Friday, 19 May 2017


Will Rahn, writing for CBS News, has asked the provocative question “Is America Still Worth It?
Something people will increasingly ask down the road: In a wildly diverse nation of over 300 million people, would it not make more sense to have, say, three countries with a 100 million people each? Or how about 300 countries with a million people?
To ask the question is to answer the question. This nation is already more divided in the relevant ways than it was on the eve of the American Civil War.

Regardless of who won the election this past November, a third of the country was bound to be horrified by a President elected by an profoundly alien and deeply hostile people. For the Cosmic Americans, Donald Trump is literally Hitler. They’re hysterically angry, genuinely terrified, and they’re teaching their children to fear the Commander in Chief as a bogeyman hellbent on hurting them. Had Hillary won, at third of America would have become even more sullen and suspicious of the globalist threat to their Traditional American identity than they had already been under Barack Obama’s polarizing administration.
And that middle third, already a rapidly shrinking minority of the electorate? They still see this all as a battle of ideas rather than combat between enemies. They still believe in the process. They still respect the opposing party and assume this will all somehow work out well for everyone involved. Like a child praying desperately that mommy and daddy can somehow work it out, quit fighting, and avoid a divorce, they appeal to sentimentality, to foreign threats, and to fear of the unknown future that awaits.
On the far-right, there are already those who pine for a breakup of the United States akin to the dissolution of the Soviet Union. On the far-left, we’re hearing some secession talk too, particularly when it comes to the possibility of CalExit or a Second Vermont Republic.
It seems like all talk and the conclusions seem unthinkable to the conventional American mind. But history moves apace with no regard for what’s unthinkable. As the unstoppable force of mass migration meets the immovable object of a White America determined to preserve its identity and way of life, there will be dramatic political change. I’m no oracle, and I can’t tell how or win it will fall apart. But it can’t be held together. Sooner or later, the gods of the copybook headings will with terror and slaughter return.
We can dismiss all this as the ravings for cranks, at least for the moment. But eventually, those of us who want the United States to remain one country and one people are going to have to muster real, and unsentimental reasons, as to why it should.
You can’t. You won’t. The non-Whites simply won’t let go of their deeply ingrained mythos of victims overcoming cruelty at white patriarchal hands. The Whites are finally becoming defensive, rejecting this rapidly rising national mythos which integrally vilifies them and condemns their future generations to oppression and oblivion. There is no middle ground. America shouldn’t hold together, and the longer and more persistently it’s held together, the worse things will play out for all involved.
Don’t get me wrong: I think a break-up – or, as I’ve seen it called, a “national divorce” — would be a catastrophe. It would lead in the end to less freedom, far less peace, more racial division, and even possibly another Dark Age for the world as a whole. Moreover, our constitution is a genius document and I love living in the nation it helped create. America, to my mind, is still worth it.
Note how “racial division” is seen as a very bad thing. For these people, the races getting along is never a pragmatic thing. It’s more than that. Uniting the races is a quasi-religious endeavor, on par with the pursuit of freedom and peace. And you can be guaranteed that they value racial integration more than they value peace. Whether America holds together or not, we’re definitely entering an age which the author will surely consider dark. It’s a neo-tribal future where the cosmopolitan modernist center dissolves into a decentralized multipolar landscape of human collectives no longer beholden to the increasingly irrelevant and arbitrary Westphalian states.
But given how divided our country is, it would be good if we all reminded ourselves of our common purpose – and before something really dangerous happens.
We have a common purpose? American citizens can’t even agree whether clitorectomies are horrific, whether chicks can have dicks, or even what language to speak. But Mr. Rahn will inform us all later on in this article what we all share in common other than our geographical coordinates.
And one doesn’t really need to go back to the Civil War to see a more divided country than the one we have today. The late 1960s, for instance, marked a period of disunity and civic dysfunction that was certainly more dramatic than what faces us at the start of 2017.
The omniscient effectiveness of the surveillance state, the riot cops trained to surgically deflect and dismantle dissent, and the increasingly digital and virtual nature of political discourse and dissent have all conspired to make matters appear less volatile and less real than they were in the 1860s or 1960s. They’re more volatile, and that’s with our artificially inflated economy and lavish welfare state, …neither of which can be sustained indefinitely.
Yet there’s reason to worry. Trust in many of our major institutions, with the exception of the military, is as low as it has ever been. Ideological polarization, combined with the politicization of nearly every facet of American life, gives the sense that we’re living through what some call a “cold Civil War.”
The Democratic coalition, roughly speaking, represents the interests of the liberal professional classes, urban elites, and the multiracial underclass of the longtime poor and new immigrants.
The Republicans, roughly speaking, represent the “white working class”, the extravagantly wealthy, conservative Christians, and millions who feel threatened by social change and the advancements of the newly-arrived.
Note the bias and deterministic historiography. Rahn and all of his well-educated friends know and agree that “change” is good and that “change” is White people being displaced and replaced economically, socially, politically, and physically. Our hopes, dreams, and fears are psychologized and pathologized in the characteristically Jewish way while their hopes, dreams, and fears are the incontrovertible mythos of the age. Globalist oligarchs are writing the story of history, and they define who the protagonists and antagonists are. Sorry, white males.
What gets lost in all this is any kind of national project we can agree on, or whether a “national project” is itself worthwhile. We have at least two conflicting ideas of what makes America great, and the distance between them is growing greater by the day.
And it will continue growing greater. And none of this bloviation will stop that demographic historical process.
President Trump, having won with a narrowly tailored message designed to win over only a certain segment of the public, let it be known in his inaugural address that he’ll be working primarily for his voters and their interests.
And Hillary’s message wasn’t narrowcasted? Hell, even Bill Clinton himself threw a tantrum about how Hillary’s campaign was completely ignoring the White working class. Trump didn’t invent this problem. He’s merely a marketing wizard with a good instinct for crowds who wants to win. He belongs to a dying generation of White Boomers who still believe there’s an American center to appeal to, and he actually believes he’s being a uniter, but there’s nothing left to unite.
But when political beliefs become central to what media we consume, how we talk, who we associate with, and how we view ourselves, you get to worrying how a nation this vast can hold together in the long run.
The cosmopolitan class just can’t get over the fact that we’ve been empowered by the Internet to unplug from their official media outlets. For them, our retreat to media which speaks in our language and to our values is a betrayal of their “objective” and “factual” neoliberal ministry of truth.
So why not just break up? Why not let California secede to become a progressive paradise? Why should a Congressional delegation from Mississippi have any say over New York City’s policies toward abortion rights?
There are answers to this question. What are yours?
Rahn has no answer. The answer to the question is that this empire must fall. Rarely in history has a more incompetent, marginalized, vilified, and friendless political faction risen as rapidly as White Nationalism has risen in the past few years. It certainly hasn’t been on account of our superior leadership and planning. If there are Russian rubles being passed around, I’m surely missing out on them. White Nationalism is rising, and will continue to rise despite it all, because it’s the only coherent, consistent, fair, and realistic answer to the challenges which will only grow more acute with each passing year.
The answer to the question is White Nationalism.
(Originally published at


