I looked up the “True Blue” quote by Adams, to be sure I hadn’t misremembered the context. It was not about the War of 1812, but the Continental Congress in Philadelphia. Still, I should acknowledge and correct my previous statement that he was referring to the sentiments of the American people at large. Still, at least in theory the delegates represented the interests of their home colonies, and were probably more pro-Revolutionary than the average simply for their willingness to attend an assembly of traitors.

Raw proportions can be informative, but also misleading. To take the example of the US in the Revolutionary War, John Adams, iirc, stated that maybe a third of Americans strongly favored Independence (ie, secession from the British empire). Granted, there were no scientific polls, but he was a smart guy, and had little reason to lie.

To a certain degree, it depends how much would-be secessionists want secession, versus how much Unionists want to preserve the Union. White Boomers are economically comfortable (on average), and sentimentally attached to the idea of America as a united whole. I tend to think most people vote their economic interests (exceptions aside), but if you want to see what people are willing to put more on the line for, sentiment is a lot more important.

I think in the near future, sentiment will favor secession, while economic self-interest may or may not favor a continued Union. Which one will prove more salient depends on circumstances we can’t reasonably predict.

“In the real world, not really”
The political realm is part of the real world. Academia is part of the real world. Media is part of the real world. It’s absolutely true there. To be generous, I’ll rate your claim 50% true.

“Hooking up with them”
Sarah Jeong supposedly enjoyed the White d, and look what she says.

Anecdotally, plenty of AR types I know currently work with nonwhites, and have socialized with or even dated nonwhites in the past. Granted, not a representative sample blah blah blah, but enough cases to see a pattern.

“Rhonda Rousey….would destroy Napoleon”

Which Napoleon? Young soldier Napoleon, or old, sedentary Napoleon? Yes, an unusually athletic woman in her physical prime and who is physically active can probably beat up a middle aged or old man who is sedentary. But we’re not really comparing apples to apples, then.

Incidentally, I knew a guy in Middle School whose grandfather was Corsican, and who claimed to be somehow disttantly related to Napoleon. Guy was a real scrapper, and beat up a kid who liked to shove and pinch other kids. I got along well with him, and we’d have a lot of spergy conversations about history.

Smarmy little pissants like Atkins will be learning the facts of life real fast when their erstwhile allies no longer need them. Hell, some haven’t even bothered waiting, what with Ocasio-Cortez and her ilk already decided D party leadership is too White male (soon to just be Too White, period). Maybe the ones who are in tech and can afford the fee can pay a Mexican gang for protection, but there are no guarantees there.

IHTG,
I think that in multikult America, much as in Mexico, nothing changes much – until it does. To be honest, I thought Trump’s election would be the spark that would ignite, if not a full-blown civil war, at least a major disruption to the existing political order. Of course, Trump has, for the most part, governed as a standard Republican with a slightly tougher line on illegals and a slightly less enthusiastic attitude towards foreign interventions, so we’ve gotten the same old “[insert Rep pol’s name here] is a racist, we are the resistance, etc.” from the left, while Republicans have just curled up in a ball and taken it.

One interesting conjecture is how dissolution would alter politics in the newly formed states. There is an often an implicit assumption that their politics would remain the same as they were in America as a whole. But this seems unlikely to me: political alignments exist in a context, and when the context changes, alignments also change. The South isn’t some bastion of economic libertarianism, for example, as indicated by Southerners’ willingness to enthusiastically support FDR.

Wrt immigration, I could see, for example, Hispanics in the hypothetical Independent Republic of California suddenly being very selective about who they let in. I definitely think they would object to letting in masses of poor blacks from the Dixie Confederation, and possibly even other Hispanics who see their fortunes turn. As ethnic disaggregation resolves, my guess is that White Republicans in their splinter states would become less attached to economic libertarianism, although that is a trend already happening. When most of their fellow citizens are of similar racial and ethnic character, universal government healthcare will suddenly seem a much easier pill to swallow. I think that The (((Usual Suspects))) will continue doing more or less what they do now, although their effective territory would be reduced to the Independent City State of New Zion (fmrly New York, fmrly New Amsterdam). They might develop more immigration skepticism, and they would probably get over their aversion to Israelis being icky xenophobes and form a strong alliance over their shared ethnic roots.

The “Red State Refugees” would be disproportionately Blue voters.

Tbh, the overlords of the late USSR were probably less vindictive than the ones in charge here. Still, political dissolution will probably be the only way forward for the US that doesn’t end in neo-Brazil. Hopefully the Senate can be held by Republicans for the foreseeable future, since the other constituents of the empire might be more inclined to go along with secession or partition if the alternative is perpetual gridlock.

I can’t speak to its effects on mental health, but I know Twitter isn’t good for my blood pressure.

In Narrative 1, you omitted the part where Jews insinuate themselves into and eventually take control of institutions, such as the media and university social science departments, which have historically had a key role in forming the opinions of the populace. The second narrative is one that exists entirely in your neurotic Jewish mind.

“We Jews are not vindictive though”
Jews hate Whites so much for what some Whites, who were at the time at war with most other Whites, allegedly did before most people today were even born, that they are trying to wipe out every White nation through mass immigration. The Jews are a group of people absolutely defined by their ability to hold a grudge. Hell, the Talmud exhorts Jews to exterminate the descendants of the Amalekites, a tribe they wiped out thousands of years ago.

“Oy vey why did these goyim infect us with liberalism”
The ((())) cries out in pain as he strikes you.

Jewish “liberalism”, more accurately called Cultural Marxism, explicitly rejects most classically liberal values. Saying that Jews are equivalent to “Anglo-American” liberals is like claiming that Democrats Are the Real Racists because they share a label with a party that supported segregation in the past.

This comment has been removed by the author.

Of course, the shitlib response is that it’s terrible – that New Hampshire and Iowa are allowed to even be majority White in The Current Year.

The Jewish Race is a social construct, and therefore does not exist. Why do so many Jews get worked up about the Holocaust specifically? It’s humans killing humans, just like the Holodomor, the Katyn Massacre, and the liquidation of the kulaks. There’s more genetic variation within the Jewish “race”. Than between Jews and Gentiles. But people who think they are Jewish insist on following a racial supremacist ideology, as detailed in the Talmud. To solve the problem of institutional worldwide racism, we need to promote mass immigration into Jewish areas, and only Jewish areas. Jews need to blanda upp.

Additionally, I think nonwhite youth (and possibly White youth, though the stigma of “racism” may work against it) would be even more supportive of a hypothetical breakup along racial lines. A mestizo in Texas or a black in Alabama may not want their state to secede, since they might, rightly or wrongly, fear being stuck in a state run by “racist” Whites.

Pan-secessionism, of the sort advocated by Ryan Faulk of The Alternative Hypothesis, does have a unique advantage over all other proposed solutions to the problem of American identity, in that it can theoretically marshal the support of groups that would normally side with the political center to oppose a White Nationalist or even milquetoast civic nationalist movement.

Looks like Obama's parting gift to White Americans.