Is America Still Worth it? …Nope.

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.


Gubbler Chechenova

Morality is about choosing right over wrong.

But Political Morality is about RIGHTEOUSNESS than merely right-and-wrong.

From Righteousness comes the Moral Will to Power. It is the righteous that accuses and attacks. The righteous feel justified and empowered by God, history, or higher principles.

So, the side that feels more righteous has the advantage.

In any political struggle, the side that wishes to win must be righteous. Being right isn’t good enough. It must accuse and attack as well as defend and preserve.

Even the weaker side will eventually triumph in the political struggle if it has the power of righteousness. Likewise, no matter how powerful a group may be, it will lose if it only goes for moral defense and has no ammo for moral offense.

Consider Mike Tyson in the ring with a mediocre boxer. If Tyson only does defense, he will lose eventually. He will cover up and try to block the punches, but he will never throw one. So, even though the mediocre boxer isn’t very tough, he will do all the punching, and eventually the punches will wear Tyson down.

If Soviet Union in WWII only did defense but never went on the offense, it would have lost to Germany. The thing is Soviets not only defended the motherland but fought back. Same with US and Japan in WWII. US didn’t just play defense. It went on the offense. Japan was much weaker, but if it had monopoly on offense whereas US could only do defense, then Japan would have prevailed in the Pacific.

Because of holy trinity of PC — ‘racism’ that says we can’t criticize blacks, ‘antisemitism’ that says we can’ t scrutinize Jews, and ‘homophobia’ that says you’re clinically sick in the head if you don’t revere homos — , the American Right has been on the moral defensive. And men are on the moral defense against feminism because the Narrative says anything critical of women — at least when mouthed by white men — is ‘anti-women’ and ‘misogynist’. (Feminism is nuts. Every job taken by women means one less job for men, and that means more men loses market value in marriage prospect. They are robbed not only of work but of family and life. Women’s entry into the work force has increased women’s criteria for prospective marriage mates, but if women take jobs from men, the market value of many men have sunken. Also, women’s careerism ended up concentrating great wealth in power couples. If a man is a lawyer, he alone can afford to raise a family. He doesn’t need a wife with a high-paying job. If he marries a woman who is a lawyer, it means incomes that could have afford two families — if men had both jobs — are now being concentrated in one family, likely with few kids if any. Also, lots of career women make money just to blow it all on themselves. So, income that could have allowed a man to take care of a family is wasted on female hedonistic vanity of idiots who emulate Sex and the City. Imagine there are two slots for lawyer position. Suppose there are four people, two men and two women. If two men take the jobs, each can marry a woman and have family, especially since men will marry women without jobs. But if a man and a woman get the jobs, they will likely marry one another as a power couple. That means those two will hog all the income. As for the guy who doesn’t get the job? He has no market value and poor chances of finding a marriage mate; as for the woman who didn’t marry the lawyer, she doesn’t want to marry the man without a high-paying job. End result is the power couple hog everything whereas the other guy and other woman totally lose out. Now, consider the saner game theory: If two men get the lawyer jobs, each can marry a woman, and his income can be shared with wife and family. But if a man and a woman get the jobs, they marry and hog all the wealth in that one family while the other guy has nothing. Since he has nothing, the other woman won’t marry him, and both end up with nothing. It is the COMING APART of Charles Murray’s study. Putting family first calls for bio-socialism. It would configure the economy for the good of both men and women based on their sexual differences and on what is most beneficial for all members. Also, it acknowledges the family as the core meaning and fulfillment of life. Work exists to serve life. But in our materialist-individualist order that is anti-organic and anti-life — the ‘advanced world’ cannot even sustain birthrates — careerism is placed on the pedestal as the highest purpose in life because wage means the freedom to indulge one’s fleeting pleasures like in SEX AND THE CITY, which leads to sorrow and the pity for both sexes in the long run.)

Anyway, the righteous side will always win in the Political Struggle. Even if it it is at a great disadvantage in terms of power, it will gain and gain and continue to gain and gain because it has the will to accuse and attack. In contrast, the side that is only on defense will lose in the end no matter how big and powerful it is. It can cover up but has no will to attack. A strong warrior with only a shield will eventually lose to the weaker man with a sword. Eventually, the battering of the sword will break the shield and slay the big warrior.

This is why American Conservatism has been losing and losing. It has lost the force of righteousness. To be sure, much of this is determined by who controls the media that has the power to shame some and sanctify others. Even if the Right were to turn righteous, the GLOB media may not give it any hearing.

American Conservatism agreed to the premise of Liberalism’s condemnation of ‘racism’ and ‘antisemitism’ as the greatest evils. It agreed that wonderful blacks were holy victims of White Evil and that innocent Jews had been wronged by nasty Christians for too long.

Now, the problem was not in acknowledging the real suffering of blacks and Jews, which is irrefutable. The problem was in sacralizing all of blackness and all of Jewishness to the point where blacks and Jews can never do any wrong. (After all, America is willing to acknowledge that many innocent Germans and Japanese died in WWII. America is willing to admit that it committed atrocities in Vietnam that killed innocent people. But those are limited to specific historical events or moments; they are not invoked to portray Germans, Japanese, or Vietnamese as Eternal Holy Victims. Mylai is restricted to Mylai, not to all Vietnamese. Hiroshima is about Japanese killed in Hiroshima, not about Japanese all over the world.) And with such holy aura and media power, Jews could also push stuff like homomania. If Jews hadn’t been behind the homo agenda, the Right would have been more justified in its resistance. But opposing it meant indirectly opposing the holy Jews. Jews also pushed Diversity, and that meant whites couldn’t say NO to the new template of America as ‘nation of immigrants’ from all over the world. Since holy and righteous Jews demand it, whites must relent and say Yes.

Given the Official Consensus(that says ‘racism’ and ‘antisemitism’ are worst evils ever), American Conservatism has sought to defend itself in two ways.

One is with libertarian argument that past discrimination is no more, therefore we need to focus on individual liberty without any consideration of race, sex, identity, etc. This is a kind of moral argument, but it is bland and generic. It’s like someone saying All Lives Matter in response to those who say Black Lives Matter. When a large concrete slab meets a sledgehammer, the latter will win. Sledgehammer concentrates its power in the area it strikes whereas a concrete slab, big as it is, is evenly distributed in power.

The other argument by the American Right has been ‘Democrats are the real racists’. So, we hear that the KKK were Democrats and that Great Society is to blame for the ‘new plantation’ politics of Detroit. But trying to defeat PC by rules of PC is self-defeating. It doesn’t address the flawed problems of the premise itself. It’s like trying to defeat communists by arguing that ‘communists are the real anti-egalitarians’.

Political Morality is a strange combination of tribalism and universalism.

If your side is ONLY tribal, then it comes across as petty and narrow-minded. Your morality would amount to little more than ‘my country right or wrong’, ‘support the troops’, or ‘us vs them’. It’d be the ‘morality’ of the wolf pack or street gang or hatcoys vs mcfields. It could be angry and violent but hardly righteous for it is too primal and brutish.

