All Episodes
Previous Next
March 15, 2018 - Health Ranger - Mike Adams
31:34
Shattered America: The coming break up of the “United” States of America
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
So here's why we're headed for a breakup of the United States.
This has come to me recently as a new round of realization.
I've predicted this before, but I thought the tables would be flipped around the other way.
In other words, I thought that we would have Texas seceding from the nation.
We would have the Washington establishment would be run by the socialists, the communists, you know, Obama handing the baton to Hillary Clinton, for example.
And the whole country would keep going into the crazy, insane left while those rooted in insanity and liberty and the Constitution would break away.
But now I think the opposite is going to happen.
And in this analysis, I'll share with you why that's the case.
I think that actually the federal government right now, with Trump being the new president, the government and even the way the voters are voting is leaning more conservative.
And it's the left side of the political spectrum that is becoming more fringe and less dominant by far.
I mean, they lost everything in the recent election.
They lost the Senate, the House, the presidency, you know, the White House, and also, of course, in effect, the Supreme Court as well, plus governorships and so on, state legislatures all across the country.
They just lost everything.
They've retreated.
They've become almost a fringe party.
And as a result, the ideas of the political left have become more divergent from mainstream ideas.
Instead of moving to the center, the left is moving more to the left.
Meanwhile, what is conservatism is actually becoming more centrist.
And that's why the labor union people in the Midwest voted for Trump.
That's why he won Wisconsin.
Not Wisconsin.
Michigan and Wisconsin.
I guess I combined those two.
But this is why Trump won, because he was...
He appealed to a centrist voter that had for a long time voted Democrat, but all that's changed now.
And by the way, Trump is not opposed to gay marriage and he's not opposed probably to recreational use of marijuana and he's not opposed to the LGBT agenda.
Frankly, it's not even on his priorities list.
It's like, do what you want.
It's a free country.
Sleep with who you want.
He's going to fix the economy so that people can do better.
But that's beside the point.
The real point is that this divergence of political views also stems from the fact that the media today is no longer just three networks like it was in the 1980s and 1990s.
Under Reagan or Bill Clinton or the first Bush, the media controlled all of the disinformation.
It all came from the same basic sources.
You turn on the TV. You didn't even have the Internet.
And the TV had like three networks to choose from.
Maybe four if you were lucky when CNN came along.
And CNN has been fake news from day one, by the way.
But the basic three networks would give you the news.
And all Americans, no matter what their political beliefs, they would watch the same news.
And so they had the same version of events.
It was all disinfo, of course.
I mean, they were being lied to the whole time, but they agreed on the same lies, you see.
And so they didn't have a lot of disagreement and people had the same version of events in their heads.
You know, when Oklahoma City happened, for example, people were all told the same lies by the government and the ATF and the networks, the news networks.
And so people all thought, yeah, that's what happened.
When the Waco, Texas, David Koresh thing happened, I don't even remember what year that was, everybody was told the same lies, because David Koresh didn't have a Twitter account, because there was no Twitter.
If he could have tweeted out of that compound, history would have been totally different.
Well, actually, they would have shut down his Twitter account.
But if he could have If he had a website via satellite or something, it would have been different, but he didn't.
They controlled that, so the disinformation went out to everybody.
It was all the same story, the same version of events.
In other words, my point is that the mainstream media has been fake news forever, but the fake news was homogenized fake news during the 1980s and 1990s, and of course, long before that.
Whereas today...
You've got the new media.
You've got Natural News, my website.
You've got Infoboars.
You've got Drudge, Breitbart, and so on.
And so all of these independent media websites have now, for the first time in the history of our world, become competition.
And guess what?
They have a different view of the world.
Instead of fake news, they're all about transparency and real news.
They ask questions.
They don't just peddle propaganda from Washington.
And so, as a result of that, you've got now the Internet, you've got millions of different websites, and let's say hundreds of prominent news websites that span the political spectrum.
You've got some on the extreme radical left, that would be Huffington Post, as an example.
And then you've got a little bit left, you know, and you've got kind of centrist websites, you've got a little bit right, and you've got extreme right, like rhino Republican establishment kind of websites, which I'm thinking might be like The Nation.
I'm actually not entirely sure if The Nation is that, so don't hold me to that, but I don't read establishment Republican websites, so I don't even know what they are, but I'm just guessing that's what one of them might be.
