I wanted this 4th of July to be a big deal: I remember celebrating the bicentennial in 1976 and how patriotic, even nationalistic it felt; I recently learned that I had an ancestor who actually signed the Declaration of Independence (no one famous, just a well-to-do land owner who represented his colony, still- kind of cool); I have over half a dozen direct ancestors that fought in the Revolution. With these personal connections, this Independence Day should have been a big deal and a time for joyful celebration and appreciation.

But it wasn’t. I just couldn’t get there emotionally. Something has changed. This is not the America I remember. This certainly is not the America the Founding Fathers envisioned either.

As to be expected, there have been a bewildering number of articles published recently looking at America’s 250^th birthday. I’ve read quite a few and found a handful (linked below) that, when taken together, go some way toward explaining why I feel as I do. I guess it’s not just me. I’ll borrow a bit from them and share my own thoughts in the hope that it will explain to you, to myself, and to posterity why this Independence Day felt more like a memorial service than a celebration.

I don’t intend this to be a solely negative post, and certainly not “anti-American” as far as it goes. Indeed, there is much to love about our country and if I didn’t care about it, I would not be taking the time to reflect and write what I do. It is a beautiful country with much to offer, and no country is perfect. But without an honest assessment of where we are and how we got here, we can never move forward. Think of this as similar to trying to celebrate a person’s birthday while they lie, perhaps mortally wounded, in the ICU.

America Has Changed, And Not For The Better

To begin with, one of the reasons I could not muster the same degree of enthusiasm as when I celebrated America’s birthday fifty years ago is obvious: this really isn’t the America of my youth, populated with Americans. In 1976, when America celebrated its bicentennial, the United States was still a recognizable continuation of the nation forged by its founders, my ancestors, and built by generations of European settlers, their descendants, and earlier waves of overwhelmingly Western, overwhelmingly Christian, immigrants who assimilated into the American nation within two generations. The American population was as it had been since before the nation declared independence in 1776: overwhelmingly European in heritage and overwhelmingly English in culture. America’s English language, Protestant faith, small-government preference, and deep-rooted regional cultures (New England Yankees, Appalachian Scots-Irish, Midwestern Germans and Scandinavians, Southern traditions, and Western pioneers) all derived from European settlers.¹

This heritage stood alongside and heavily influenced other American communities. The long-established African American communities descended from slaves for the most part adopted this common American culture while also contributing to American uniqueness. On a regional scale, Hispanic communities had pre-annexation roots in places like New Mexico, Texas, and California.

If we look at the 1970 Census (the data closest to the bicentennial year), we can see that America looked much like it did in 1776. The population numbered 203.4 million and the demographic picture was as follows:

• 83.4% White/European – 85.8% of whom were native-born
• 11% African/Black – 98.9% of whom were native-born
• 4.4% Hispanic – 80.1% of whom were native-born
• 0.7% Asian – only 35% of whom were native-born
• American Indians at 0.4% of the population – 98% or more of whom were native-born.

As you can see, the people of America in the United States were by no means racially “diverse.” America was white.

Fast-forward to 2026 and the Semiquincentennial. The last 50 years of immigration policy have totally transformed the original American nation and displaced its regional communities.

Now the United States has roughly 340-355 million residents and the demographic composition is:

• 56% White/European, a decrease of 29% – 94% of whom are native-born and 90% of whom have deep inter-generational roots.
• 14.4% African/Black, an increase of 3.4%– More importantly, now 12% of blacks are foreign-born (a 990% increase from 1970).
• 20% Hispanic, an increase of 15.6%– 33% of whom are foreign-born (a 13 point increase from 1970).
• 7% Asian, and increase of 6.3% – 65% of whom are foreign-born.

As a result of post-1965 immigration policy, America is now indeed “diverse.” And because of this, our new multicultural nation is facing new problems: cultural fragmentation, straining institutions in large part due to the economic dependence of non-Western groups, and rapidly fading regional identities. This change was not an accident.

In 1970 (close to 1976), the foreign-born share hit a record low of about 4.7%. By 2024, it reached around 16% (over 55 million people) according to the Center for Immigration Studies. The foreign-born population has more than tripled, with immigrants and their descendants accounting for the majority of population growth since 1965. Roughly 96 million people in the United States today, about 28% of the current American population, are the descendants of post-1965 immigrants and therefore not part of the historic American nation.