But MERE universalism also has problems. In trying to embrace, represent, serve, love, and seek approval of ALL humanity, the power becomes diffuse, bland, anemic, diluted, and without focus.

Now, hiigher morality is inherently universal for it seeks higher justice above ‘us and them’. For example, higher morality says that is someone on your side murdered someone on the other side, you-as-moral-person should side with the victim of the other side than stick with your own side. You shouldn’t side with the murderer on your side simply because he is one of your own. There is great merit to this, but when Political Morality operates PURELY in this way, it becomes difficult to form a sense of identity, unity, and righteousness. After all, if your group must always think in terms of serving, representing, and being fair to all humanity, you can’t fixate on anything that boosts YOUR people, territory, and culture. If you must always think of feeding all of humanity, you can’t focus on feeding your own family.

So, Political Morality works on a fusion of tribalism and universalism. You have to maintain a strong sense of tribal identity & unity but also invoke universal principles to justify the power of YOUR own tribe, especially as one having been oppressed, wronged, endangered, or threatened by OTHER tribes. Without the invocation of universality, it will simply be a case of tribe vs tribe. But with universalist argument, you can say the other tribe violated the ‘human rights’ of your tribe. That gives your side a sense of righteousness, a moral advantage, the will to accuse and attack. Meanwhile, the other tribe, under universal principles, is made to atone or only defend itself without counter-accusing-and-attacking.

Now, someone could argue that, because tribalism gets in the way of universalism, all sides should surrender tribalism: both the side that did wrong and the side that was wronged should scrap their tribalism since all forms of tribalism serve as barrier to utopian universalism. And early communists did try to achieve this by ridding the world of national distinctions… but it just became to difficult to rule everyone as ‘worker’, a mere material identity without roots and historical meaning… which is why communism settled for national communisms.

Anyway, if a principled universalist were to call for total universalism that eradicates all notion of tribalism, what might the morally righteous tribe say? Will it go along? If it is smart, the chances are that the righteous tribe with the moral advantage will understand that total universalism will lead to loss of their special weapon of moral advantage.

Consider Jews and blacks. If Jews were indeed to adhere to total universalism, they will have to give up the holocaust narrative and Zionist narrative(as compensation for holocaust) and let go of their moral advantage over Western goyim. Also, Jews will have to surrender their rich and meaningful identity rooted in history and culture if they were to accept total universalism.

Jews complain that Nationalism(by which they mean ‘gentile nationalism’) can be hostile to Jews, but it’s a paradoxical argument. What Jews really mean is that gentile nationalism is hostile to Jewish nationalism because, after all, the very notion of Jewish Identity is ‘nationalist’. Jewishness has been a national idea, even when Jews were without a geographical nation. It is about a people united by blood, history, and myth. Even without a nation with physical borders, the very idea of Jewishness created borders inside the Jewish mind in terms of who is Jewish and who is goy, who is clean & chosen AND who is soiled & un-chosen. So, when Jews complain that nationalism can be hostile to Jews, they really mean that gentile nationalism can be hostile to Jewish nationalism. If Jews hate nationalism and just want to join with bigger humanity, all they have to do is give up Jewishness(a ‘nationalism’ with ancient roots, or the longest nationalism) and join with gentiles and become ‘new gentiles’. After all, if there are 10 Jews and 1000 Hungarians, doesn’t it make more sense for Jews to give up their Jewish nationalism and just become Hungarians than for Hungarians to give up their nationalism so that Jews can strengthen their own nationalism?

Indeed, the Jewish argument against nationalism is disingenuous because its end game is not to end all nationalisms. If Jews wanted to eradicate all tribal identities, that of Jews included, then they would at least be principled and intellectually-morally consistent. But Jews attack gentile patriotism/nationalism on the premise that it may threaten tribal Jewish interests; Jews totally overlook the fact that the very idea of Jewishness is a form of ethnic patriotism, indeed the oldest kind.

If indeed Jews accept all humans as equal and just want to get along with everyone on the basis of universalism, the fastest and easiest way would be get rid of AIPAC and all Jewish organizations and only think and work in terms of common humanity. Indeed, abandon the very notion of Jewishness, which should be abandoned as ‘atavistic’ and ‘irrational’. But Jews push ‘common humanity’ on white gentiles to weaken white gentile power, all the while boosting their own Jewish Ethnic Power. This is the great contradiction of Jewish Power. But it is also the source of Jewish Power because it combines tribalism with universalism, the formula that makes for Political Morality of Righteousness.

Jews argue that since Jews were targeted and oppressed as a tribe, they must be protected as a tribe. They must be offered equality under rule of law, BUT that is not enough.

If Jews are only offered equality under the law, it means they have no moral advantage. To have advantage, Jews must press the case that historical tragedy commands recompense and reparations for Jews. Not only for Jews who lived in Europe through WWII but their children and their children’s children and children’s children’s children. Even American Jews whose ancestors weren’t in Europe during WWII must share in this special treatment by association. Because the Jewish tribe was denied universal protection in the past, universal protection isn’t enough today. Jews must have special recognition for their tribe. They must be ‘more equal than others’, even if it means neglecting the tragic narrative of Palestinians; Jews were SO WRONGED by white gentiles that white gentiles must even look the other way as Zionists crush Palestinians.

This is how Jews combine universalism and tribalism to maintain their moral righteousness. If the lesson of WWII is that tribalism is dangerous and bad, then both white gentiles and Jews should give up their ‘tribal’ identities and join with Common Humanity. Such consensus would mean no tribal power for BOTH gentiles and Jews. The only way Jews can use morality as a weapon is by invoking universalism to justify special treatment for the Jewish Tribe who’d been historically wronged. That way, the Whole World owes the Jews. Universalism serving Tribalism.

And we see the same kind of Political Morality among blacks. It is true that blacks had been legally and socially disadvantaged in America, to say the least. So, blacks finally got equality under the law with the Civil Rights Movement. And blacks did this by invoking universalism: that a person must be judged by content of his character than color of his skin. But if blacks ONLY pushed such universalism, their Political Moral advantage would soon dissipate. As equal citizens under the law, they would lose the justification to press for demands as a groups. They could only compete as free individuals. When blacks as a group were denied equality, they had the moral justification to act as a group since blacks weren’t treated as individuals but as part of a people denied equality as a group. But once such restrictions are lifted, there is no reason for blacks to think tribally and unite politically as a group. Under the logic of universalism, a group may work tribally only when it is it is treated as a oppressed tribe. Oppression along tribal grounds means that even individuals of the tribe who reject the tribe will still be treated as accursed members of the tribe. So, prior to Civil Rights, even blacks who rejected black identity were still regarded as blacks and denied certain opportunities and services. So, that FORCED blacks to act tribally. But with freedom and equality under the law, universalist logic would suggest that there is no longer any justification for group action.

