What would US balkanization look like?
/mlpol/ - My Little Politics
Archived thread
File (): F8F9F374B96E427F9626E2E48C263554-1318109.png (1.3 MB, 1613x1083, balkanization.png)
File (): 914D9F0FBE536215E5BD9E0DDA26DBC2-594238.png (580.3 KB, 2717x2470, AmericanAccentMap.png)
>>304669
When it comes down to it the way balkanization would go is dependent on politics, culture/ethnicity, willingness to secede and circumstances.
>politics
Obviously blue states are unlikely to join up with red states, and red counties are unlikely to side with blue cities on their own. The War Between the States was precisely that, and emblematic of a more civilized time. Maryland was very close to joining the Confederacy and the only reason it didn't was because state senators were unlawfully detained. Today it would not be so simple, because state officials are weak men, the decline of state-level power and political divides as strong as those in the country at large. For example, most of Virginia hates Fairfield and neighboring counties chock full of federal employees, and ditto for Oregon and Washington for the coast. So in the event of balkanization two possibilities would happen: a state (unlikely) announces its secession from the Union and dissident counties would themselves secede from the state, or clusters of counties would themselves declare independence after finding state authority intolerable. Neither would be likely strong enough to resist federal authority so this could only happen if the country at large falls into chaos.
Clusters of counties may or may not join up with like-minded counties and the reasons why depends on "circumstances" which I'll cover later. If the spirit of revolt is alive in enough counties and they have a lot in common, you may de facto see states secede without central authority as even locales that disagree are "forced" to go along by virtue of being surrounded. In a lot more states, you might see division into three or more parts, with even county lines being made irrelevant. Also keep in mind that places that are nominally aligned will go their own way or actively dislike each other; Seattle would become actively socialist and less likely to associate with more mainstream Democrat strongholds.
>culture
See the Nine Nations of America which may become a reality if secession movements become heavily coordinated and intent on setting up "mini-Americas." If balkanization is much smaller in scale you would see stronger division based on local cultures and ethnic groups. See >pic related. Hardly any states would remain intact then as sub-regions would split off to stay more homogeneous. This would exist even in the South but would be much more apparent in the Northeast as inland counties break away from a power structure dominated by cities. Major power centers like NYC and LA, if not badly impacted by conflict, would create relatively large city-states with outlying territories populated by commuters.
Ethnostates would definitely spring up though the country will not be divided into singular countries for every race like one would think (which would be impossible without moving entire populations about). Rather you'd see small, different ethnostates scattered about. There would be a few explicitly white ethnostates in more inland, conservative parts of the country but most would exist de facto or may loosen restrictions like allowing based Hispanics tired of black people. Black ethnostates would exist wherever there are black people and would probably be the first ones to spring up, both because they're eager and because redpilled regions would see this as the only solution. Hispanic ethnostates would spring up, but these would exist in areas with more first-gen immigrants and "La Raza" mentality; bordering sections would try to join with Mexico. Other Hispanics would either carve out their place in what's left of multicultural cities or join with "fellow white people." Asians are not very politically minded but if push came to shove would also split into city-ethnostates; whether these would fall under Chinese influence or resist it depends on political orientation.
>willingness to secede
Whoever tries to secede first would pay for it in blood as there would be a hostile occupying force moving in ASAP, prompting an extended guerrilla campaign. Despite the destruction and misery this could actually pay off if other places are emboldened and the country breaks part, as neighboring areas would join with the original guerrillas. The more willing a place is to go off on its own, the more likely it will be able to set its own rules rather than fall under the purview of a state or neighboring government.
>circumstances
If states actually grow some cajones, you would see most individual states or coalitions of states (like a revived CSA) split off themselves rather than balkanize into counties. Also it depends on the level of conflict that comes about. If certain groups curry favor with the remnants of the federal government they are more likely to create larger, more aggressive regions. Aggression is likely to cause balkanized areas to form at least looseknit confederations for common defense, whereas a lack of war would permit county or even subcounty division. Multicultural areas will see more conflict for sure, which may be averted if a multilateral rejection of intersectionalism in favor of ethnostates is embraced.