The 1965 Immigration Act , only starting to play out when I celebrated the Bicentennial, was a dramatic departure from previous immigration law that, going back to our country’s founding and the Naturalization Act of 1790 (our very first immigration law), permitted citizenship only to “white persons of good character” and only after a wait-period of two years. Later, the naturalization Acts of 1795 and 1798 increased the required residency to 5, then 14 years respectively.

Naturalization then expanded to blacks with the 14th Amendment and the 1870 Naturalization Act, but this was intended only for freed slaves, NOT African immigrants.

Other legislation along the way worked to preserve the white character of the American nation. Then came the 1965 Hart-Celler Act. Senator Ted Kennedy and his cronies sold it to the American people with a lie, saying, “the ethnic mix of this country will not be upset,” when, in fact, changing the ethnic mix of the country was their goal. They were having difficulty getting American voters to vote for them, so they opened the flood-gates to bring in non-Whites in the hopes of bolstering their voter base. (A lesson Obamy and Biden took to heart too).

And it worked. The 1965 act brought in the poorest of the poor from around the globe. Non-English-speaking peasants from wildly backward cultures could be counted on to be dependent on government assistance for generations to come. ²

In 1970, there were only 9 million Hispanics in the entire country, according to the Pew Research Center. Today, there are well more than 60 million. As a point of reference, the entire population of Mexico is 132 million. That means our Hispanic population is equal to 45% of the population of Mexico. As a side note, it so happens that 45% of the prison population in California is also Hispanic.

In 1970 there were a few thousand Haitians living in the United States. Today there are over 1.1 million.

In 1970, there were virtually no Somalis in the United States. In the past 25 years alone, we’ve brought in more than 98,000 Somali refugees.

In 1970 there were an estimated 800,000 Muslims living in the United States. Today that number approaches 6 million.

America has never before had such large populations of culturally, ethnically, and religiously disparate foreigners; nor has this country ever attempted to integrate such a large volume of people. These populations are so large that they are able to maintain separate communities and institutions and agitate for their specific ethnic interests, oftentimes over the interest of traditional Americans, that is to say, Whites. They have no reason to consider themselves American and no ties to her history or heritage.

One article I read tried to end on a positive, empowering note, saying, “At this time of reflection, the American people have a choice to make, and it is a serious one: Will America exist in the year 300? Or will we become a balkanized landscape of hyphenated “Americans” with competing foreign interests? The choice is ours.”

The problem is, I’m not so sure. It is entirely possible that the Trojan horse of immigration has been brought in the gates and the city is already lost. More to the point, our “choices” have devolved to little more than sock-puppets for the Elites, purpose-built to distract and divide the American electorate.

Fragmentation= Divide and Conquer

The fragmentation to keep the our people on the ropes and further the interests of the globalists and our oligarchic masters is already playing out.

Consider Tucker Carlson and his call for a third-party. (I know, I know… Tucker Carlson. I too am not a fan of silver-spoon “conservatives” that do little more keep an already schizophrenic electorate distracted, divided, and complacent while propping up our broken system).

He does hit some of the notes I am fond of. On June 22, during an appearance on the Can’t Be Censored podcast (a Canadian program run by an Asian and Hindu and hosted on Jewish controlled platforms), Tucker Carlson said “I’m out” of the Republican Party and there was “no chance” he would support them moving forward. The specific reason he gave is the catastrophic Iran War, which was fought for Israeli/Jewish interests, not American interests. As I often mention, I’m no fan of Iran, but anything that shines the spotlight on Zionist tyranny is not altogether a bad thing (regardless of who owns the platform).

Tucker went on to say “I’m going to help build a third party.” The party will be populist in nature, focused strictly on the common good of American citizens. Or so he says.

Which is all well-and-good and completely understandable: Trump has alienated, to say the least, a broad segment of the Right, populists, and independents. These are people who in no way want to vote for AOC or other communists, but can no longer stomach our Zionist stooge-in-chief as President.

