In truth, most people in the US want dissolution and/or secession on one level but not on the other. Their reasons can be categorized as being driven by one of the two basic emotional motors. Support for and opposition to neoliberal imperialism can be represented by a Venn diagram: those who are Ego-invested in it, those who are actually invested in it, those who are both, and those who are neither. Any persuasion, Gametalk, Powertalk, and so on appealing to emergent behaviors requires an understanding of how these motivations work.
Many people materially benefit from the union, e.g. blacks receiving welfare. However, on the Ego level they conceive as being independent and held down by whitey The same is true for La Raza, except that they are a bit more Ego-driven in reality than blacks are, and are a bit more economically and culturally independent. Vox posted an illustrative quote from Fred Reed on this subject earlier today:
To begin with, America is no longer a country. It is a set of special interests occupying the same place: Corporations, races, ethnicities, faiths, ideologies, foreign agents pretending to be Americans, all at each other’s throats. No cure is possible.
Racial relations are a disaster. Blacks, fourteen percent of the country, are congenitally furious at whites. They neither assimilate nor want to. Whether they should doesn’t matter since it will not happen.
Hispanics, seventeen percent of the population, have a much higher likelihood of assimilating, and are doing so, but it will not happen overnight and will never be complete. They face intense hostility from much of the white population. Add Somalis, North Africans, Jews, Asians, and various Muslims and you have more than a third of the country. Their interests are their own interests. This cannot be changed.
This describes groups whose interest in the union is to squeeze it dry, so that they are Id-invested but not Ego-invested. We’ll classify these people as falling into the “Id preferring Union” group: social parasites and phenotypal defectors, criminals, leftists, abstract thinking/verbally tilted cosmopolitans, people working for international corporations or otherwise benefiting from free trade (e.g. logisticians, distributors), and so on.
Some people secretly crave separation from the people they hate, in their hearts, but oppose it on ideological grounds because hypocrisy is less strain than changing their minds. The easiest example is NE liberals, who would form a relatively stable nation without the Midwest but are still sold on pan-national liberalism. It’s easier for them to practice white flight and continue advocating for open borders than to confront paradoxes in their political conceptions. Which, recall, are phenotypal advocacy for competing against their near neighbors. It’s difficult to predict how, say, an educated Boston vaishya ought to change his opinions in a NE ethnostate in order to maximize his fitness relative to his neighbors, so for the time being hypocrisy is preferred. But, they still understand at the subconscious level of the Id that the Yankee nation would strongly benefit from separation from blacks, Mexicans, and the Midwesterners and Southerners with whom they have nothing in common.
We’ll classify these people as falling into the “Ego preferring Union” group: MAGAmen, civic nationalists, anyone still invested in America as an idea, classical liberals (i.e. Boomer liberals who believe in free speech), and so on. There are people who fall into both groups, neither group, and just one of the two. (Side note: narcissistic injury is why SJWs claim “Your speech is violence.” To them, it is actually injurious and causes the outrage -> depression progression I mentioned.)
Here’s a quick 2×2 to summarize this distinction in your head:
I purposely drew the axes to match the R and K-selection axes in the Pyrrhic cycle because there’s significant (but not perfect) overlap between the concepts.
Among the people whose political opinions matter (being paired with real political power and influence), I expect enough of the Ids are on board with balkanization to make it a viable option. A slight majority of them are probably still Id-invested by nature, being abstract-minded cosmopolitans whose phenotype requires masses of human capital to leverage. But fewer than usual at present will prefer globalism, even though their distribution is heavily skewed toward that in the main, because pursuing the neoliberal project to the point of diminishing returns has changed the incentive structure.
Some indications to support this belief: If this prediction is correct, the disaffected elites will suddenly be interested in local self-sufficiency projects, seed vaults, locally sourced food, etc. These would be emanations of the childish, fanciful Id, which is not very good at realistic planning. But though it is not very good at logistics, the Id will demand satisfaction and this will come out as vices, vanity projects, hobbies, etc., in support of the feeling that it would be beneficial to draw group lines a bit closer than before. The Shadow will come up with plausible-sounding excuses for these interests which the Ego will then parrot to the world.
I think the real power class tends to be on close terms with their Shadows so that their hypocrisy can be more calculated. But the smarter people also have much bigger Egos, as a rule, and are thus more invested in their ideas as well. This would be a matter of selection bias against people who are not aware of how their subconscious minds drive their behavior becoming rich, because these mechanisms are well understood and easily hacked. An example of calculated hypocrisy is when Peter Thiel accuses the energy industry of being stagnant and over-regulated, with no innovation. This is a great excuse for someone firing a broadside at the old oil money families by encouraging inquiry, disruption, and trust-busting. It’s the Gametalk version of Ron Paul’s “audit the Fed” (which has gotten exactly nowhere).