The republic is not threatened by a foreign army or a bad statute, but by a slow transfer of the country from the people who built its institutions to a foreign other. Thomas M. Norwood located that transfer in capital. Lydia Kingsmill Commander located it in births and arrivals. Dr. Joseph P. Widney located it in the racial map of the hemisphere. Thurston Alexander located it in a cycle of supremacy he thought was turning. Economic concentration, low fertility among the established population, and large-scale immigration are all part of the same displacement.

Thomas M. Norwood’s book, Plutocracy: American White Slavery (1888), opened on Wall Street. His millionaire, Galusha Smiling, inherits a Lowell cotton fortune built on tariffs, low wages, and Civil War supply contracts. Each speculative gain, Norwood wrote, was another stone in a temple raised to Mammon inside a country that still called itself a democracy. Plutocracy, a character explains, is the rule of money, and the lowest stage of government. A republic keeps its forms of elections while policy is written for the owners of corporations and credit.

Norwood’s temple to Mammon was built of mills and tariffs. The present one is built of asset prices, stock ownership, and the gap between capital returns and wages.

A legal end to one labor system does not end the extraction of labor’s product. Strikes, in his telling, were crushed by starvation, the jailer being poverty itself. In the contemporary economy the same squeeze appears as housing costs, medical debt, and the requirement that two incomes purchase what one income once purchased. Families cannot afford children and have been priced out.

Lydia Kingsmill Commander dedicated her book, The American Idea (1907), to Theodore Roosevelt and asked whether the small family was race suicide or race development. Her interviews found the American ideal already reduced to two children and that childlessness was no longer a disgrace. The decline was sharpest among the educated and the well-off, with college educated women furthest below replacement. She did not call the small family degeneracy, stating that a higher civilization rears fewer children more carefully. The danger was that the family had fallen below replacement among the nations foundational racial stock, while population still rose. She wanted mothers of Native American stock to have six children each so the future population would not be left to imbeciles, foreigners, and cripples. The number is hers. The fertility collapse is not.

In 2024 the general fertility rate was about 54 births per 1,000 women aged 15–44. Provisional total fertility sits near 1.6 children per woman, well below the replacement level of about 2.1. Center for Immigration Studies tabulations for 2023 put the U.S.-born total fertility rate near 1.73 and the foreign-born rate near 2.19. Commanders assertion from 1907 remains: no major Native American group is replacing itself.

Her second form of race suicide was immigration. Population could rise while the older stock declined, because arrivals, not births, supplied the increase. Census estimates for 2023–24 match this prediction from 1907. The population grew by about 3.3 million, the fastest pace since 2001, and net international migration of about 2.8 million accounted for roughly 84% of the gain. Natural increase was only about 519,000. From 2024 to 2025 growth slowed to 0.5% and 1.8 million, because net migration fell to about 1.3 million, while natural increase stayed near half a million. Commander’s policy conclusion was exclusion of those detrimental to America. The demographic conclusion is incontrovertible: when births fail, the next population is chosen at the border.

Dr. Joseph Pomeroy Widney widened the frame from the nation to the hemisphere. The Three Americas (1935) divides the New World by racial past and therefore by racial future. Temperate North America, in his account, belongs to the Anglo-Saxon. Latin America is the product of Iberian settlement mixed with Indigenous and African populations, and therefore a different civilizational type. Tropical America and the West Indies he assigned to long subordination: their peoples would remain “under the care and control of the stronger race-life,” and modern science and factories would not take root there. Civilization is race-specific. Borrowed institutions failed because capacity differed. In 1935 he proposed a federation of common ancestry between the United States, Canada, Britain, Australia, New Zealand, and South Africa, with free migration among them. Different populations, different sovereignties, no single melting pot.

Thurston Alexander in Cycles of Supremacy (1967), declared that supremacy is a phase, not a permanent state. Drawing on Lothrop Stoddard’s The Rising Tide of Color and Madison Grant’s The Passing of the Great Race, he treated White dominance as a phase that could end. The civil-rights movement, campus unrest, miscegenation, and open immigration he ascribed chiefly to Jewish instigation. A dominant population that stops reproducing, admits a larger population, and mixes, ceases to be the dominant population.