  1. Great piece. I suppose the first step of a divorce would be for the red states to form a new Union and the blue states to form a republic or a number of republics on the coasts and perhaps in northern Illinois. Within the red state union a WN state could be formed or WN could become the operating ideology of the new union. The only way the USA could have a future with the same territory it now has would be if the red state union conquered the blue republics under the principles of WN and ruthlessly expelled the bolsheviks and non-Whites, but this would probably be more trouble than its worth. The goal should be to have a wholly self-sufficient WN state that's carved out of the corpse of the USA.

  2. As Dr William L Pierce was fond of saying, "Storm, break loose!"
    However, there is a real possibility that before a dysfunctional America breaks up, Europe, particularly France will be consumed in a blood bath. Terrible and horrific as these events will be, if we remain true to our honor and valor, we will survive, rebuild, and will have learned priceless truths.

  3. Who or what exactly is an "American"? No, it is not simply another term for U.S. Citizen. Some U.S. Citizens are "Americans", but not all. Indeed, only those U.S. Citizens of English ancestry, who can trace their bloodlines to before the Revolutionary War, and whose forebears actually fought therein, are considered by others, and by themselves, to be "Americans".You see, what "Americans" actually have, is, of course, the One Drop Rule! An otherwise Anglo Saxon individual, even one of Good Colonial Stock, with One Drop, but One Drop of Irish Blood, has to go through life being termed an "Irish American"; one with One Drop, but One Drop, of German blood: a "German American." You do not know Jolly about THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, at all. I can tell, by your stupid and moronic posts.To paraphrase Orwell, here: "We are all Americans, but some are more American than others." Mind you, I loved his book "Animal Farm". After all, it is such a perfect allegory of the American Revolt, where the Founders booted out the Crown, so that they, themselves, could become the New Ruling Class. For all their mouthing about Egalitarianism, they were elitists through and through: much like the French Bourgeois and the Russian Communists, I might add. Again, you do not know jolly about "America"!



by Alt-Right News The Florida spree shooter story just keeps getting crazier and crazier... but in a good way...I