a national homeland governed by nationalists. We have territories we think would make for a good national homeland governed by nationalists, which are currently both de jure and de facto in the hands of an occupation government.
You need a bedroom before you need a living room. Can we afford that yet?
Also published at Atlantic Centurion.