These voters need a home. They need a party that will uphold nationalism and populism, which is what the people want. Otherwise, these homeless voters will simply migrate back and forth between Republicans and Democrats, who have made an art of not giving voters what they want.

The people want sensible social conservatism plus an interventionist government that sides with the people against the rich and connected. The elites want social liberalism and oligarchical power. The Democrats pair the interventionist state with social liberalism. The Republicans pair social conservatism with oligarchy. When in office, the Democrats deliver more social liberalism than populism. When the Republicans are in power, they deliver more oligarchy than conservatism. Thus the two-party system increasingly serves elite preferences not populist preferences. Hence the current grotesque system: Left-wing oligarchy.

In the long run, a genuine national populist party could overturn this system and replace it with what the people want: Right-wing populism. Let’s hope Tucker’s new party amounts to something more than UFOs, Russian propaganda, conspiracist snake oil, and goofy talk about demons.³

But I wouldn’t bet on it. The problem (well, one of them anyway) is that Tucker’s party would be a third-party in the existing system. It’s like putting new tires on an old car. However enjoyable the ride in the short-term, it’s still the same old car. A third-party in the existing climate and in this system will do little more than divide Republican or conservative votes, all but guaranteeing a sweeping neo-communist Left victory in the next presidential election. Think Biden 2.0. (Or Obamy 3.0). Or (shudder) Harris 0.5.

And it gets worse. It is entirely possible our so-called Democracy is sowing the seeds of its own destruction:

Multiparty democracy presupposes the willingness to hand the loaded gun of state power to one’s political opponents from time to time, because you can trust them not to shoot you with it. Those days are gone in America, which means that multiparty democracy in America is coming to an end. The first party to ban the other will rule until the whole system collapses.

The Left clearly thinks that the Right is too dangerous to be allowed to return to power. They stole the 2020 election. They would have stolen the 2024 election if they could have gotten away with it. The next time they are in power, they will try to ban the opposition and impose a rainbow dictatorship.

Leftism will still destroy itself, but that’s no consolation if it destroys us first.

Trump’s war has blown up his electoral coalition. We see it in the polls. We see it in Tucker’s defection. In the short term, that means the Left back in power. That means Trump’s good policies on closing the borders, deporting invaders, and rolling back DEI will be reversed. It means the ramping up of censorship and lawfare directed at the Right. And it may mean the end of the Right’s electoral chances in the future—any Right’s electoral chances, including Tucker’s new party.

…we will face a much more hostile political environment. Winter is coming again for white advocacy. We must do as much as possible to prepare ourselves, so the springtime belongs to us.³

Fundamentally Flawed

Which brings me to the real reason I simply could not get excited about the 4^th. As I’ve said before, our country may have been founded on noble ideals and good intentions, but it was an experiment that has run its course. We all grew up being told that Democracy was the greatest of political achievements. That our system, while not perfect, was better than anything else history had to offer. But if we step back for a moment, it becomes increasingly apparent that what we were told was propaganda designed to perpetuate the existing system, a system that is built to keep the powerful in power. If you doubt me, consider the vehemence with which a competing and alternative system, National Socialism, was demolished in 1945.

As Pierre Simon says in Democracy: A cesspool of Mediocrity run by Hostile, Self-Serving Elites , the best critique of democracy is without any doubt that of Jean Haupt who, after having analyzing all its mechanisms, i.e., its founding principles, universal suffrage, the competence of elected officials, parties, parliament, the government, and the head of state, concluded that the democratic system actually is contrary to the legitimate interests of the citizens as well as to the superior interests of the Nation. ⁴

As I often say, the problem with our system was baked into the cake at its founding. Keeping in mind that the many of the Founding Fathers were either Freemasons or looked favorably on them, the sacrosanct trilogy of Masonic origin “Liberty, Equality, Fraternity” is the keystone of all democracies. Three magic words with strong connotations, but which contain a whole world of contradictions. In short, they are incompatible, thereby promoting a system which is fundamentally flawed at its core.

Consider Liberty: It is possible to have a system of complete liberty in which every man is free to behave as he pleases, to do what he will, to rob or to murder, to live under the law of the jungle. This is rule by the strongest, but there is no equality there. In fact, just the opposite. Survival in the land of Liberty demands inequality.

