Andrew Sandlin Wrong on America Not Being Race or Place

“Not race or place, but ideas, have always been at the root of what it means to be an American.”

Andrew Sandlin
2023

This was certainly not true of the founders as we will see below. It only became true when that criminal proto-Marxist Lincoln fundamentally changed the definition of America with the support of the immigrant Revolutionary German Forty-Eighters.

So, sans Sandlin America was a race and place and not merely about ideas. America was founded as a ethno-nation.

That was the original intent. Yes, it was a confederacy but all members of the confederacy were European in their origin. American was a nation where all the European cousins married one another. So … if you’re not non-Jewish European, you’re not American. And you can probably make the case that originally Eastern Europeans need not apply.

“The policy or advantage of [immigration] taking place in a body (I mean the settling of them in a body) may be much questioned; for, by so doing, they retain the language, habits, and principles (good or bad) which they bring with them. Whereas by an intermixture with our people, they, or their descendants, get assimilated to our customs, measures, and laws: in a word, soon become one people.” — George Washington

Or this description of the “new American man”:

(America qua nation began as a mostly English but also Western, European people:)

“…whence came all these people? They are a mixture of English, Scotch, Irish, French, Dutch, Germans, and Swedes… What, then, is the American, this new man? He is either a European or the descendant of a European; hence that strange mixture of blood, which you will find in no other country. I could point out to you a family whose grandfather was an Englishman, whose wife was Dutch, whose son married a French woman, and whose present four sons have now four wives of different nations. He is an American, who, leaving behind him all his ancient prejudices and manners, receives new ones from the new mode of life he has embraced, the new government he obeys, and the new rank he holds. . . . The Americans were once scattered all over Europe; here they are incorporated into one of the finest systems of population which has ever appeared.”

John Hector St. John de Crèvecœur
Letters from an American Farmer in 1782 

Or John Jay’s comment that American are a single people:

“Providence has been pleased to give this one connected country to one united people, a people descended from the same ancestors, speaking the same language, professing the same religion, attached to the same principles of government, very similar in their manners and customs, without which a common and free government would be impossible.”

~~John Jay, Federalist #2

Or John Dickinson:

“Where was there ever a confederacy of republics united as these states are…or, in which the people were so drawn together by religion, blood, language, manners, and customs?”

~~John Dickinson, Delaware delegate to the constitutional convention

Similar quotes could be found from Hamilton, and Gouverneur Morris as well as later figures like Teddy Roosevelt and Calvin Coolidge.

Matt Walsh Accuses Student of Bigotry

A Question from a Student for Matt Walsh, 

Is it wrong to want to preserve our heritage — The country our ancestors founded — European?

Matt Walsh the cultural Marxist Answers;

“I don’t believe our unifying principle was ever race, skin color, ethnicity. Our unifying principle was essentially a doctrine. It was a doctrine of human rights… It (the questioner’s position) sounds like bigotry.”

John Jay (One of the founders) tells Matt Walsh he is full of shinola

“With equal pleasure I have as often taken notice that Providence has been pleased to give this one connected country to one united people–a people descended from the same ancestors, speaking the same language, professing the same religion, attached to the same principles of government, very similar in their manners and customs, and who, by their joint counsels, arms, and efforts, fighting side by side throughout a long and bloody war, have nobly established general liberty and independence.”

For Pete’s sake, is Walsh so stupid that he flies right past the language of the Constitution where they talk about “for us and OUR POSTERITY.” Just exactly what posterity were the Founders talking about?

Look, while no one can doubt that Walsh has done some fine work but with this response it is clear that Walsh is the enemy. Walsh is a neo-con and the kind of propositional Nation that Walsh believes in is not the unifying principle of the nation as it was founded. Walsh is an idiot and as long as he holds this view he will never defeat who he thinks is his enemy since at the end of the day they share the same foundational worldview principles.

Some of you think that the “Daily Wire” is a conservative redoubt. I am here to tell you that the “Daily Wire” is just another Trotskyist neo-con webzine.

Matt Walsh is not our friend. He may get an issue right her or there but as long as he believes we were founded as a creedal nation he is off the reservation.

SCOTUS Justice Gorsuch on our Founding … McAtee on Gorsuch

“The Declaration of Independence had three great ideas in it.

1.) That we were all created equal
2.) That each of us have inalienable rights given to us by God and not Government
3.) We have the right to rule ourselves

Our nation is not founded on a religion. It’s not based on a common culture, even, or heritage. It’s based on those ideas. We’re a creedal nation.”

Justice Neil Gorsuch
The Reason Interview podcast w/ Nick Gillespie

I can’t imagine much that is more stupid than this as coming from a Supreme Court Justice.

First, the three ideas that Gorsuch claims are the ideas that America is built on are ideas that find their roots in some religion. For example, the idea that “we are all created equal” stems from some anthropological convictions. Where did those anthropological come from if not from some religion?

Second, the founders did NOT believe that all men were created equal in the sense that Gorsuch wrongly understands the Constitution. If the founders had believed that they would not have later in the Declaration referred to the Indians as “savages.” The founder’s complaint against King George is that King George was not treating the Colonials as fellow Englishmen and as such the bit about all men being created equal was in reference to all Englishmen being created equal. Even Jefferson would have never countenanced the idea that an Iroquois or a Hottentot slave was his equal in the egalitarian sense that we throw that word around today.