Anyway, So you've got this divergence, and what's happening is people self-select the websites they want to go to based on what they mostly already believe.
Now, if you've got someone who's a libertarian, let's say, supports Ron Paul, is well-versed in Austrian economics, owns some Bitcoin, sits on a little bit of gold coin as well, is that person going to go over to Huffington Post to stay informed each day?
Not a chance, right?
Because the Huffington Post is a joke to that person.
It looks like morons and just, you know, idiots blogging to each other in psychopathic circle jerks of delusional fairy tale unicorn land or something.
That's what the Huffington Post looks like to intelligent, informed libertarians or conservatives.
Meanwhile, if you're a leftist person and you love the Huffington Post, are you going to go read Breitbart every day?
To get your news?
No, because if you're a left-wing person, if you're a California fruitcake grower, because I think they grow fruitcakes out in California, right?
They have like fruitcake orchards.
It's a whole business, I've heard.
The sand is just right for the dirt, something about it.
You can grow like fruitcake trees.
It's a seasonal thing, I hear.
They have to have illegal immigrants harvest the fruitcakes.
But it's a big business in California.
So if you're like a California fruitcake grower...
And you love the Huffington Post.
You're not going to read Breitbart news, because to you, Breitbart seems intolerant, offensive, misogynistic, you know, sexist, racist, whatever.
Even though it isn't.
There's nothing about Breitbart that is racist, by the way.
Or even sexist or intolerant, frankly.
I find Breitbart quite refreshing.
Especially Milo.
I think Milo's awesome.
He's, you know, a gay conservative activist, anti-feminist free speech guy.
Really.
Really great.
Very courageous person.
I love to see his work.
In fact, I gave him an award.
I gave him the most dangerous faggot of the year award.
I don't know if you're aware of that, but last year, if you look on Natural News and you search for it, it's the most dangerous faggot of the year award given to Milo Yiannopoulos.
He deserves it.
He's awesome.
In any case, If you're a leftist, you don't want to read Breitbart because that's not your view.
That's not going to be in tune, let's say, with your vision or version of the world.
So what happens is, a generation ago, People were getting the same news from the same sources, or the same fake news, I should say.
Today, they're getting this massive diversity of divergent news, of fracturing, the spectrum of information is fracturing and expanding and floating apart, farther and farther apart.
The left is becoming more and more fringe left.
And there are elements on the right that are becoming more and more conservative as well.
But ultimately, I mean, in the big picture, I think that most of conservatism is actually becoming more centrist.
I mean, look at Donald Trump.
He's a centrist Republican.
He doesn't oppose a gay marriage.
He doesn't oppose a LGBT agenda.
Not in the least bit.
Probably a lot of the people that he worked with over the years in show business and the beauty pageants and so on were gay or lesbian or what have you.
That's not on his list of things to do.
He's like, build a wall, stop ISIS. He's not like, you know, arrest gays.
No, that's not on his list.
So he's openly tolerant of gay marriage, and he's openly tolerant of probably recreational marijuana use.
And we know he's pro-organics.
We know that he likes to remove mercury from vaccines, for example.
I mean, he's got a lot of very centrist type of positions.
So you can't really call Donald Trump a far-right conservative, not in the least bit.
He's actually more of a centrist guy, and that's why he got all the votes from the Midwest.
How do you think he won?
You know, how do you think he got all the votes in Michigan and all these places throughout the Midwest that usually had gone Democrat for previous elections?
It's because Donald Trump has become more centrist and he's brought the party with him into a more centrist position.
So now what we have, if you look at, if you imagine a map of the United States, We have most of the country supporting now what is modern day conservatism in terms of the ideas.
Lower taxes.
You can keep more of your money.
A more free market approach to health insurance instead of being forced essentially at government coercion, government gunpoint to buy overpriced Obamacare.
People like to be able to save more of the money they earn.
People like government to get out of their lives and stop telling them what to do, by and large.
But the exception of this is California.
And it's California and New York, essentially, that are now the fringe, the more extreme radical left.
And these are the areas, especially California, that are trying to leave the union.
Now you've got the Cal Exit movement.
They're trying to secede from the union.
And that's mostly spurred by Southern California, by the way.
Northern California wants to secede from California and become its own state with Southern Oregon, by the way.
Because if you look at, by the way, I'll just give you a heads up.
If you go to Oregon or California and, you know, in Oregon, you've got Portland, which is insane, crazy people.