Or one may have a system of absolute Equality, of cutting every one down to the same dead level, of crushing all incentive in man to rise above his fellows, but there is no liberty there. Such constraints as are necessary to ensure perfect equality must curtail or trample on pure liberty.

As for Fraternity, defined as a body of people associated for a common purpose or interest, the never ending wars and civil strife starting from the French Revolution onward give truth to that lie. As Nesta H. Webster says, “Never have men been so betrayed, hated, envied, robbed, tortured, murdered, massacred, as since the word Fraternity was inscribed on the pediment of our public buildings. It is enough to go through the history of the last hundred and fifty years to notice that democracy is an endemic and permanent civil war.”

Thus, by coupling three terms that are forever incompatible, the people and their vassals who rule over us have introduced into the social arena a permanent bone of contention and division. And it is precisely because of this “divide and rule” strategy that Louis-Ferdinand Céline, one of the greatest writers of the last century, thought democracy was the perfect cover for Jewish dictatorship.

As noted by retired professor of humanities, Thomas Dalton, democracy is a political system used by Jewish elites to acquire wealth, control mass media, and influence politicians while remaining hidden from the public. This materialistic and anti-spiritual “judeocratie,” concludes Dalton, elevates “mediocre” and easy-to-manipulate politicians such as Donald Trump and the Young Leaders of the World Economic Forum—Angela Merkel, Tony Blair, Justin Trudeau, Emmanuel Macron, and Jacinda Arden—to serve Jewish interests at the expense of their own citizens.

He certainly wasn’t the first to note this. As Adolf Hitler says in Mein Kamp: “Democracy has become a tool in the hand of that [Jewish] race that, because of its inner goals, must shun the open light — as it has always done and will always do. Only the Jew can praise an institution which is as corrupt and false as himself. ” [Vol. I: 3.15]

As enemy of mediocrity Ezra Pound says: “Democracy is now currently defined in Europe as ‘a country run by Jews.” Seen in this light, America is truly a great democracy.

The Lies We Believe In

But democracy guarantees our freedoms, yes? That is the biggest lie: We believe we are free.

Is Freedom of Thought guaranteed in a democracy? No, says Jean Haupt, because:

Men, nowadays, whoever they are, wherever they are, are subjected, hour by hour, in the street, in the office, in the factory, in the workshop, in their work, in their leisure, and in their distractions, and even in the intimacy of their homes, through the intermediary of the image, book, press, cinema, radio, and television, to the constant, permanent, invasive, declared or insidious, brutal, or underhanded action of undemocratic propaganda.

Everything that does not contribute to the glory of democracy is hidden. And since the media are owned by the ruling oligarchs, they have complete control over the political affairs of the country. Democracy in this sense is an authoritarian government by another name. It does not tolerate dissonance and takes all means at its disposal to bring to heel those who do not adhere to the official version of things.

Or consider Freedom of the Press.

No mainstream media today is free, that is, independent. They are all in the hands of some trust or financial group, itself in the hands of God knows what other entity, and usually owned by a Jew or Jewish consortium. Whether they are on the left or on the right, Democrat or Republican, liberal or conservative, it’s bad cop–good cop.

Information disseminated to the public is totally censored, filtered, and manipulated by the hidden forces that run our governments. And that’s without mentioning the pressures that are exerted through false advertising.

As Jew Edward Bernays, the pioneer of corporate PR and propaganda, said about democracy:

The conscious and intelligent manipulation of the organized habits and opinions of the masses is an important element in democratic society. Those who manipulate this unseen mechanism of society constitutes an invisible government which is the true ruling power of our country. … We are governed, our minds are molded, our tastes formed, our ideas suggested, largely by men we have never heard of. This is a logical result of the way in which our democratic society is organized. Vast numbers of human beings must cooperate in this manner if they are to live together as a smoothly functioning society. … In almost every act of our daily lives, whether in the sphere of politics or business, in our social conduct or our ethical thinking, we are dominated by the relatively small number of persons … who understand the mental processes and social patterns of the masses. It is they who pull the wires which control the public mind.