Wealth concentration has risen for 35 years inside a formally democratic franchise. Native fertility has been far below replacement. Four-fifths of recent population growth has been migration. The child-bearing generation is already more hispanic and more foreign-born in parentage. Norwood explains the extraction. Commander explains the empty nursery. Widney explains why the newcomers are not the same people. Alexander explains why the holders of the old supremacy experience the combination as the end of a cycle rather than as ordinary politics.

A self-governing people can be replaced without a coup. Capital can capture the legislature The established population can stop replacing itself. Migration from abroad can change the electorate faster than institutions can absorb it. A political movement can redefine the old majority as the problem. Thomas Norwood, Lydia Commander, Dr. Widney, and Thurston Alexander would call that race suicide inside a plutocracy, the turn of a cycle of supremacy.

The Boomer Generation is well known for its lust of luxury communism at the expense of the young, the consumption of their own children for fear of being usurped. But fear also comes from the women and the foreign replacements, a fear of White American Men bending history to their will once again. A justified fear, as White men bending history to their will is what germinates the society they wanted so much to control and take spoil of. But natural order can be usurped only so long before dissolution comes in the form of a vanguard of less-squeamish conquerors. Must we watch everything our progenitors created fall into ruin?

Today our national politics are driven by fear because the elderly and women base every decision off of fear, rightly so. Society was made to keep their fears (the valid, intergenerational ones) from coming true. The civitas and the polis germinated to protect them. But now, the builders, protectors, and stewards, men of youth, of practical competence and martial strength, have been reduced to glorified helots, a class of disposable slaves. Those masquerading as capable stewards are afraid of death, afraid of sickness, afraid of risk, but also seek moral superiority and validation for their bad decisions. To be led by fear is to be led into destruction. Compare that cluster of neuroses and spiteful mutation to the ethos necessary for a civitas, and to the well-documented men of history who embodied it.

COVID lockdowns were a direct result of Boomers being unable to accept their own mortality. You had to give up your best years so they could extend their own degenerate geriatric experiences just a few more years. As they say “Youth is wasted on the young”. To add insult to injury they thirst for cheap and endless 3rd world scab labor which means no jobs or training for Americans. But what happens when the third world starts making their own hiring decisions? Ask any White man with a career in the humanities or tech.

The schizophrenic musings of women wildly shifting between moral superiority when importing demonic foreigners, deriding other men to police male bad behavior in relation to their own provocations, and cleaning up the consequences of their own actions, has become untenable. In the past these childlike flights of fancy were tolerated because they could not do widespread harm, but just going outside today now shows Women’s Suffrage was a mistake. We already had a society purpose-built to protect them from chaos, then let them pretend to be an increasingly larger share of civic leaders over a century. Combined, we protected them from the chaos of their own consequences. Now we suffer their harping for concluding they as a cohort were not up to the task, and their gaslighting over the death of our civilization. It’s not happening, it’s not that bad, it’s good it’s happening, it’s always been like this.

The Foreigner knows in their heart they are foreign, they exist with both entitlement and resentment. For, like us, they are also the Men Among The Ruins but unlike Americans they are not the men who built or were meant to inherit what surrounds them, and this fills them with resentment. Their entitlement is based upon judeo-leftist education stating that their very existence is the punishment for colonization. They know they are the bioweapon and it fills them with hate.

War is the solution to fear, War is cyclical and necessary, a perennial part of history to be given the attention it deserves in its due course, and not the managed conflict or banker’s wars of the industrialized age. This era of managed wars has lasted too long, Eternal War nor World War is what is being defined here, but a new Civil War. Increasingly, civil conflict of some flavor looks like the perennial war that will emerge as the forest fire to make new room for new life. A fire guaranteed to burn hotter and destroy more the longer it takes to light, or, the more we try to forestall it. Domestic death and violence on an unrivaled scale to satiate the generation of depressed and aimless young men. Who fears the glory from war but the foreign, the geriatric, the female? For it was the latter two who had to be protected from war, and oftentimes from the former, as the case now increasingly cleaves to.

As a perennial force of nature, war reinforced a just hierarchy of competence within the civitas and polis because there was a perennial need for the men who fought and led those wars. To succeed, those men had to marshal the resources of their state to the point of the institutional control modern leftists hate. By doing away with all that, we removed the scaffolding within which prosperity, stability, and spiritual purpose could be built, and made competent men into financial livestock.