But if you get outside of Oregon, and what's that college town south of Portland?
I forgot the name of it, but that college town is also like Hippieville.
But if you get outside of those two areas, most of Oregon is pretty much good, hardworking people.
A lot of rural people, you know, they want to be free.
They want small government.
They want low taxes.
They want to be able to live their lives independently.
And in California, most of Northern California is also of a similar mindset.
A lot of Mount Shasta area type of rural people who want to live on their farms and raise their horses or chickens or what have you and just be left alone.
But the insanity comes from the Southern California regions of Los Angeles, of course, and San Diego, and in Oregon, of course, Portland, and then up to Seattle.
That's It's the cities where the insane people are.
And so not only do you have this nationwide fracturing where you've got the left coast, as we call it, that wants to get away from the continental United States, politically speaking, but you've also got fracturing inside each state where, again, Southern California and Northern California really disagree strongly on political philosophy and taxation and so on.
But as all of this is happening, California is becoming completely mad.
I mean mentally ill.
Like, extremely insane.
The politics of insanity are hard at work inside the skull of Jerry Brown.
California is a wonderful demonstration, by the way.
We should be thankful.
Those of us who are not in California, we should be thankful that California is putting on what you might call a clinic of progressive insanity.
Where they say, well, yeah, let's have all unlimited illegal aliens come in and let's give them free health care, free schooling and education, free hospital visits and free housing and everything.
And then we'll just run the pension funds into bankruptcy and wait for everything to hit the fan and ask for a federal bailout.
This is the California financial plan.
And by the way, just as a tangent, Some of that is related to climate.
I do want to bring this in because as a scientist, I've read some books on this and I've been observing some of this myself.
Climate has a lot to do with political philosophy.
This is fascinating.
Where the climate is easy, the politics become liberal because liberals are lazy thinkers.
Where the climate is difficult, the politics tend to become more conservative, because to survive in a difficult climate, you have to be willing to work harder and plan ahead.
You know, for a harsh winter or a harsh summer, you have to be willing to do some work.
But if you can just lay around and do nothing all day, i.e., Hawaii's climate, why is Hawaii the highest taxation state, more socialist, more liberal?
And California, you know, great climate, but uber-liberal, crazy, mentally ill-liberalism, socialism at work.
It's because of the climate.
Look at Cuba.
You know, why is Cuba essentially a dictatorship?
Because, well, for the reasons I just mentioned.
They don't have the hard work ethic that comes with facing a difficult climate.
Now, I know this isn't a universal theory.
There are exceptions to it, and so on.
You might say, well, gosh, Russia's got crazy, harsh winters, and that's a communist place.
How come they're communist?
Well, I will remind you, the Soviet Union broke apart.
And so Russia is the remainder of what used to be a much larger empire that did fail because people want to be free.
And so all the former Soviet socialist blocs have become less socialist over the years since the breakup of the USSR. Did you notice that?
A lot of regions that used to be run by communists and socialists have now, they've slowly started to learn about capitalism and entrepreneurism and so on.
So there are exceptions to it, but by and large, if you look all around the world, where the climate is easy, the thinking is lazy.
And the political philosophy of laziness is leftism and socialism and communism.
So that's just an interesting pattern to observe.
You'll see that all over the world.
So harsh climates tend to create strong people, strong individual people.
Look at, for example, Germany.
And the German people, I'm talking about the, not the wave of migrants that has taken over Germany, I'm talking about the real German people, and the real British people, and the real Irish people, and the real French, well, okay, the French has a little, they've got an easy southern coast, some of them got lazy, and that's why they got socialist, but I'm talking about the German people and many of the Nordic people and so on, They are very studious people.
They are achievers.
Why?
Because they had to survive these harsh, harsh climates.
And that tends to make them more conservative on the social spectrum.
And that's why Europe is now rejecting the socialism and the European Union idea and moving toward more conservative ideals.
See, this is not...
What we're seeing globally right now is not about just like Donald Trump himself causing this wave of change.
Donald Trump is, more accurately stated, riding a wave of change that just happens to be the right time for a person like him.
Brexit happened before Trump got elected, and you've got people running for office in places like France, and soon, before long, in Germany, or places like Greece, that are going to be more conservative.
It's because socialism and collectivism is failing everywhere around the world.