Such is the thinking of Jews. And it is important to note that the above quote was written in 1928!

The people who rule us, the cosmopolitan financial cartels who get rich through war, financial speculation, and usury, are indeed powerful — powerful in their ill-earned money and their boundless ambitions. They can buy anything and anyone: the most influential media, it goes without saying, but also scientists who live on subsidies, crooked politicians they put in power, leftist university professors who only see salvation in the end of capitalism; journalists, editors, activists, influencers, and losers of all kinds as well as notorious hacks all have a price. In our materialistic world, everything can be bought.

The search for truth, doubt, principles, morality, integrity, love of a job well done, remorse of conscience, fear of divine retribution, in other words, the Western European principals upon which this country was founded and which our Semiquincentennial ostensibly celebrates, hardly exist anymore. The population in general has been domesticated, dumbed down, even subjugated by the Golden Calf and limbic capitalism. Having lost their moral and spiritual compass, having lost their national, cultural, and ethnic identity, they find themselves disarmed in the face of the globalist psychopaths who rule over us.

Simply put, whoever controls the money and the press controls the world. It is for this reason that democrats first impose “freedom of the press” in the name of human rights on the authoritarian countries they want to Judaize. They know very well that it is through this breach in the wall that “the torrent of subversion […] will rush in, irresistible, allowing them to storm the regime and destroy its institutions.”

And if that is not enough, the dictators of democracy will turn to bombs as they did in Serbia, Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Syria, Gaza, Ukraine, and Iran.

Lastly, consider Universal Suffrage, one of the hallmarks of modern democracy.

“It is on absolute equality which, by nature, does not exist and cannot exist,” insists Jean Haupt, “that the democrats base the institution of the universal suffrage. It is the famous principle ‘one man, one vote.’”

In this system, the vote of the most insane, the most illiterate, the most ignorant, the most morally and politically incompetent, the most easily manipulated by media propaganda has exactly the same value as the vote of the most intelligent, the most educated, the least manipulable and the most morally and politically competent.

Since the majority of the population belongs to the least competent group, it is this group that elects the candidates. In this system, it is presupposed that the majority has a better emerging judgment than the judgment of the individuals that constitute it, the average citizen, and conversely, it is presupposed that a minority can never be right. This is false in both cases. A majority is not necessarily right, and it is often the minority dissident elite that is the most competent.

Democracy is therefore the opinion of the mediocre. With good media coverage, enough money, false electoral promises and in some countries, like the United States, fraudulent manipulation of the vote, those who really rule are therefore able to get almost anyone elected.

Political Parties = Distraction by Division

Which brings us back to Tucker’s proposed third-party and why it’s more lipstick on the democratic pig. The existence of multiple parties, with their committees, their newspapers, their leaflets, their meetings, their congresses, their parades, their demonstrations, maintain in the country, in the street, in the office, in the factory and sometimes even within families, an endemic state of agitation, division, hostility, hatred, which, in periods of electoral campaign… is transformed into crises, into outbreaks of fever, into an explosion of exacerbated passions and pointless street demonstrations. These distractions keep the electorate from seeing and addressing real issues.

Even George Washington warned against political parties in his Farewell Address of September 17, 1796:

However [political parties] may now and then answer popular ends, they are likely in the course of time and things, to become potent engines, by which cunning, ambitious, and unprincipled men will be enabled to subvert the power of the people and to usurp for themselves the reins of government, destroying afterwards the very engines which have lifted them to unjust dominion.”

But the divisions are not only between the parties, but also within the parties themselves. Each party has a center, right, far right, left and far left with its leaders and followers sometimes as passionate about their side as if it were an opposing party. And when the internal quarrels become important, the party can sometime split into several enemy factions. This dynamic is especially visible in multicultural societies, where identity-based concerns frequently enter political discourse. In such contexts, groups defined by religion, ethnicity, gender, sexuality, or environmental values may advocate for their specific rights and interests. What is ignored is everyone else; that is to say, the Nation. This is where America finds itself today, divisions within divisions.

