He predicted that the U.S. will break up into six parts - the Pacific coast, with its growing Chinese population; the South, with its Hispanics; Texas, where independence movements are on the rise; the Atlantic coast, with its distinct and separate mentality; five of the poorer central states with their large Native American populations; and the northern states, where the influence from Canada is strong.
It's a little hard to figure out what he is talking about -- there is a certain incoherence here. When he talks about "the South, with its Hispanics", one gets the impression he means the Southwest -- Arizona and New Mexico -- but then he excepts Texas. "The South, with its non-Hispanics" would have made better sense.
The South is and, since the middle of the 19th century and the submergence of the "indigenous" tribes (who also came from somewhere else, remember) always has been, biracial (unless you include Yankee migrants as an anthropologically distinct "race" of metrosexual Starbucks-slurpers, Homo sapiens starbuckensis).
And which "central" "poorer states" have large Indian populations? Which states is he talking about? How are their Indian populations significant demographically in a way that Arizona's and New Mexico's populations of Jicarilla and Mescalero Apaches, Navajos, Zunis and Hopis are not? Is he talking about the Rez residents in the upper Missouri valley? And how do we distinguish these states from the "northern" states that have "strong" influence from Canada? (I didn't know we were getting invaded by Molson's and Labatt's, by the way -- I thought the Canadians were apprehensive about "influence" going the other way.)
His U.S. geography is almost incoherent. But the idea has been advanced before, as in The Nine Nations of North America, which came out in the late 70's, about the time Andrei Amalrik was predicting, to my astonishment, the imminent breakup of the Soviet empire.
I guess a state with “strong Canadian influence” is any one that has more Tim Horton’s than Starbucks, eh?