In a free and equal social order, blacks would have to compete and be treated on the basis of individual merit. In order for blacks to keep the moral advantage, they must invoke history and remind white America over and over that the white tribe had oppressed the black tribe and THAT accounts for the problems blacks face today(and tomorrow). Since blacks experienced oppression as a tribe, blacks-as-a-tribe must seek justice as a tribe. So, even when equality was bestowed upon blacks, blacks mustn’t give up their tribal sense since their history if one of tribal tribulation. It’s like MLK yammered about universal principles but also tongue-lashed the white community with talk of how the black man deserved special attention and treatment from the white man because of history.

If blacks had gone totally libertarian and championed the principle of individual liberty(along libertarian lines), they would have lost the power of Righteousness as a group. Blacks-as-libertarians would become atomized individuals pursuing individual success based on content of character and measure of ability than color of the skin. This was especially problematic since, due to lower IQ and wilder nature, blacks were bound to succeed less in academia and business than other groups.

Also, blacks find non-blacks too tame, lame, bland, & boring; therefore, blacks want to maintain their unique blackness than become like everyone else. They see themselves as the badass race, and it is the rest of humanity that should try to live up to superior black standards than for blacks to lower themselves to become like white-bread ‘honkeys’ or dull Mexicans or Asians. And global culture seems to agree with this because so many young ones of all color try to imitate rappers and talk ‘black’. And more and more non-black women wanna have mulatto-black kids while non-black boys of all color worship NBA stars and rappers. Because of black success in funky music/sports and the Western lionization of King, Mandela, Oprah, and Obama — and Harriet Tubman and Hidden Figure negresses — as the supreme sacred icons, the global community has come to revere the Magic Negro as the Neo-Pharaoh, not least because Amerika, via Wall Street, Hollywood, Sports, & Entertainment, has become the template for World Culture.

Because blacks dominate the most exciting and thrilling entertainments like sports & music AND because black Africans live in the poorest part of the world, blacks bask in both servile worship from non-blacks AND gushy compassion from non-blacks. Blacks are seen as both awesomely masterful and pitiably powerless. “Save the poor Negro and let’s worship him as god.” Negro has become black jesus. After all, Jesus is both the object of pity because He got whupped & killed and because He rose to Heaven & revealed Himself to be the Son of God and even God Himself. This sacralization of the Negro will be the undoing of civilization because if we swipe away all such ‘pontificationary’ myth, most Negroes are punks like Al Sharpton and Kanye West. We live in a dumb age when so many people look up to hustlers like Obama and pigs like Oprah as some neo-spiritual icons.

Gubbler Chechenova

Now, what about white people? How must they fight their fight?

For starters, they too must combine universalism with tribalism. And the best argument is for universal nationalism, aka “zionism for every people”. Every nation, especially an organic one with deep roots(like nations of Europe), has a right to protect its borders, preserve its ethnos, and maintain its culture & historical narrative, JUST LIKE Israel that maintains itself as a Jewish State. This means Hungary for Hungarians just like Israel for Jews. It also means West Bank for Palestinians since Palestinians need a nation for their own too. As for Israel as the Jewish state, and it’d be better if Jews did a population swap by sending all Arabs in Israel to West Bank in exchange for all Jews in West Bank.

Globalism is the destruction of all nations, cultures, and histories. Global elites don’t care about their own nations being overrun by foreigners since they, as cosmopolitan power-elites, feel more connected to the Global City than to nation, ethnos, and history. They are digitalized globo-citizens. Also, since they got power and privilege, their good life doesn’t depend on existence of nations. Even if UK is overrun by Africans and Pakistanis, the elites of British society can travel around and live well anywhere: Berlin, Paris, Hong Kong, Singapore, Dubai, Rome, Rio, etc. As long as they have the ticket of admission to the global-hubs around the world, they got it made for themselves. Even if the US is no longer white-majority, the likes of the Clintons and Bidens can enjoy privilege and goodies all over the world, hopping from one globo-capital to another.

Globalism allows both elite intervention and mass invasion of every nation. So the native peoples become invaded by foreign masses, but native elites, as the new globalist elites, move from nation to nation and rub shoulders with globo-elites anywhere. It will lead to the Latin-Americanizaiton of the world. (Latin America is proof Diversity is a mess. Its white elites want to move to America and Europe because they are tired of all the crime and poverty associated with blacks, mestizos, and Indians. But then, it’s non-whites want to move to America since they are tired of the corrupt and venal ways of the Conquistador Hispanic elites. Diversity led to bad elites and bad masses. No unity.)

White patriots(unlike cucked parrots) must resist globalism and call for universal nationalism as the basis for sound internationalism. Globalism is such a monstrosity that it isn’t difficult to gain moral righteousness as a universal-nationalist who is for nationalism for all peoples. Universal nationalism respects the borders, cultures, interests, and sovereignty of all nations. Globalism seeks to break down all borders and flood all nations with the same GLOB stew of Hollywood culture that inspired millions of women to wear ‘pussy hats’.

Also, nationalism(tribalism) can be fused with universalism via internationalism. Globalists try to associate nationalism with nasty-sounding ‘isolationism’, but in truth, nationalists do believe in international trade and cooperation with other nations, except on the basis of mutual respect of each other’s borders, histories, and ethnos.

Nationalism is fine with sane universalism. It opposes radical utopian universalism that calls for one faith, one ideology, and/or one way for everyone.

All nations believe in trade since only a handful of nations are big enough and resource-rich enough to be self-sufficient. Germany can build machines but is poor in oil and gas. Saudi Arabia has lots of oil but is deficient in producing food and machines. So, they trade. But that doesn’t mean Germans have a right to demographically invade Saudi Arabia or impose its ‘western values’ on a Muslim nation. But then, Muslim nations have no right to demographically invade Europe, and they shouldn’t be demanding Sharia law in the West. So nationalism is the foundation for sound internationalism, whereas globalism means demographic imperialism, elite betrayal, and globalist US-warmongering all over the world.

White Patriots can also gain Moral Righteousness vis-a-vis blacks. By constructing the new and proper meaning of Race-ism — meaning races do exist and racial differences are real — , whites can argue that they are the ones who need special consideration and protection from stronger, more aggressive, meaner, and wilder blacks. White patriots must argue that privileged white & Jewish urban ‘liberals’, despite their PC rhetoric, do practice race-ism in what they actually do. Consider the Wall Around Hyde Park.

Hyde Park is a rich and safe area with a high white and Jewish population. Why is it so white and safe? Because high property values and extra police protection AGAINST STRONGER AND MORE AGGRESSIVE BLACKS. So, even though the community is filled with self-righteous ‘liberal’ Jews and ‘progressive’ whites with snotty attitudes, their safety and privilege are made possible through race-ist policies. ‘Race-ism’ doesn’t mean nasty hatred of other races just to be nasty and bigoted. That’s how ‘racism’ has been defined forever. Race-ism means awareness of race and racial differences and the behavior resulting from such awareness. From the evidence of what white/Jewish Liberals really DO, they are totally race-ist since their actions and favored policies seek Safe Spaces away from blacks. And why? Because despite all their pompous rhetoric, even Jews and white ‘progressives’ know that blacks are more muscular, more aggressive, and wilder. Race-ism is truth. I judge people by what they DO and don’t care whatever they SAY. 90% of what people say in our PC-infested age is bullshi*.