It is only within the Storm of Steel which a man can find Glory and Purpose. For Junger, the outer war he fought was just a physical impetus to force an inner transformation. For young men today, soldiering on behalf of the state holds neither Glory nor Purpose, since he is acting as a financial instrument. It is a pantomime lacking the elusive ontological spiritual core of martial excellence, not just of the self but of the civitas and ethnos.

American veterans and American men commit suicide at such high rates because there is no greater racial national purpose, there is no glory to be gained in our current wars. Men see their friends turned into meat in a war, they die, and their souls leave their bodies, and think to themselves: What was this sacrifice for? What glory have they attained? How are young men supposed to undergo an inner Storm of Steel; to confront, subsume, and preside as master of their inner war-like nature without an external impetus-when nature’s season of war is corrupted to serve green lines and stateless techbros?

We come to the Ragnarok, the final, apocalyptic battle that ends the current world and destroys the old gods. Richard Wagner famously cemented this term globally with his 1876 opera Götterdämmerung, the final installment in the The Ring of the Nibelung.

The Old Gods must die. Those enslaved to fear rather than adhering to the acquisition of glory must be stripped of power, their views silenced, for they have nothing of value to contribute to the upward trajectory of the human race.

The 1790 Naturalization Act codified this racial vision by restricting citizenship to “free white persons,” explicitly tying legal membership in the American polity to European descent. J. Hector St. John de Crèvecœur’s Letters from an American Farmer (1782) celebrated Americans as a “new race” forged from European settlers; English, Scotch, Irish, French, Dutch, Germans, Swedes, while pointedly excluding non-Whites. George Washington’s 1796 Farewell Address warned against “the insidious wiles of foreign influences,” reinforcing the need to protect the homogeneous European-descended character of the young republic. Alexander Hamilton, in his 1802 Examination No. VIII, cautioned that unchecked influxes of foreigners would “produce a heterogeneous compound” that would corrupt the national spirit.

This Anglo-Saxon racial framework guided territorial and demographic policy. The Northwest Ordinance of 1787 and the 1803 Louisiana Purchase opened vast lands explicitly for White settlement. The American Colonization Society, founded in 1816 with support from Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, James Monroe, Henry Clay, John Randolph of Roanoke and later Abraham Lincoln, sought to remove free blacks to Liberia precisely because, as Jefferson wrote in his Autobiography (1821), “the two races, equally free, cannot live in the same government.” Lincoln’s 1862 Address on Colonization to a Deputation of Colored Men reiterated that racial differences made equal coexistence impossible, advocating removal to preserve the White character of America.

Nineteenth-century ethnology and historiography reinforced the Anglo-Saxon foundation. Robert Knox’s The Races of Men (1850) declared “Race is everything,” elevating Saxons as the dynamic force of civilization. Josiah C. Nott and George R. Gliddon’s Types of Mankind (1854) and Samuel George Morton’s Crania Americana (1839) provided “scientific” polygenist arguments that Europeans, particularly Northern Europeans, represented a superior type. George Bancroft’s History of the United States (1834–1874) portrayed American progress as the triumph of Teutonic/Anglo-Saxon liberty. Ralph Waldo Emerson’s journals (1845) and The Conduct of Life (1860) envisioned European tribes melding into a vigorous new American race while ranking Caucasians highest. Walt Whitman’s Leaves of Grass (1855) celebrated the energetic White settler as the embodiment of democratic vigor rooted in European stock.

Manifest Destiny and westward expansion were framed as the destiny of the Anglo-Saxon race. Theodore Roosevelt’s The Winning of the West (1889–1896) depicted White frontiersmen of Northern European descent forging a superior American race through conquest. His speech in 1905 On American Motherhood urged White Americans to have more children in order to avoid race suicide. Rudyard Kipling’s The White Man’s Burden (1899) cast U.S. imperialism as the civilizing duty of the White race. Josiah Strong’s Our Country (1885) and John L. Brandt’s Anglo-Saxon Supremacy (1915) argued that Protestant Anglo-Saxon stock was the civilizing force of the continent.