So getting back off of that tangent, as more and more people want to be free, you've got California going into the insanity of the extreme left and becoming...
The California people tend to want to be more communists.
They want to have government tell them what to do.
They love the nanny state.
They love a police state.
They love high taxation.
And they're riddled with guilt, by the way.
All the California taxpayers are just so guilty.
About African Americans, even though the people living today never did anything bad to African Americans in California, but they feel guilty about it.
They've been indoctrinated to feel guilt, and they feel guilty about the illegal aliens crossing the border and working in the agriculture system there, or what have you.
So they're riddled with guilt and they have horrible economic ideas.
And this reflects the extreme fracturing of the belief system and the psychology of the country.
The upshot of all of this, everything I've just said, is that I don't see how America stays together for very long.
Now, it's not going to fracture without a trigger event.
So the next logical question in this analysis is, well, what kind of trigger event could it be?
Well, history is a great teacher.
So if you look throughout history at when have empires with very strong central federal-style control over states and regions, when have those central governments...
Lost control and in effect caused a fracturing or balkanization or splitting apart of the empire.
Well, getting back to the Soviet Union, that's another great example.
There are many other examples throughout history like the Japanese Empire.
Or Genghis Khan or Napoleon or ancient Rome or what have you.
You can go through all of these historical scenarios and they all have one thing in common.
And that thing, which I'm going to describe here, is what we are experiencing right now.
And that is, the empire became too bloated and too expensive To maintain, usually the debt became too great to maintain, and so there was a collapse of central command and control economies.
So as a central capital, let's say Washington D.C. in this case, or Moscow in the Soviet Union, when the capital becomes weak through a crisis, and usually it's a financial crisis, a debt collapse of some kind, or a currency collapse of some kind, but sometimes it's a military revolution and so on.
When the central command authority becomes weak, then you have a splitting apart, a balkanization of the country.
You see, this very idea that everything should be united is BS. The whole idea of the European Union, that all cultures could be united and be the same, is BS. If you know anything about the history of the world, you know that European cultures are not the same.
They have very strong self-cultural identity.
They are diverse, but they are not homogenized, and they don't wish to be.
They want to maintain their culture.
The Greeks want to be Greeks.
The French want to be French.
The Irish want to be Irish, for God's sake.
And more power to them, I say.
You know, we don't want everybody to be the same.
So, globalism is about homogenizing everyone and, quote, uniting everyone.
I think the slogan of the European Union was united in diversity, which is just silly.
It's just stupid.
It's stupid liberalism.
People don't want to be united.
They want to actually...
Be in control of their own lives.
They want local control.
And that's what California is saying right now.
The California liberals and the CalExit movement, what they are screaming to the world is that we, the people of California, don't want to be united with Washington, D.C., or Texas, or Michigan.
That we, the people of California, want to be our own sovereign nation and our own people, and we want to experience our own bankruptcies and not Not take part in the bigger Washington bankruptcy.
In other words, Californians are saying they want to live in their own delusion.
They don't want anybody else's delusion.
They've got their own delusions that they think are better.
And so, the collapse of centralized power throughout history has very often been the trigger point that led to the breakup and balkanization of what were empires in the past.
And this is, if you go through the history of the world, whether you're talking Eastern Europe, Western Europe, Central and South America, and so on.
Of course, Asia, Southeast Asia, and of course, modern-day Russia and the former Soviet states, you name it.
The former Japanese Empire, former...
Well, now China...
I can hear you saying China may be an exception to this because China has managed to maintain a centralized command and power structure perhaps longer than anyone else, but I'm here to tell you that's coming to an end.
China is about to undergo a massive Economic collapse, plus an ecological collapse, plus a cultural collapse.
And they're desperately trying to stop it by controlling the Internet and having the Great Wall of China, the Great Firewall of China, as it's called, and imprisoning anyone who speaks out against the state and so on.
They've criminalized free speech, they've criminalized meditation, they've criminalized religion.
China is a totalitarian police state.
It's a horrible evil, like North Korea, but bigger.
And it's only through that totalitarianism that they've been able to maintain control for this long.
But that's going to come to an end.
So China will soon be another example of a failed empire that could not maintain control over all of its regions.
And China will very easily split into many different nation-states because the Chinese culture, something I know quite a lot about as I speak Chinese, is China is very, very diverse.
I mean, you can only hold China together artificially.
Imagine a bunch of magnets.