Well, if gentrification and safe-white-spaces are good enough for Jews and urban white ‘progressives’, then it should be good for ALL whites. White patriots need to call for Universal Safe Spaces for all whites. Why should only rich and affluent Jews and whites have safety and security from black thuggery, robbery, rape, and violence? The way the game is rigged, Jews and white ‘progressives’ keep the Nice Negro tokens — like Obama — for themselves while using ‘gentrification’ to expel the dangerous blacks to the suburbs and small towns so that haute urban Liberals can gentrify more of the city into posh neighborhoods. Gentrification is essentially denegrification, or de-negro-fication.

Since ALL whites, regardless of income, are physically disadvantaged vis-a-vis the stronger, tougher, and more aggressive black race, white patriots need to demand UNIVERSAL GENTRIFICATION for all whites. Every white person, as the member of the inferior weaker race(when it comes to physical power and thuggery), has the right to live without being terrorized by tougher blacks. All white communities should be hype-parked. Why should only rich ‘liberal’ whites & Jews enjoy safety from black violence?

Now, all races are inferior and superior in their own way. Whites, with generally higher IQ than blacks, are superior in brain power. But blacks, generally with more fast-twitch muscle and stronger bones, are superior in brawn power. Since the stronger race usually beats up on the weaker race —- consider how most interracial violence in the US is black on non-black — , whites are totally morally justified in demanding Safe Space for whites.

Also, because rational race-ism reveals that blacks are lower in IQ and wilder in temperament, it is reasonable to conclude that their relative failure in school and higher involvement in crime are less due to history than biology. Blacks are more violent and aggressive than other races for the same reason men are more violent and aggressive than women. Men are bigger, stronger, and more aggressive due to hormonal differences.

Rational Race-ism can finally lift the history-based argument that black problems are entirely the result of white oppression of blacks. After all, how did blacks live in Africa for 100,000 yrs prior to being brought to the New World? They were savages who evolved as spear-chuckers and ass-shakers. The problem of Black America is not the legacy of slavery but reversion to savagery. Even though white power did suppress black freedom and aspirations, it did instill blacks with a culture of family, restraint, religiosity, work ethic, and order. It was the abandonment of those social and moral modes beginning in the 60s that led to explosion of black crime, family breakdown, youth thuggery, and other lunacies.

Due to black racial nature, blacks had always been more problematic than other races in US history. In the ‘bad old days’, social pressures had kept the lid on black savagery. But when white youths began to emulate black musicians and when counter-culture began to idealize the black radical and the black criminal as ‘cool rebel heroes’,, blacks abandoned all inhibitions and reverted to their savage nature. Black culture today is shameless ‘twerking’ and rappers yapping endlessly about ‘muh dic*’. It’s about tattooed black thugs in sports acting like beasts. It’s about BLM morons acting like street gangstas while pretending to be moral crusaders. Morality has to be based on truth, but BLM is built on lies, especially the black inability to acknowledge that a black person has much more to fear from fellow blacks than from white police officers or ‘white hispanics’ like George Zimmerman.

And a proper understanding and acceptance of race-ism is also useful in white patriots dealing with Jewish Power. Race-ism teaches us that Ashkenazi Jews have higher IQ, and this accounts for their success in brainy & verbal-intensive areas, just like blacks dominate the brawny areas in sports and street gangsterism because they are naturally tougher and more aggressive. There is a reason why the Italian-American fellers fear the blacks in THE WANDERERS. Blacks will kick their butts.

According to the prevailing narrative, Jews accidentally came to dominate finance, media, and academia because of gentile discrimination that forbade Jews from planting potatoes. So, it’s all due to culture and accident of history.

The reality is grounded in biology, and that means Jews will continue to dominate elite institutions/industries — unless they excessively breed with dumb goy bimbos — , and that means Jews with their power need to see themselves as masters, rulers, and elites than as perpetual victims. With power comes accountability. It is lowdown for Jews to keep invoking ‘white privilege’ to pretend that some hick living in a trailer has the Real Power whereas all those rich Jews in gentrified cities are egalitarian comrades of Mexicans, Muslims, and blacks. (Indeed, Jews promoted fancy homos as the main face of ‘progressivism’ precisely because the class issues were making affluent Jews look like a bunch of hypocrites.) Especially given the woeful effects of Jewish globalist influence on Russia in the 90s, it is dangerous to maintain the narrative of Jews as the perennially oppressed tribe in need of special favors, treatment, and protection.

That the most potent kind of Moral Righteousness is a combination of tribalism and universalism can be see in the disproportionate power of anti-white whites(some of whom are affiliated with violent ‘antifa’ groups) and ultra-pro-Zionist Evangelicals. Why have the anti-white whites and pro-Jewish Evangelical whites been more powerful than white libertarians like Ron Paul who are neither anti-white nor pro-Zionist? Paradoxically, even anti-white whites and pro-Zionist whites practice a politics as combination of tribalism and universalism.

Libertarianism is purely universalist on basis of individual liberty. In representing the abstract liberties of the individual, it is both too atomized and too all-encompassing to generate Core Group power. It’s either about an individual fixated on his ‘right’ to smoke pot or how all borders must be abolished so everyone can become Abstract-Man like Bryan Caplan.

In contrast, anti-white whites and pro-Zionist whites are affiliated with an aspect of tribalism. Pro-Zionist whites suppress their own tribal identity, but in serving the Zionist identity they feel an sense of empowerment. It’s like being a squire. You are not the knight, but in serving the knight, you find meaning in life. It’s like the thief in KAGEMUSHA who, upon serving a clan, finds meaning by attachment. It’s like a dog finding meaning by attaching itself to its human master. So, even though pro-Zionist whites suppress their own tribal identity in name of universal brotherhood, their main loyalty is to Jews and Israel. Such focus gives them a stronger meaning of life.

As for anti-white whites, they too practice a kind of tribalism because their focus of hatred is directed against a particular tribe: white people.

Anti-white whites — Antiwa’s — are different from white Libertarians in this regard: Whereas white libertarians reject not only whiteness but all racial identities and harbor no special animus toward any group, anti-white whites concentrate their venom and ire on White People as the source of all evil. So, even though they don’t have a functional tribal identity of their own — except for the zealotry of their cause — , their narrow focus of hatred generates emotions of quasi-tribal identity.

Because libertarians oppose all tribal identities, their ‘hatred’ is diffused universally. In contrast, anti-white whites direct all their hatred on ‘white racists’ and ‘white tribalists’, and such winnowing of hostility creates a powerful us-and-them mentality: “We are good radical whites who reject evil whites at war with those evil whites who cling to their tribalism.” So, paradoxically, their radical anti-white-tribalism turns into a kind of ideological tribalism.