By the early twentieth century, eugenics and nativism crystallized the 90% White hegemony ideal. Madison Grant’s The Passing of the Great Race (1916) warned that the Nordic (Northern European) foundation of America was threatened by inferior stocks and called for preservation. Lothrop Stoddard’s The Rising Tide of Color (1920) and The Revolt Against Civilization (1922) framed non-White immigration as existential peril. Calvin Coolidge’s “Whose Country Is This?” (Good Housekeeping, 1921) insisted racial considerations were as vital as immigration law. The 1917 Asiatic Barred Zone and the 1924 Johnson-Reed Immigration Act implemented national-origins quotas explicitly designed to maintain the existing (overwhelmingly Northern European) racial composition, aiming for the demographic stability of roughly 90% White stock with limited, assimilable European elements.

State and federal mechanisms enforced this vision. Virginia’s 1924 Racial Integrity Act defined “White” as having “no trace whatsoever of any blood other than Caucasian” and banned interracial marriage. Dozens of sterilization laws (Indiana 1907, California 1909, Virginia 1924, and others across 30+ states) sought to prevent the reproduction of the “unfit,” preserving superior White racial stock. Alien Land Laws (California 1913 and similar) barred non-citizens from owning land. Supreme Court rulings such as Ozawa v. United States (1922) and United States v. Bhagat Singh Thind (1923) narrowed “White” to exclude Japanese and South Asians, while Plessy v. Ferguson (1896) upheld segregation to maintain racial separation.

Cultural works reinforced the Anglo-Saxon ideal. Joseph P. Widney’s The Three Americas (1935) and Race Life of the Aryan Peoples (1907) positioned the United States as the stronghold of superior Aryan/European stock. Margaret Mitchell’s Gone with the Wind (1936) romanticized White Southern plantation life as central to American identity. Carleton S. Coon’s The Races of Europe (1939) catalogued European subtypes, with Nordics as the creative force in America. Henry Pratt Fairchild’s The Melting Pot Mistake (1926) and James Denson Sayers’ Can the White Race Survive? (1929) rejected assimilationist fantasies, insisting the Northern European core must remain dominant.

The 90/10 demographic model: 90% White European hegemony with a small, slowly absorbable or separable non-White minority, was the practical outcome of these policies. Naturalization, immigration quotas, sterilization, anti-miscegenation statutes, and colonization schemes were engineered to keep the White population overwhelmingly predominant while permitting limited, generational absorption of compatible European elements. The American Colonization Society, Lincoln’s colonization advocacy, and eugenics literature all treated non-Whites as a manageable 10% element that must not be allowed to alter the racial character of the nation.

Even as late as the mid-twentieth century, works like William Benjamin Smith’s The Color Line (1905), W. C. George’s The Biology of the Race Problem (1962), and John Higham’s historical analysis in Strangers in the Land (1955) documented the continuity of this Anglo-Saxon racial consciousness. The founding documents, laws, scientific treatises, and cultural expressions, from Franklin’s 1751 essay through the 1924 Immigration Act, consistently upheld America as a White European, preeminently Anglo-Saxon republic.

The post-1965 shift via the Hart-Celler Act which erased America’s longstanding policy of limiting immigration based on national origin, Loving v. Virginia which overturned the previously constitutional Racial Integrity Act, and related civil-rights measures represented a deliberate departure from these founding racial values, not their fulfillment. The historical record, from Jefferson’s Hengist and Horsa proposal to Grant’s Nordic warnings, demonstrates that America was consciously founded and maintained as a 90% White European nation, with Anglo-Saxon heritage as its animating racial and political spirit. This was not incidental but the deliberate design of its architects to secure a permanent White ethnic hegemony for the American people.

From Iran to Iraq, the United States has been embroiled in wars meant to expand the state of Israel. Having spent vast amounts of wealth, international political capital, and untold amounts of blood of our citizens, we as Americans need to ask: What have we gained from fighting Israel’s wars?

Marco Rubio confirmed that the United States began a war with Iran for Israel and that every American killed so far has been for Israeli ambitions. It is unclear how America will benefit from these actions but what is clear is how America is being irreparably damaged.

War with Iran will not lead to regime change or the creation of a stable nation, it will not be quick but instead will create decades of wasted blood and treasure while also importing untold numbers from Iran and surrounding nations into our homeland.

The population of Iran is deeply nationalistic and loyal and is unlikely to capitulate. The vast majority of the refugees we see in America are disordered and subversive individuals, they seek regime change in the nations they fled from, using the power of the United States, but would never leave America if regime change was achieved. The US is about to take in a lot more of these types of disloyal and cowardly refugees.