When it comes down to it the way balkanization would go is dependent on politics, culture/ethnicity, willingness to secede and circumstances.
>politics
Obviously blue states are unlikely to join up with red states, and red counties are unlikely to side with blue cities on their own. The War Between the States was precisely that, and emblematic of a more civilized time. Maryland was very close to joining the Confederacy and the only reason it didn't was because state senators were unlawfully detained. Today it would not be so simple, because state officials are weak men, the decline of state-level power and political divides as strong as those in the country at large. For example, most of Virginia hates Fairfield and neighboring counties chock full of federal employees, and ditto for Oregon and Washington for the coast. So in the event of balkanization two possibilities would happen: a state (unlikely) announces its secession from the Union and dissident counties would themselves secede from the state, or clusters of counties would themselves declare independence after finding state authority intolerable. Neither would be likely strong enough to resist federal authority so this could only happen if the country at large falls into chaos.
Clusters of counties may or may not join up with like-minded counties and the reasons why depends on "circumstances" which I'll cover later. If the spirit of revolt is alive in enough counties and they have a lot in common, you may de facto see states secede without central authority as even locales that disagree are "forced" to go along by virtue of being surrounded. In a lot more states, you might see division into three or more parts, with even county lines being made irrelevant. Also keep in mind that places that are nominally aligned will go their own way or actively dislike each other; Seattle would become actively socialist and less likely to associate with more mainstream Democrat strongholds.
>culture
See the Nine Nations of America which may become a reality if secession movements become heavily coordinated and intent on setting up "mini-Americas." If balkanization is much smaller in scale you would see stronger division based on local cultures and ethnic groups. See >pic related. Hardly any states would remain intact then as sub-regions would split off to stay more homogeneous. This would exist even in the South but would be much more apparent in the Northeast as inland counties break away from a power structure dominated by cities. Major power centers like NYC and LA, if not badly impacted by conflict, would create relatively large city-states with outlying territories populated by commuters.
Ethnostates would definitely spring up though the country will not be divided into singular countries for every race like one would think (which would be impossible without moving entire populations about). Rather you'd see small, different ethnostates scattered about. There would be a few explicitly white ethnostates in more inland, conservative parts of the country but most would exist de facto or may loosen restrictions like allowing based Hispanics tired of black people. Black ethnostates would exist wherever there are black people and would probably be the first ones to spring up, both because they're eager and because redpilled regions would see this as the only solution. Hispanic ethnostates would spring up, but these would exist in areas with more first-gen immigrants and "La Raza" mentality; bordering sections would try to join with Mexico. Other Hispanics would either carve out their place in what's left of multicultural cities or join with "fellow white people." Asians are not very politically minded but if push came to shove would also split into city-ethnostates; whether these would fall under Chinese influence or resist it depends on political orientation.
>willingness to secede
Whoever tries to secede first would pay for it in blood as there would be a hostile occupying force moving in ASAP, prompting an extended guerrilla campaign. Despite the destruction and misery this could actually pay off if other places are emboldened and the country breaks part, as neighboring areas would join with the original guerrillas. The more willing a place is to go off on its own, the more likely it will be able to set its own rules rather than fall under the purview of a state or neighboring government.
>circumstances
If states actually grow some cajones, you would see most individual states or coalitions of states (like a revived CSA) split off themselves rather than balkanize into counties. Also it depends on the level of conflict that comes about. If certain groups curry favor with the remnants of the federal government they are more likely to create larger, more aggressive regions. Aggression is likely to cause balkanized areas to form at least looseknit confederations for common defense, whereas a lack of war would permit county or even subcounty division. Multicultural areas will see more conflict for sure, which may be averted if a multilateral rejection of intersectionalism in favor of ethnostates is embraced.
>>304669
Can you think of a name for "Republic Of Texas" that doesn't spell "ROT"?
I don't think "Rot" is a cool name for a country
Can you think of a name for "Republic Of Texas" that doesn't spell "ROT"?