PS. One great way for white patriots to gain Moral Righteousness is by championing the Common Man neglected by the elites who hog all the privilege and power. Trump’s magic was to reach out to and represent such people who are dehumanized by the privileged urban class that has all the power, connections, and wealth. They try to morally justify their advantages by invoking tolerance, but they go beyond tolerance for homos. They try to force homomania and homo-worship on all school kids. And they want immigrants to use them as cheap labor and servant class and as buffers against black crime. These globo-elites are scum.

J.j. Cintia

Why do you bother listening to Soylent Green? Soylent Green isn’t you. Some pigs are just bacon. You have a future. You have a side. The time for talk is over. When they celebrate your death, you need no further information. You have a side, they don’t. Their pets will grow hungry, and need a new source of protein. You wouldn’t do it, but its an ingrained part of their culture. Who are you to judge? Enjoy it. This talk of Balkanization is amusing. Its almost as though the formation of states is a natural thing that requires no planning or thought at all. I assure you it does.

Scotcho Rouleau

Excellent article. Forward thinking, vibrant, and embracing the cultural enrichment that is the rainbow ? of America.

Andrea Ostrov Letania

When so many Jews hate Trump, why did some Jews like Stephen Miller jump on the Trump bandwagon? What did they see that anti-Trump Jews didn’t see?

Does it have something to do with the Alt Right? Alt Right movement is too fringe and under-funded to have had any direct influence on the election. But maybe it had an indirect influence on the election. Maybe some Jews like Miller saw the rise of Alt Right as portent of things to come… unless something is done to forestall the dire future.

Alt Right may be fringe and vanguard-driven, but it has the potential the populist voice of the white working class and lower-middle class if it were to de-emphasize all that highfalutin neo-Nietzschean ubermensch stuff.

Why? Globalism is elitist and favors the urban rich over everyone else. When the power and wealth are all sucked into the cities, the reaction will be populism. Since many cities are controlled by Jewish globalist elites, there is less unity and solidarity between city and countryside than ever before. FDR was an urban elitist, but he felt some send of bond with gentile whites all across America. Jewish elites tend to see non-elite whites as less-evolved deplorables. Their idea is to keep them down.

Now, if Jews ranged from very rich to very poor, Jews might feel more sympathy for the down-and-out. But as the great majority of Jews range from successful to super-rich and are concentrated in urban areas, Jews feel zero connection to those outside the big cities. Because of broad-based Jewish success, Jewish identity has become ethno-economic. There are few poor Jews. And even poorer Jews, like some Orthodox types, have enough culture and good sense to lead rather sane lives unlike nutty Negroes and trashy tattooed whites.

Jews once felt a degree of hostility toward cities when Wasp elites held the reins of power or when thick-necked Irish ran the City Machine. But those days are gone. Cities are now economically owned by Jews, and the homo machine is more powerful than any white ethnic machine like that of Irish Catholics. Now, cities are the power-centers of Jewish globalism. Historically, Jews made a decisive shift from Labor politics to Global free trade. Though Jews weren’t heavily represented among the working class, it had been to their moral advantage to side with the workers since most of the industry were owned and run by Wasp elites. So, just like Jews championed blacks to use against whites, they championed the working man against the wasp elites.

But once Jews took over as the main movers of US economy, they no longer saw the Worker as particularly useful. If anything, Big Labor was an hindrance for Jews to make more money. (Once Wasp power was made subservient to Jewish power, the Labor issue lost its luster. Why use big labor against wasp elites when the latter now served Jewish power? Besides, once the working class gained ‘middle class’ status in post-war America, it turned ‘conservative’ and voted for Nixon who, at the time, was seen as ‘new hitler’ by many Jews.) And once Jews took over city politics from the stupid-drunken-Irish, they were anxious that people might say, “Look, the Jews got all the power!” So, Jews promoted homo stuff to make it seem homos run everything. It’s like how Ivan the Terrible uses the dim-witted homo son of the boyars.

Anyway, with cities growing richer in the globalist era, it seemed Jews were on top of the world. They had everything: Wall Street, Las Vegas, Silicon Valley, Hollywood, Congress, State Department, and etc. They could write new financial laws, dictate foreign policy, control trade deals, shape the culture(and win every culture war), command the narrative, and destroy other nations.

Jews were able to loot Russia in the 90s. Jewish casino moguls came to own tons of politicians like nickels and dimes. Hollywood became world culture. Jews led the US into Iraq War. Congress praised Israel no matter what. Wall Street laws were changed so that firms like Goldman Sachs could go from making a killing to making a murder.

And since Jews controlled the media, they could deflect any blame, and if anything, blame everyone but themselves for all that went wrong….. and indeed, so many Jewish-engineered projects ended terribly.

Russia was turned into a hell hole, and it led to rise of Putin and autocracy. While most Jews railed at Putin at ‘new hitler’, some Jews were more reflective and thought, “if we Jews act like total pigs, what happened in Russia can happen here.”

The Iraq War based on neocon fantasies led to a total mess, and this mess would spread eventually all over Middle East.

Financial deregulation, combined with cynical egalitarianism, led to crazy housing boom and financial meltdown. It led to the biggest economic crisis since the Great Depression.

And the state of our culture isn’t healthy today. And as fish rots from the head, the cultural decay has spread all over America, resulting in White Death and degeneracy.

Most Jews figure, “We have it so good, we got the power and privilege, and we rule the cities.” So, why should they care about anything? Also, as long as the GOP portrayed itself as the party of ‘free trade’ and ‘individual liberty’, the Jewish Democrats could stick to the old formula of ‘Democrats for the people’ and ‘Republicans for the plutocrats’ EVEN THOUGH it was the Jewish Democrats and their allies who were the richest and most privileged people in America. This was why Romney failed to rally the working class and lower-middle class in 2012. Until Trump came along, Jewish Democrats had the best of everything. They had the most money and power, but they also had the symbolism of People Power since the GOP was so slavish to Wall Street(even as Wall Street came to favor Obama in 2008 and even as 2/3 of the super-rich supported the Democrats). Trump’s ‘genius’ was in seeing this contradiction and playing the People Card to expose the Democrats as the party of the globalist hogs.

But rise of Alt Right was maybe seen by some Jews as sign of things to come. As a nascent movement led by young people, Alt Right hasn’t the money, organization, experience, and clout to make anything happen on its own.

BUT, its themes have meme-potential because more and more people are getting ‘red-pilled’ by reality or by alternative news made possible by internet. Also, all this PC self-censorship in media and academia has made Alt Right the most honest voice. There are too many contradictions in the current system, and too many people are losing out. These ‘losers’ and ‘deplorables’ don’t have institutional power, but they still have the power of numbers. So, if Alt Right ideology were to spread to their communities, something can happen.

A box of matches is a small insignificant-looking object, but a single match can start a forest fire after a long dry spell when there’s a lot of dry woods and leaves. And globalism turned much of America into an economic drought, and all those ‘deplorable’ woods and leaves can be set afire. So many people are beginning to wonder what went wrong, but they get nothing resembling the truth from MSM or Conservatism Inc.