Despite being an Islamic nation, Iran is surprisingly modern, well educated, and successful, especially when sanctions are taken into account. Boasting the 2nd most populous nation behind Egypt and rankings of GDP wealth that regularly put it in the top 5 richest Middle Eastern nations, Iranians are better off than most legacy Americans, with access to better education opportunities and healthcare. It is common to meet doctors and engineers who have been educated in Iran and participate in international programs, and it is unlikely that bringing the “freedom and democracy” that America brought to Iraq, Syria, Libya, and Egypt will improve this.

Lastly, and most importantly: how does a war with Iran benefit America internationally? Unlike what legacy media portrays, Iran is not an international Pariah, weak and isolated, but rather a strong, stable and reliable trading partner for their geographic neighbors. The largest countries on Earth: Russia and China, both have a deep vested interest in maintaining a functional and safe Iran. For China, the relationship is a necessity for energy production and the current military strikes are likely to trigger an aggressive expansion in the Belt and Road Initiative into this region to maintain stability.

There are no benefits to the United States starting a war with Iran and adds to a long list of wasteful wars waged on Israel’s behalf, but there are benefits for the state of Israel such as implementing their Greater Israel project.

Israel does not care about the United States or the American people and sees it as a useful vessel to carry out its own ambitions. What we see in every election is a bipartisan buying campaign from foreign lobbying by the American Israeli Public Affairs Committee and this is why we see partisan gridlock on domestic issues but widespread bipartisan support on anything related to advancing Israeli goals.

Democrats can’t agree on what a woman is and Republicans can’t provide affordable healthcare but they sure can all come together on giving Israel billions of dollars and blowing up Israel’s enemies while using peace negotiations as a diversion.

The history of how the United States became a Zionist Occupied Government is a long march through the institutions and has a great deal to do with increasing Jewish influence in the West, but for brevity this will focus on the 2 major neoconservative events allowing Israel to take full control of the US military.

The Clean Break Report

In 1996 the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Global Strategic Affairs under Ronald Reagan and advisor to Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, Richard Perle, wrote a report for Benjamin Netanyahu outlining how to achieve the Greater Israel Project with the help of the United States. All contributors to the report were Americans and Jewish, such as Douglas Feith and David Wurmser, and it did not mention in any way how these future wars would benefit the United States.

The Clean Break Report advocated for aggressive actions in Lebanon, toppling Syria, Iran and Iraq. Initially advocated to focus on Syrian “Weapons of Mass Destruction” propaganda to garner support for regime change, a line which was then used for Iraq, and as Donald Trump said in 2016 on the South Carolina debate stage: “They said there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and there were none!”

Project For The New American Century

The following year in 1997 The Project For The New American Century was established, solidifying what would become known as the neoconservative movement out of the Reaganites. Out of the 25 signatories to PNAC half were jewish and ten served directly in Bush 43’s administration.

PNAC expressly advocated for regime change in Iraq and changed the “Weapons of Mass Destruction” propaganda from Syria to Iraq to build up public support for intervention. Neoconservatives openly wrote articles saying that it would require a “Pearl Harbor” type of event to galvanize the American public into supporting regime change in Iraq. This event came on September 11th, 2001, and despite that attack being blamed on Osama Bin Laden in Yemen from a Saudi Arabian Construction Company, the US decided to invade Iraq and overthrow Saddam Hussein for weapons of mass destruction which were never found.

Adherents of PNAC went on to advocate for regime change in Libya, Egypt, Syria, Lebanon and Iran, closely aligning with the Clean Break Report. All of which stood in the way of the territorial expansion of Israel.

Now that the United States has been involved with destroying every nation which Israel considered a roadblock to its goals, has anything good come of it for Americans? Have these nations become better off today than they were before intervention? How has the United States as a nation benefitted?

Mission Accomplished, again, for Israel I guess. Iraq 2: The Iran Edition is now beginning.

Subscribe now

As our nation decays under the lie of DEI and ‘Diversity is our Strength’, the call to nationalism grows stronger. The looting of our treasuries has continued unabated by our so called elite and is impoverishing every level of our society. We must ask ourselves what does it mean to be an American? What values do we have that are worth fighting for? What values do we have that we should be proud of? The majority of young Americans have no meaningful answers to these questions and as a result. they are not proud to be American.