I don't think "Rot" is a cool name for a country
File (): D8EF2CA08BCE0A6EDCE3F99262362A1F-519545.png (507.4 KB, 2344x3173, 1616868154.png)
File (): 87EDA3FDC6FBF33EB62BF88869088501-4847617.gif (4.6 MB, 960x540, pranked.gif)
>>304669
>Alaska (Russia)
>Inner Alaska (Also Russia)
Kek
I think there are a lot of factors that'll be at play when the process really goes underway, like what sort of economy an area has, the racial and cultural makeup of the population, political disposition, religion, population density (which sort of goes hand in hand with economy to a degree), etc. First there will probably be a phase of "soft balkanization," where localities start ignoring some dictates from the Federal and State government, building systems to make sure they don't rely on them, and possibly refusing to pay taxes towards them. This is when kosher news will air some nervous kvetching about how "white supremacists are balkanizing the Union and it's a threat to our democracy" and ZOGiticians will probably talk a big game about putting a stop to it, but hopefully realize that trying to Ruby Ridge a bunch of small towns across the country that haven't caused any harm is a quick way to get a civil war. But on that note, you might see some glowniggery activity to shift opinion and slow down the process of dissolution, so if your town starts making itself independent, keep your eyes peeled.
As for the end result of balkanization, it's pretty difficult to say. We're almost definitely going to see a depopulation of cities as the process goes on. I wouldn't be surprised if we saw some sort of loose confederation form among agricultural communities. Personally, my utopian goal would be the complete elimination of states as the governing institutions of society, replaced by homogenous, high-trust private covenants in line with Hans-Hermann Hoppe's idea of a libertarian social order, but more pragmatically I'd be willing to accept something like the Articles of Confederation.
>>304680 nails a lot of important points.
>>304693
>>304696
How about "The Sovereign Commonwealth of Texas (SCT)" or "The Texan United Land (TUL)"? Although personally, I think "Texas" is already a great name without adding anything.
>Alaska (Russia)
>Inner Alaska (Also Russia)
Kek
I think there are a lot of factors that'll be at play when the process really goes underway, like what sort of economy an area has, the racial and cultural makeup of the population, political disposition, religion, population density (which sort of goes hand in hand with economy to a degree), etc. First there will probably be a phase of "soft balkanization," where localities start ignoring some dictates from the Federal and State government, building systems to make sure they don't rely on them, and possibly refusing to pay taxes towards them. This is when kosher news will air some nervous kvetching about how "white supremacists are balkanizing the Union and it's a threat to our democracy" and ZOGiticians will probably talk a big game about putting a stop to it, but hopefully realize that trying to Ruby Ridge a bunch of small towns across the country that haven't caused any harm is a quick way to get a civil war. But on that note, you might see some glowniggery activity to shift opinion and slow down the process of dissolution, so if your town starts making itself independent, keep your eyes peeled.
As for the end result of balkanization, it's pretty difficult to say. We're almost definitely going to see a depopulation of cities as the process goes on. I wouldn't be surprised if we saw some sort of loose confederation form among agricultural communities. Personally, my utopian goal would be the complete elimination of states as the governing institutions of society, replaced by homogenous, high-trust private covenants in line with Hans-Hermann Hoppe's idea of a libertarian social order, but more pragmatically I'd be willing to accept something like the Articles of Confederation.
>>304680 nails a lot of important points.
>>304693
>>304696
How about "The Sovereign Commonwealth of Texas (SCT)" or "The Texan United Land (TUL)"? Although personally, I think "Texas" is already a great name without adding anything.
>>304702
I could see something like the GRT (Greater Republic of Texas) happening if Oklahoma jumped in, but otherwise they're just going to go with the original name if things get that far.
I could see something like the GRT (Greater Republic of Texas) happening if Oklahoma jumped in, but otherwise they're just going to go with the original name if things get that far.
>>304703
That or SRT, the Sovereign Republic of Texas, but one way or another you can bet that "Republic of Texas" will be a part of the proposed name. And if it's just "Republic of Texas" come to think of it, they probably won't include the "O" anyhow.
That or SRT, the Sovereign Republic of Texas, but one way or another you can bet that "Republic of Texas" will be a part of the proposed name. And if it's just "Republic of Texas" come to think of it, they probably won't include the "O" anyhow.
9 replies | 4 files | 6 UUIDs | Archived