If Alt Right stuck to boilerplate GOP mantra., it’d be preaching the same ‘muh liberty’, which would have little meaning to the white masses.

If Alt Right were like tardo neo-Nazis, it’d be making fools of itself as Hollywood Nazi clowns.

But Alt Right made some compelling arguments about WHO has the power and how globalism, in terms of trade & immigration policy, is hurting America, esp white America.

For now, Alt Right is powerless. But it has the potential to influence many people.

So, maybe Jews like Miller figured that the best way to forestall the Alt Right movement was to support a Civic Nationalist like Donald Trump who is very pro-Zionist and surrounded by Jews. With Trump at the helm, white masses might feel that they are being heard and grow less angry. That way, the Alt Right message will have less appeal to them since Trump is already doing something for them.

Elitism says the best-and-brightest and the best-connected should do whatever that maximizes their own power and privilege. Elitism severs the cultural, emotional, social, and political ties between the elites and the masses. Elitism goes well with globalism since the elites see masses just as cattle to hire and fire. Only the elites matter.

The positive side of elitism is meritocracy, but there’s no guarantee that those who gain most power and wealth under meritocracy will do things that are good for the people of the nation. Their main priority might just be enriching themselves.

Also, there is no guarantee that the smartest and most qualified will play by the rules. Most people in Wall Street are very smart and got there through real ability. But so many have no scruples and no accountability. If MARGIN CALL is to be believed, ability isn’t the same thing as accountability. It could mean smart people using their smarts to cheat more. That sure was the case in Russia in the 90s. So, talent isn’t enough. There has to be a formula of talent and integrity and community.

Populism, in contrast to elitism, speaks of the people and to the people. It calls for policies that favor the common man, the forgotten man. Populism says that politicians and those in power should heed the interests of the masses. People’s concerns must always be taken into account when the rich and powerful make decisions.

The negative side of populism is demagoguery. Because the masses tend to be ill-educated and rather ignorant, the demagogue can play to their fears, prejudices, and paranoia — and Trump did some of this. Also, just because the elites are sometimes very wrong and the common man has it right, it doesn’t mean that ‘common sense’ always trumps expertise. The worst kind of populist mania was seen in the Cultural Revolution where the mantra was ‘red over expert’. Even Red Guard quacks were favored over doctors with real experience.

The meeting point of elitism and populism is nationalism. Via nationalism, the system can have a leadership class with expertise and experience. And since the theme of nationalism is ‘one for all and all for one’, the elites must not lead and rule simply on the basis of elitism that priorities only the interests of the elites. Globalism encourages the elites to identify mainly with elites of other nations and to favor foreign masses for (cheap) labor over what used to be known as ‘fellow countrymen’.

Nationalism is where the left meets the right. It was the political product of the French Revolution that declared that the national leaders must represent the national masses.

There are two concepts of three concepts of justice:

1. Redress for a wrong. So, if someone stole from you, you must be made to give back what you stole or face punishment for the crime.

2. Collective grievance. It is a macro-variation of 1. It argues that since an entire people were wronged, the wrong must be redressed on a collective level.

3. Shared identity and interests. This concept of justice isn’t about specific wrongs or any wrong done to someone. It is not reactive to a certain crime committed individually or historically.

Rather, it is about the formula for the future. It is a vision that a people must move forward together. It call for strategies that best secure the well-being of all people even if it means extra weight for the best-and-brightest. For example, the best-and-brightest might be able to do most and make the biggest gains the fastest under globalism where they can access the cheapest labor and best brains from all over the world. But in doing so, they hurt the chances of national workers and national talent pool.

This idea of justice might have originated with the Jews who, for a long time, emphasized tribal unity over royal privileges. Most pagan cultures had kings and nobles lording over others who were just seen as subject. But since the Jewish Covenant made even the lowest Jew with slit pud a precious child of God and blood descendant of Abraham, every Jew was seen as part of a big extended family. So, it wasn’t enough for Jews to succeed as individuals. They had to think in terms of what is good for the Tribe. This concept of justice later morphed into Christianity where all of humanity was seen as one tribe of God. And then it later turned to communism that stressed that economics should ensure that all workers have a good and just life. A saner variation of this was Social-Democracy, New Deal, and National Socialism(if we remove the toxic radical racist ideology).

Paradoxically, this unselfish view that may have originated among Jews — it’s like Moses has to be mindful to do the things that are good for all Jews, not only for himself — could lead to extreme ethnic selfishness. So, while Jews among themselves must be mindful of one another and share — Israel was founded by socialists — , their narrow sense of tribal identity means Jews can exploit non-Jews. The worst example of this was in the 1990s when American Jews, European Jews, and Russian Jews all acted in concert to help one another while Russians fell into deep poverty, and by some estimates, 10 million died premature deaths. Ethno-centrism is fine if it’s about one nation favoring itself over other nations. So, if Germans were to favor German identity/interests or if Japanese were to favor Japanese identity/interests, it’s no big problem. Other nations, in turn, can guard their own interests. But ethno-centrism in a diverse nation can be problematic, especially if it’s the powerful ethnocentrism of a minority group. When the US was 90% white gentile, its favoring of white ethno-interests wasn’t fair to blacks and others. But it still served most people well. And when Civil Rights Movement happened, the US dedicated itself to serving ALL Americans. But when the US is ruled by Jews who are 2% of the population who are mainly allied to homos, another minority group, elite-ethno-centrism turns into narrowest kind of heartless greed.

Perhaps, the Jews around Trump are seeing the danger signs of this. Unless there is a new formula that makes all Americans feel as ‘fellow countrymen’, the Alt Right meme-matches have the potential of setting off a forest fire one day.

But who knows what is really going on in people’s minds.

The film SNOWDEN — I have no idea how accurate it is — offers a glimpse into what might be called the Deep Media of the Deep State. For us hoi polloi, there is only the mainstream media that give us official propaganda and the alternative media that speculates(without smoking gun proof since they don’t have the means to probe into things). In contrast, NSA and CIA are like deep media that collects secret and insider information and shares those secrets ONLY with insiders. It is hardcore truth for insiders only. The real truth is hidden since 90% of what people say in public are lies. So, only the deep media knows the real truth. And since deep media got its information illegally(at least by conventional standards since what is legal for deep state would be illegal for the rest of us), it cannot be shared publicly.

And access to this information doesn’t necessarily include politicians and even the president since the deep state has the power to withhold information from even those it is supposed to serve.

And unless we have access to the deep media, we don’t know what is really happening.

Today, the deep media know more than ever before since digital technology enables such easy spying on just about anything.

For the masses, there is mainstream media that are mostly useless.

For the academics, there is scholarly media that are more knowledgeable. While scholarly discourse can be accessed by fellow scholars and even ordinary people, much of it happens in the exclusive halls of academe. Also, even though some scholars are connected to government and have access to deep media, many don’t. Their knowledge is limited to their level of access. Historians usually have to wait many years before the archives are opened up. But even then, many key documents were destroyed by the deep state.