America First answers these questions and gives young Americans a purpose, a respite from growing nihilism that threatens to define this age. We as Americans are proud of our heritage and the sacrifices of those who came before us to create the greatest nation on Earth. Nick Fuentes has been the most influential young American promoting America First ideals, articulating them into several main ideas which Donald Trump initially proposed: America being led and governed by Americans, not a foreign nation whether that be Israel, China, or Russia. Hiring and educating Americans first before considering immigration to replace them.

In response the elite at every level has embarked on a domestic war against America, what can only be described as White Genocide. Expelling nearly 1 million White American workers from corporations since the post COVID recovery began. Importing tens of millions of unvetted immigrants and making them citizens. Targeting every major city and now small towns for resettlement of refugees and economic migrants. No part of America has remained untouched from this attack and in turn has made America First inevitable.

Where in our nation can an American go and not be accosted by diversity, LGBT, or foreign flags? The answer is nowhere because these are everywhere. It is easy for an American to vicariously advocate for a perceived oppressed group so long as that group does not directly affect them, but the moment that they can no longer find jobs, earn a livable wage, entrust their car to be parked outside, their home to remain unburgled, this advocation comes to an abrupt halt. Take what happened in Martha’s Vineyard as an example, far left Democrats expelled foreigners with extreme prejudice. Whether left or right on the political spectrum, as soon as an American is personally affected, their tolerance for the foreigner evaporates.

Almost all of us have memories of America before it was culturally enriched by diversity, it was a safer country, less crime, higher wages, affordable homes, better healthcare, rigorous education, less social angst, no issues of integration, more national confidence, and grooming just meant personal hygiene. Since embarking on a post-national mass immigration route which denigrates historical American values concerning race and nation, everything has gotten worse.

Every American is beginning to support or advocate for more historically American solutions to these problems. Congressman Paul Gosar has called for an immigration moratorium for 5 years. Popular opinion has shifted radically in support of mass deportations. Less educated detractors lament these moves as un-American, Legacy Americans in contrast point towards President Coolidge’s 1924 Immigration Act authored by Madison Grant and President Eisenhower’s Operation Wetback as examples that we have accomplished this before.

Michelle Malkin and Pat Buchanan had been ringing the alarm bells about immigration negatively affecting America for years. The ruling class wants endless waves of people coming in so they can keep wages down and home prices high. Anyone who spoke out about it was to be silenced and blacklisted, as was the case for what Matt Schlapp did to Malkin by banning her from CPAC and what William Buckley tried to do to Buchanan by slandering his warnings as antisemitic.

But this movement inspired by Donald Trump in 2016 has proven to be the fuel for the American revolutionary fire. Despite the silencing methods, the banning and slander, the movement has grown into something unstoppable. Many who had acted previously as gate keepers are now swept along with America First. The geriatric demeanor of the GOP is also being challenged by America First patriots like Nicholas Fuentes who has brought tens of thousands of youth into the Republican Party.

Charlie Kirk has also done his part reinvigorating the passion for America. Choosing a more restrained and less bombastic approach than Nick Fuentes, Charlie has created inroads and alliances among historical neocons, and put together a streamlined organization to transform youth across America into America First supporters. Despite very public disagreements between these two patriots, they both sharpen the tip of the spear and make the movement more resilient when attacked by disparagers.

Steve Bannon, Alex Jones, and Tucker Carlson have all done their parts circumventing historical media monopolies control of information. This has allowed the America First message to permeate among older generations and to less involved individuals. Articulating many of their frustrations with our new culturally enriched diversity as well as giving direction to people that want to work towards solutions.

All these figures have had disagreements, over the weight of importance concerning White European heritage, Jewish and Zionist control over government, whether immigration should end, and more, but their uniting banner is America First which means addressing the immigration problems and putting the American worker first in both education and employment.

The finer points of what America First stands for is still being defined but its foundations are well established. It is a platform that gives the American people hope and values worth fighting for, America First gives young Americans a great Crusade and a passionate Holy War which to engage in. It is above all else, a Christian movement. If our nation hopes to survive and prosper we must control our own government and aggressively fix the immigration invasion inflicted upon our people. America First!

Subscribe now

Please Subscribe for as little as $5 a month to support more great articles, videos, and content!