Press "Enter" to skip to content

Merlin Miller: America and the Great Racial Divide

The following essay was written by filmmaker Merlin Miller, the American Third Position Party’s 2012 presidential nominee.

America’s demographics are being radically altered – setting the stage for serious civil strife with potential for state succession and national dissolution into small, ethnically distinct nation-states.  This is not happening by accident, but by design.  It is only one part of a comprehensive plan to destroy traditional nations and create an unnatural, enslaved world, where citizens answer to an all powerful New World Order.  The American “empire” is being sacrificed for this end.

However, the American republic is not quite dead and those of us who took an oath to protect and defend her, must rise to the occasion.  American nationalists must stand against growing tyrannies and remove the Globalist/Zionist agents of our destruction.  To do so, we must understand their “divide and conquer” tactics.  Divisiveness is not just racial, but also religious (Christians pitted against Muslims) and cultural (attacks on traditional family) and is socially engineered through media influence and government control.

Largely unknown to the American public, our nation has come under the oppressive control of international bankers.  Through financial manipulations and ruthless plotting, they control the mainstream media and political arena – and hence, our lives.  Internationally, they have involved us in wars and occupations – which are destroying the blood of our youth, our reputation and our financial solvency.  Domestically, they are engineering America’s collapse by dislocating American jobs, stealing citizen homes and possessions, and suppressing our inalienable rights and freedoms.  Exploiting racial differences is only one aspect of creating confusion and discord, so that we are not united in fighting their comprehensive, evil schemes.

Throughout most of America’s incredible history, we were 90% European derived.  We are now approximately 65% White, 14% Black, 15% Hispanic, and a small percent Asian.  If current trends continue, Whites are predicted to become a minority within 30 years.  Those who want to preserve America’s traditional identity, culture, values and economic health are unfairly marginalized when they express concern.  Distorted adhominem attacks by the ADL and SPLC come to mind.

For 2012, I was asked to be the Presidential candidate for a new political party, the American Freedom Party (formerly the American Third Position “A3P”), on the basis that it needed a moderating image to grow and protect America’s traditional nationalist interests, and effectively combat unfair marginalizations.  I had produced “Jericho”, a mystery-western, with a theme opposed to any form of discrimination.  While proud of my race, religion and heritage, I’ve always believed that others should be treated with respect and fairness, regardless of differences.

As an American nationalist/patriot, I accepted their nomination on the basis that they represent a broad nationalist platform and maintain the “moral high-ground”.  To me, this means respecting our Constitution and the rights of all legitimate Americans.  “Equal rights for all citizens, special privileges for none”.  Stopping the immigration invasion and ending discriminatory and divisive “affirmative action” programs should be part of a nationalist program, as they protect our country’s interests and insure fair treatment of our citizens.  We should all be judged on our own merits, as individuals, and the sovereignty of states and other nations should be respected.

In my opinion, due to the controls of a few individuals (and the actions of “agent provocateurs”), the American Freedom Party is increasingly, and divisively, representing itself as a one issue party (“protector of white racial interests), rather than as an inclusive American nationalist party, concerned with a host of issues, critical to the well being of the American people.  Unfortunately, efforts to moderate their “one issue focus”, and grow the Party with a viable and comprehensive platform, have been increasingly undermined.  Members will now seek other political remedies.

What is needed is a populist political movement or party which will represent American nationalist interests.  So many critical issues; ending the wars/occupations, restoring our economy, and protecting individual liberties should be the focus of true nationalists – not falling victim to the deceits and divisions created by these Globalists/Zionists and their agents.  The American Freedom Party had some good prospects, as does the Constitution Party, the Libertarian Party, the Green Party and others.  However, isolated none can hope to successfully challenge the Republicans and Democrats.  United, as a “nationalist/populist/patriot” coalition, they could!  This is certainly worth exploring, especially by those capable of bringing together divergent interests, to support the common good (Ron Paul, Judge Napolitano, et al?).

There are also alternatives to forming a coalition or creating a new party, which might circumvent the great infrastructure, expense, and time required.  An independent candidate movement (exclusive of parties), uniquely supported by issue oriented Patriot/Nationalist PACs, might be a possibility.  The Campaign for Liberty could be a catalyst.  The careful selection of independent candidates for key races could be a crucial determinant in state and federal elections.  Fees and petition requirements are much less for individuals, rather than Party registration/slates which the Republicans and Democrats have self-servingly imposed on the system.  Resources could more wisely and efficiently target specific candidate and issue promotion, creating a potential for leveraging outcomes in critical states.

America can survive and again lead the world by positive example, if we fight for “truth, justice, liberty and peace”, as our founding fathers did.  It is time to unite and “Take Back America”.


  1. Joseph Buchman Joseph Buchman February 21, 2014

    In terms of “third” party coverage, I’ll confess a Libertarian bias (although at best I am a rather disillusioned (but not yet “former”) Libertarian — but in terms of coverage, my impression is that there is a higher ratio of non-Libertarian articles on IPR to Libertarian ones than the ration of combined non-Libertarian “Third Party” votes to Libertarian votes.

    In other words, IPR skews Libertarian to about the same degree as votes skew Libertarian compared to the other “minor” or “third” (wish there was a better term; maybe “principle-based” non-R&D parties).

    Or so it seems to me

  2. Jill Pyeatt Jill Pyeatt February 21, 2014

    Actually, I think that IPR is more balanced now as to the parties we write about than anytime that I’ve been around, which I think is three years or so. A high proportion of writers are Libertarians, and I think those of us in the party come across more Libertarian articles because of the circles we travel in. The other thing is that we know what and who are important for the LP, and we’re more likely to publish LP articles than articles about parties we don’t follow as closely. Jed, you especially do a good job of finding good articles about other parties and posting them here.