In contrast, there are some within the deep state with access to the most private information. So, this deep media serves only the super-insiders. And these people surely kept tabs on Miller, Trump, and etc. If anyone can blackmail anyone, it is not the Russians. It is those in the US deep state that has best technology to spy on anyone. (One wonders if the reason why Merkel is so slavish to the US is because the US deep state has recordings of her saying insensitive things about, say, Jewish power?)

Snowden had access to deep media and decided to play the role of prometheus by sharing it with the people. I never got the impression that Snowden is a Trump supporter. And he is no Putin-supporter and ended up in Russia accidentally cuz his Visa was revoked. But there is a Russian-connection in the sense that what happened in Russia proved to be a harbinger for what happened in the US. Though Trump is far from Putin, both came to power due to excessive globalism that was dismissive of the interests of the national masses. In the case of Putin, a deep state operative steeped in KGB dirty tricks, headed the new national front. It was Putin against the oligarchs. Putin could play gangster against gangsters because he knew the ins-and-outs of power, like Stalin did.

In the case of Trump, it is a NY oligarch who presented himself as the champion of the people against the deep state. But then, some like Linh Dinh say Trump is really a tool of the deep state. But then, there are surely various factions in the deep state. A kind of hidden silent civil war within the deep state?

Putin’s style is more like Michael Corleone, Trump’s is more like Tony Montana.

Snowden’s revelations about the deep state was instructive because it showed that if we dig deeper into the sources of power, we see that both parties are joined at the hip. They look like two separate trees but are actually one tree beneath the ground joined to the same roots.

The Trumpian narrative was that he was opposed by both parties beholden to the deep state. Therefore, it’s not enough to chop down the rotten trees but dig out the evil roots from which both trees grew. Or drain the swamp. It’s not enough to pick up the flotsam floating on top.

But according to Linh Dinh, Trump was aided by the deep state against the two parties. This may seem counter-intuitive since so many people in the intelligence community stood with Hillary and denounced Trump. But maybe there is a deeper state within deep state.

crypter27 .

I couldn’t agree with you more ,I agree that Trump trying to unite the country will fail and thus we are no longer a nation


I just hope and pray after white America splits up into half a dozen or more warring states they are prepared to be colonized by Mestizos and Chinese, because once we balkanize, we will be incapable of defending the territory of North America from the *unified* races that are seeking to dispossess us of it.

Bob Robb

I hate to agree with you, but I feel the same way. If California secedes what will stop Mexican drug cartels from rolling across the border and taking over what’s left of the state? How about a Chinese fleet offshore one morning? How about an alliance with China?

I am reminded of Lincoln who said, “A house divided can not stand. I do not think the house will fall, but I do think it will cease to be divided.”

I think we’re seeing the opening of a civil war and we’d better win. It will depend on who gets control of the US Military. That faction will control the whole country. There will be no balkanized states.

Fr. John+

Why, Matt? His “Hold back this Day” was a very good novel….am I missing something?

Gubbler Chechenova

Emma Lazarus’ poem makes America sound like the garbage dump of the world?

Why did we blame Castro for dumping trash on the US? He was only fulfilling Lazarus’ dream.

We should have build another Statue of Litter-ty near Cuba with the sign, “Give us your criminals, nutjobs, murderers, rapists, junkies, freaks, perverts, crooks, and retards. We are America, and we take everyone.”

Globalism is a flood, a deluge like the Great Flood of Noah’s story.

Now, it’s good for different lands to be joined by sea routes so that they can do travel and trade. Water is useful in serving as both barriers and bridges. They keep nations separate from one another but also allow them to trade by ships. So, different nations can have both separateness and connected-ness.

But globalism is like flooding the entire world under water. Nations no longer have control over the uses of water. Instead, the globalist deluge drowns out all independence and sovereignty.

We don’t want Waterworld.

It’s funny. Globalists scream about Climate Change and about how sea levels are rising to flood the cities… but they are indifferent to the dangers of the globalist tide that threatens to drown every nation, culture, and tradition out of existence.

If we follow the vision of the Jewish Globalists, only Israel shall survive as an Ark while the rest of the world becomes covered in the globalist tide.


Finders keepers, Sowers reapers.

The American Continent was there for any people to find and build upon. Africans, Chinese, Hindus, Muslims, Turks, and etc could have done it if they had the vision, daring, resolve, and energy. They didn’t.

Europeans did it. So, they found it, and they built upon it. So, it is theirs by historical right.

And yet, the New Elites say that whites in the West have some historical duty to ‘share’ their achievement with the rest of the world? Why? Other peoples could have done what whites if they had the foresight and fortitude. Was it white folks’ fault that most peoples decided to stick to their Old Wold places and habits?

Imagine what white folks had to go through in the beginning to build this nation. Chop down trees, build roads, form communities, construct factories, construct channels, and tons of hardship. Why did they do all that? To hand it all over to strangers and foreigners? NO, they did it for their descendants/posterity.

Surely, the early Zionist who toiled to make Israel into a nation didn’t make all that sacrifice to hand it over to a bunch of Muslims, Hindus, Chinese, or Nigerians.

Crazily enough, the New Elites don’t just say this for the New World but for even Europe itself. Europe too must welcome immigration to ‘share’ and hand over its land and legacy to ‘New Europeans’.

If the globalist logic is that the New World doesn’t belong to whites since whites took it from Indians, this argument can’t be made about Europe since Europe was always the homeland of Europeans.

But even in the New World, the globalist logic makes no sense. If whites took from the indigenous folks of the New World, their moral duty is to them. It is not to the entire world.

If the white man took from Gernomino, treat the chief nice. Give him some beef, liquor, cigars, and casinos. What does the white man owe to Patel, Wang, Abdul, and Cucumonga? When it comes to blacks, whites owe ONLY to those whose ancestors were brought as slaves.


Why should white Americans(or, for that matter, black Americans and American Indian Americans) keep taking in immigrants who are either hostile towards White America or MADE hostile towards White America by people like Cohen?

Why is invasivism a good thing?

Immigration is invasion at current levels. In small amounts, newcomers can meld in with the native majority and assimilate, especially if the native majority hold the levers of power.

In the current US, the power is held by people like Cohen who pass out to every newcomer, “Whitey is your enemy”. Given the Culture of Hostility, why should White America take in more demographic imperialists?


Andrea Ostrov Letania


By ‘liberals’, which ones do we mean?

I think there is a division within the Democratic Party. Not everyone is for war and neo-imperialism. And this is why the Democratic Elites are eager to ramp up the tensions. When there is division in the home, try to unite everyone by directing their ire at some FOREIGN enemy.