You ever have these little magnet, neodymium disc-shaped magnets, and if you try to stack them together when it's north and north trying to push together, they don't want to push together, right?
They want to fly apart.
That's China.
China is artificially pulling together all these regions that want to be a part.
Heck, these regions have their own spoken languages, by the way.
Mandarin Chinese, because it's not a phenom-based written language form, it's actually pictographs.
If you've ever read Chinese, it's pictographs, not letters.
There's no alphabet in China.
Every word is its own picture, right?
Because of that, the pronunciation of the Chinese language is highly divergent.
And even today, you can find people in various regions of China who can all write the same words on paper, but they cannot verbally speak and understand each other.
They have to write on paper as a common form of communication.
They speak the words so differently.
Why?
Because of cultural diversity.
Or divergence, you might say, linguistic divergence, which is a natural result of many different factors, including geography and cultural history and so on.
So globalism is failing.
And empires are failing, and the United States will very likely be one of the many empires that fails.
Well, it's almost inevitable from a financial point of view, but what I'm saying is that I think it could even happen more quickly due to political differences or political divergence.
And what that means is we're likely to end up with...
Maybe five to seven regions of what used to be the United States of America becoming new nations.
And of course, Texas would be perhaps the biggest of them all, not just in terms of geography, but also economy.
And Texas would take with it Oklahoma and Florida.
Probably Mississippi and some other states as well.
And then you'd have California, Oregon, and Washington would be the socialist republic of California or something.
And they can take advice from North Korea on how to run their economy.
They can build a fence around California to keep people in.
It'd be like the illegal aliens run across the border and get to California.
They realize they're trapped in Like in a one-way mousetrap.
You can come in, but you can't get out.
Because, you know, communist states don't want people leaving.
They have to make it hard to leave.
In the meantime, the rest of America would be pursuing a completely different kind of economic philosophy and political philosophy.
And, of course, the Texas region would be We're militarily very, very strong and be strong in energy because we have our own oil fields, massive, massive energy resources in Texas.
We have our own refineries.
We have our own port to the ocean.
We have most of the military personnel in terms of proportion.
I don't mean over 50%, but I mean, what I mean is that no other state contributes more people to the military than Texas.
We've got our own nuclear missile silos.
Texas can grow food.
Texas has Solar energy and wind energy and petroleum.
And Texas has all the guns.
So, you know, enough said right there.
Texas has the firepower.
So nobody's going to mess with Texas.
What does California have?
Debt and guilt and lunacy, frankly.
So California is not going to make it very far.
They will end up like Venezuela if they become their own nation state.
So I call it Calizuela, which is really a more accurate description.
Welcome to Calizuela.
You don't need a passport to get in.
But once you're in, you're a subject of Comrade Brown, Mr.
J. Brown there, who will cancel all elections and just become the Stalin of Calizuela.
So, in any case, enough comedy and commentary.
My point is, and I'm going to wrap this up, is that the Balkanization of America is coming.
I don't see how this country stays together for much longer.
We've got the economic collapse coming.
The debt is insurmountable.
Trump can't reverse that.
There's nothing he can do, frankly, that's going to stop the financial hemorrhaging of the United States.
Not while he's building a bigger military.
Eventually, you have to cut entitlements, and you can't politically.
It's suicide if you cut entitlements.
If you start cutting Medicare and Social Security, guess what?
All the senior citizens march on Washington in their walkers and canes, and they beat you to death with their canes.
You can't touch those things.
And so entitlements are going to bankrupt the empire.
It's inevitable.
Whether that happens now or 10 years down the road is hard to say.
But Trump is not going to be able to change the laws of mathematics.
That's my point.
And so, he may be our last president.
That's an informed prediction to say that Donald Trump may be the last president of the United States of America as it is structured today.
You know, 50 states, in other words.
He may be the last president of the 50 states country.
We'll see.
Until then, be prepared and stay informed.
You can read more about this at my website, naturalnews.com, or of course, trump.news, which we also operate for your enjoyment.
Thanks for listening.
Take care.
Click subscribe to stay plugged in to the Health Ranger Report.
If you'd like to help support this video and other videos like this, visit healthrangerstore.com, where everything we sell is laboratory tested for heavy metals and more.
You'll find superfoods, storable survival foods, nutritional supplements, and a full line of synthetic chemical-free body soaps, shampoos, and oral care products.
▲
Export Selection