Moreover, how can one be a civil servant, judge, policeman, doctor, or teacher and still be a member of a political party? Each will tend to defend his or her political option, sometimes to the detriment of the community. Thus, if the party in power is the opponent of the party of any civil servant, the latter will be disloyal to the government whose policy he disapproves of. He will harm and betray the taxpayers who pay him, thinking that he is doing the right thing, because he is convinced that the policies of the party in power are harmful to the country.

As António de Oliveira Salazar, Prime Minister of Portugal from 1932 to 1968, said: “The Nation tends instinctively to unite; the parties tend to divide…”

It is also important to note that one of the first things the NSDAP did after coming to power was ban political parties (14 July 1933). National Socialist Germany was a single-party nation. They saw strength in unity, not division.

The incompatibility between party and national interest is particularly dangerous when it comes to internationalist or globalist parties. Under different misleading names, these parties all advocate the end of nations, no-borders, replacement immigration by Third-world populations, economic ruin of the middle class, deindustrialization, debt slavery, race-mixing, sexual dystopia, and world governance. In other words, the platform of the Democratic party in the last election, and the actions of the Republican party, by-and-large, since.

The people who elected them are of no interest to the elected. Once in power, their political bias takes precedence over everything. Their game is to manipulate the populations, notably through fear, in order to surreptitiously force them to accept political options that they would refuse in full knowledge of the facts.

Ambitious politicians — oriented in their policy preferences and funded by wealthy donors — will be de facto beholden to them. They will not be free to defend the interests of their constituents should they want to, and frankly, they don’t give a damn anyways. That’s not their purpose. They have been bought and paid for, and not by you- the American voter. The simple reason that Oligarchs even bother with elections is because they provide a useful distraction and perpetuate the illusion that the people actually have a voice, thereby forestalling the populist urge to grab torches and pitchforks.

In Conclusion

In the end, true democracy is only possible, said Aristotle, in ethnically homogeneous societies. Despots and tyrants have always ruled over highly fragmented societies, such as today’s Western societies. A multiethnic and multicultural society is therefore necessarily chaotic by design, because it is totally devoid of philia, a fundamental concept defined by Aristotle as a brotherhood of identity rooted in the blood and flesh of citizens. Or as National Socialists refer to it: Volksgemeinschaft with a hint of Blut und Boden. The multiethnic and multicultural chaos now found in the formerly United States prevents any expression of philia, the indispensable condition for the cohesion and sovereignty of a people. And that is exactly how the Oligarchs want it. Sadly, if we compare the U.S. in 1976 to 2026, they have largely succeeded.

America has been divided racially, ethnically, and culturally. We have been all-but conquered. But that’s not the end for me. My ancestors have almost always been underdogs. Whether they were frostbitten soldiers in the American Revolution, ill-equipped rebels in the Army of Norther Virginia, or Germans fighting the Soviet hordes, down-but-not-out seems to be where we like to live. The struggle continues.

What would it take to set America on the right course? In a word: backbone. We need a leaders who are not beholden to Jewish or Globalist interests, that isn’t afraid to piss some people off, and who was willing to be honest with the American people and state the obvious: The only way American can work is if we are all American. We need to return to core principals. Assimilate or leave. Period. No more special interests. No more non-White immigration. No more DEI. Assimilate or leave. No, I’m not holding my breath either.

So, Happy Birthday America (I knew you well). America is, or was, a young country. 250 years is not a terribly long time. I have been alive for 24% of it. Think about that (it boggled my mind). And yet, in that brief time the America I grew up in and hoped to pass on to my children has so radically changed that I barely recognize it. I cannot, in good conscience, celebrate it. It feels too much like jumping off a building and admiring the view on the way down, or like that friend you or one of your children have that has great potential and obvious ability, but is wasting it with poor choices and by hanging out with the wrong people. You know what they could be, but see them walking every day down the wrong path, knowing that if things don’t change, at some point reversing direction will become all but impossible.

Amerika Erwache!

referenced articles:

1. White Paper Institute: Who Is An American
2. Ted Kennedy’s 1965 Immigration Act: The War on America Turns 50
3. Counter-Currents: Tucker’s New Party
4. Occidental Observer: Democracy: A Cesspool of Mediocrity

SUBSCRIBE TO THIS BLOG
(It’s free, and mostly painless)