    I also think we’ve recovered from a lot of the nastiness that plagued us the last year. I did hear from a lot of people that the toxic arguing chased people away, and I’m certainly trying to do better. I hope some of the good people who left will come back. i think the future of our site looks good.

  3. Jed Ziggler Jed Ziggler February 21, 2014

    “There come’s a point when those who are not affiliated with the LP will reflexively view IPR as an outlet that simply uses profanity and denigrates all dissenting viewpoints.

    I can understand how this must feel good to pound one’s chest, but most people who have little use for the Democrat and Republican parties will not find value in a forum that consists of denigration and hostility. Is this par for course?

    Is the Independent Political Report forum a “my way or the high way” libertarian catcall? It seems that posts about third parties are simply straw men that one can rail against.”

    Sort of an old discussion, but I’ll add to it:

    Sometimes this site has taken on the appearance of being the Libertarian Political Report, especially when there’s a meeting or convention. I, for one, try to cover a very wide range of political parties and candidates to try to avoid this. However, the Libertarian Party runs the most candidates, gets the best results (on average), and as is evidenced by the comments, the most fervent support in the third party movement is for the Libertarian Party and libertarianism in general. So they’re going to get the most attention.

    With that said, I generally post 3-6 articles a day, and I try not to have more than one story about any particular party or candidate, in an effort to be fair to all.

  4. horse237 horse237 February 20, 2014

    Merlin Miller in addition o being harassed at the airports had his website hacked so I took the liberty to post a copy of his article with full citation. I appended it to this article.

    Another American Filmmaker Harassed By DHS-TSA.

    This might interest you. In my references I listed an article that discusses the Core list of 8 million Americans to be Disappeared in case of National Emergency.

    Screw Up: 8 Million Americans Are On The List To Be Disappeared

  5. paulie paulie December 23, 2013

    Well, it does happen that most, but not all, of the people who volunteer to post articles as well as of those who bother to comment are Libertarians, but that is not intentional. We try to cover many other parties and independents as best we can. Happy Hanukkah!

  6. Christopher Christopher December 23, 2013

    I will refrain from profanity and denigration. It is low class and does not conform to a productive forum environment. I will say that I have painted with a broad brush in regards to the Libertarian label of IPR and agree that the articles have very minimal editorializing. (This a plus.) Yes a good give and take is preferred, ad hominem attacks less so. Merry Christmas and a robust New Year on the IPR forum.

  7. paulie paulie December 17, 2013

    Welcome to internet discussion forums. And yes, profanity and denigrating others is allowed in comments, and we don’t control who shows up (except for a very, very small number of persistent trolls who have been banned).

    IPR as a news site is not Libertarian, we try to report on everyone who is not a Democrat or Republican and try to avoid editorializing in articles. As a discussion forum, we are free to state our views, as are you.

  8. Christopher Christopher December 17, 2013

    There come’s a point when those who are not affiliated with the LP will reflexively view IPR as an outlet that simply uses profanity and denigrates all dissenting viewpoints.

    I can understand how this must feel good to pound one’s chest, but most people who have little use for the Democrat and Republican parties will not find value in a forum that consists of denigration and hostility. Is this par for course?

    Is the Independent Political Report forum a “my way or the high way” libertarian catcall? It seems that posts about third parties are simply straw men that one can rail against.

  9. paulie paulie October 14, 2013

    “Miller does not attack Jews in the article. ‘Jew’ and ‘Zionist’ are not synonymous terms.”

    Bullshit. He is using Zionist as a code word. As he uses it, it has nothing to do with Israel per se. It’s pretty freakin’ obvious he means Jews. You’d have to be very dense, historically ignorant, unbelievably incredulous or intentionally dishonest to fail to see it.

  10. rob rob October 1, 2013

    Secession not “succession”…

  11. RedPhillips RedPhillips September 24, 2013

    Has Miller left the AFP? Has there been a falling out?

  12. William Saturn William Saturn Post author | September 24, 2013


    Miller does not attack Jews in the article. ‘Jew’ and ‘Zionist’ are not synonymous terms.

  13. Mark Propheter Mark Propheter September 24, 2013

    May I suggest a campaign slogan.
    “Save America United!”
    Which would stress how every race of people would benefit by implementing your policies.
    Just a thought.
    I will vote for you sir! Good Luck

  14. Michael Gilson-De Lemos (MG) Michael Gilson-De Lemos (MG) September 23, 2013

    AFP should reconsider IMHO.

    The US has always had a large Hispanic contingent. Recent focus on being Hispanic-American has caused many people to now identify as such, creating a statistical illusion. Many of these Hispanics are also Britannic or German American. I believe most Medal of Honor recipients were Hispanic.

    We might have a different picture if people were also asked to name their second and third ethnicity. Many Blacks might become also Whites, and many Hispanics reveal they’re 3/4th Swedish or Germanic.

    Blacks absolutely have a right to be here. Their ancestors certainly earned that right by the lash but chose to stay here, which is more than many can say. Those of First People blood have every right to be here.

    Veering off into attacking Jews in the article suggests what the real concern is here, however.

    The US has a complete open border policy for the wealthy. People willing to bring in large sums are sent to the head of the line. Libertarians suggest this also be done even for the poor, and those not interested in becoming citizens but simply studying, working or retiring here.

    If the US / a state government wish to entice West Europeans, let them open a self-supporting tourism and economic opportunities office in those countries like other nations do.

  15. Jed Ziggler Jed Ziggler September 23, 2013

    In other words, the AFP is now too crazy for Merlin Miller, a crazy person.

Comments are closed.