Over the years, Jewish Power has become more central to the Democratic Party. Yet, at the same time, as the Party became all about Diversity and anti-white politics(at least in rhetoric because most privileged white urbanites are Democrats), there’s been rise of anti-Jewish sentiments, not least because the majority of People of Color side with Palestinians. And increasing numbers of Prog Jews are leaning to BDS or something similar, if only because they don’t want to look like hypocrites before the Diversity Crowd. And even though Democratic anti-white politics is really meant to be anti-deplorable-white and pro-virtue-signaling-white, the problem is a lot of People of Color cannot tell the difference between ‘good’ ones and ‘bad’ ones.

So, there is a lot of divisions within the Party. So, Jewish elites of the party beat the war drums about RUSSIA and other foreign threats to rally the much divided troops. It’s gonna be more difficult than Ancient Jews trying to keep the 12 tribes together. There are now 120 nationalities in the US.

Foreign policy is used as rallying cry, but it can also prove to be divisive. After all, if the Democratic Party comes down hard on China, it will alienate Asian-Americans. If it comes down hard on Muslims, it will piss off Muslims. On the one hand, Jewish Democrats want US foreign policy to be pro-Zionist and fight Wars for Israel. On the other hand, this is risky since it increases bad blood between US and the Muslim world. So, the Jewish-controlled media try to spin the Middle East issue as BAD RUSSIA supports BAD ASSAD and causes all this ‘refugee’ crisis, and BAD TRUMP THE NEO-NAZI won’t take ‘refugees’ like the US didn’t take Jewish refugees during WWII. But this is, of course, selective reading of events. It ignores the fact that much of the Middle East and North Africa, MENA, are up in flames because of Jewish-controlled US foreign policy that was instrumental in messing up Iraq, Libya, and Syria. With Syria and Yemen, US used its proxies. And it overlooks the fact that the main architect of the Afghan plan began under the Carter administration.

Democrat elites wanna push the narrative of the US as the good guy who takes refugees from evil Assad, but as Tulsi Gabbard said — and she is no bimbo like Hanoi Jane — , it is the US that has been aiding the moral equivalents of the Khmer Rouge in Syria. Gabbard blows up the narrative that American Jews are compassionate friends of the Muslims. She reports that US foreign policy is the cause for the mess in the region. She doesn’t name the Jewish Power, but anyone who connects the dots will come to that conclusion.

We have to be careful when we say ‘liberals’ because there is a huge difference in interest and emphasis between Jewish Democratic elites and the increasing non-white rabble of the Democratic Party. And there are differences even among the rabble(and even among the elites, as rising numbers of non-whites in Democratic elite ranks don’t much sympathize with Jews). Blacks and Mexicans don’t give a crap about Russia, and they don’t give a damn about Muslim world. Mexicans want more immigration and amnesty, but blacks aren’t too keen about that. Arab-Americans are pissed at Jews, and Muslim Americans find feminism to be degenerate.

But the Party is still largely funded and run by Jewish elites. They don’t know how to keep the rabble together, especially as Black Lives Mattered into a mess. Also, the homo issue sort of fizzled cuz Trump went along with it(though without enthusiasm) and promised to protect homos and trannies from Muslims. We have no idea what the Pussy March was supposed to be about.

So, Jews figure the only issue that might hold everyone together is RUSSIA IS THE NEW BIG BAD WOLF THAT PUT TRUMP IN THE WHITE HOUSE. Jews fear Russia more than anything. It’s no longer the Cold War fear. During the Cold War, there was the dread of communism with Russia as its main sponsor. But such fear is history. USSR is long gone, and Russia is just a regional power, not even a great one at that.

So, why all the fear? Why all the hysteria? It’s because the Russian example is threatening to Jewish globalist elite rule. Jews associate ‘nationalism’ with politics for the gentile majority at the expense of Jewish supremacist domination. Jews are now so addicted to total supremacist rule in the US that anything less seems like the holocaust. Not holocaust of Jews but holocaust of Jewish supremacism. After all, Jews are free to make money and get ahead in Russia and Hungary and Poland. So, why all the fuss? Putin isn’t anti-Jewish. It’s because their respective nationalisms will not totally surrender to Jewish demands. In the US, Jews have been getting everything their way. Even a man as blunt and crude as Netanyahu got to step all over Obama who remained mute during Gaza massacre and showered Israel with billions more even as Israeli politicians were spitting at him.

When people become accustomed, addicted, to total power, anything less seems like ‘injustice’. It’s like King mentality. For a king, a good life isn’t enough. Everyone must obey him. And this became the Jewish template in the US, and Jews hate ANY threat to the globalist order where gentiles say “your wish is my command”.

In a way, there is a consistency between Old Liberalism and New Liberalism IF we look at the Jewish element. Jewish anti-war stance in the past and Jewish pro-war stance in the present may seem like opposites on the outside BUT they have the same logic since both are predicated on ‘Is it good for the Jews?’

In the past, anti-communism was associated with the American Right dominated by Wasps. So, naturally, Jews were either pro-communist, communist-sympathizing, or anti-anti-communist. Jews figured communism had no chance of taking over the US. So, the bigger threat to Jewish power was Wasp Right using the specter of communism to justify their power(like the Nazis did). So, being opposed to the Cold War was good for Jews.

Today, Russia’s example inspires the path to political independence from Jewish globalist control and nationalism. Jews find it threatening, so they cook up the New Cold War. Again, it’s good for the Jews.

It’s like the story RASHOMON by Akutagawa. Ostensibly, three people tell three different stories. The bandit says he killed the samurai in a fair duel. The wife says she killed her husband who reproached her for being raped. The samurai, through a medium, says he killed himself because he was wronged by both bandit and wife.

And yet, at the psychological level, they are all telling the same tale driven by ego and pride. The bandit admits he is the killer but proudly says he fought a fair duel and won like a man. The woman says she was raped and victimized by the bandit, but her husband blamed her. So, she was victimized by her husband too, and so she killed her husband because she couldn’t take the blame and humiliation. She defends her dignity.

And the husband says that after the bandit raped his wife, she asked the bandit to kill the husband so that they could run off together. So, he is the victim of both the bandit who raped his wife and of the wife who betrayed him. He makes himself the object of sympathy.

So, in a way, they are all telling the same tale.

Same with Jewish Zionists and Jewish Globalists. Same with Jewish anti-war Liberals and Jewish pro-war globalists. They seem to stand for different things, but if we look at the source of their logic, it all comes down to “Is it good for the Jews?”

On the surface, what Jews want for Israel and what Jews want for EU/US seem like opposites. Jews are pro-borders & pro-nationalism in Israel and anti-borders & anti-nationalism in gentile lands. Hypocrisy? On the surface, yes. But there is consistency in their inner logic since both are predicated on “Is it good for the Jews?” It’s good for Jews to have nationalism in a Jewish-majority nation, and it’s good for Jews to weaken nationalism in gentile lands because gentile nationalism is a barrier to total Jewish domination.


J.j. Cintia

You cannot divorce parasites pal. This piecemeal solution divides you from each other. Western Civilization is a White thing. The others cannot maintain anything. Why else have they come to steal from you? Their demands of entry are an admission of their vast and permanent inferiority. I have no intention of negotiating with thieves. They can leave or die.

Leave a Reply