Third, where else does the idea that we all have inalienable rights given to us by God come from except from some Religion a-priori? A people who genuinely had no religion would never invoke the idea of God. Gorsuch is just gaslighting here.

Fourth, Gorsuch apparently is not aware that in a now-famous study published in the American Political Science Review, which is the flagship publication for political scientists, a political scientist by the name of Donald Lutz surveyed the political literature of the American founding. He was looking to see who it was that Americans were citing in this political literature. He reports that the Bible was cited more frequently than any European writer or even any European school of thought, such as Enlightenment liberalism. The Bible, Lutz reported, accounted for approximately one-third of the citations in the literature he surveyed. The book of Deuteronomy alone was the most frequently cited work, followed by Montesquieu’s The Spirit of the Laws. In fact, Deuteronomy was referenced nearly twice as often as John Locke’s writings, and the apostle Paul was mentioned about as frequently as Montesquieu and Blackstone, who would have been the two most-cited secular theorists. Because of all this to say, as Gorsuch does that our nation was not founded on a religion is just more gaslighting and is utterly jejune. America was founded as a Christian nation by Christian people, informed by a Christians ethos.

Fifth, we are not a creedal nation. Not even our founders believed that nonsense. Witness founding Father John Jay’s thoughts,

“With equal pleasure I have as often taken notice that Providence has been pleased to give this one connected country to one united people–a people descended from the same ancestors, speaking the same language, professing the same religion, attached to the same principles of government, very similar in their manners and customs, and who, by their joint counsels, arms, and efforts, fighting side by side throughout a long and bloody war, have nobly established general liberty and independence.”

Likewise founding father John Dickinson

“Where was there ever a confederacy of republics united as these states are…or, in which the people were so drawn together by religion, blood, language, manners, and customs?”

John Dickinson
Delaware delegate to the constitutional convention

 

Sixth, the right to rule ourselves was always window dressing and from the beginning has never been true. Like all other nations we are now and always have been ruled by the money interest.

Finally, the idea that there was no common culture or heritage owned by our founding Fathers is another knee slapper. Nine of the thirteen colonies at the time of the Revolution had state churches. They were different denominations, but they were all clearly Christian. Our common culture and heritage were Christian.

I hope Gorsuch doesn’t really believe the manure he’s shoveling, because if he does it demonstrates how incompetent he is. I suspect though as a member of the elite class he understands he has to keep gaslighting the hoi poloi with this drivel. I suspect that Gorsuch understands that if the religion of humanism is to continue as the State religion, then it has to be continually repeated that we were not founded on a religion.

Theology, Politics, Ethics, & Natural Law

This morning I caught a interesting exchange on X between a chap named “Luke Stamps” and the Natural Law 2K fanboy Stephen Wolfe.

Stamps wrote,

Theological retrieval should recognize a hierarchy of doctrine. We should read everything we can get our hands on, but I’m way more interested in the tradition’s views on Trinity and Christology than its opinions on politics and science.

Stephen Wolfe responded,

“You’re a theologian, and you care more about theology. I support this. Leave politics to others.”

Bret responds,

This is the essence of presuppositionalists disagreement w/ Natural law fanboy Dr. Stephen Wolfe.

The presuppositionalist observes that politics (& economics, education, mathematics, arts, etc.) are all just the out-working of theology in other fields. These disciplines are not theology independent but each and all reflect a particular theology driving their respective emphasis. Show a man’s politics and I will tell you, his theology.

The NL chaps see the various academic fields as completely isolated from theology. Wolfe, and all Natural Law fanboys, actually believe that when they are doing “politics” they are not doing theology at the same time. Wolfe, like the R2K simps that he so much disagrees with, believes that his politics is a “theology free zone.” However, politics must work off of various theological axioms in order to move forward. Politics must consider, for example, ontology, epistemology, anthropology, axiology, teleology, etc. and all these are what they are because of they are informed by theology. All of this is why the Medievalists were correct in asserting that “Theology is the Queen of the sciences.” The Medievalists understood that theology was the fountainhead of all other disciplines.

The Natural Law chaps like the R2K fanboys (Van Drunen, Darryl Gnostic Hart, J. V. Fesko, etc.) and the 2K fanboys (Wolfe, Baird, Justice, etc.) though have their own theological biases that are informing their 2K declaration of Independence. All of them presuppose that man, starting from himself, without presupposing the God of the Bible and His Word can, while relying on right reason and natural law, arrive at proper conclusions regarding truth in fields like politics, education, philosophy, etc. This is called “humanism.” It was this subjectivist humanist theology that has brought us, via incremental epileptic fits, to the destruction of the West. The appeal to that which was the genesis of our downfall is hardly a remedy for restoration. This is why the presuppositionalist is forever crying out,

Isaiah 8:20  To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them. 

And,

Psalm 36:20 For with you is the fountain of life; in your light we see light

The presuppositionalist, contrary to the humanist Natural Law fanboy understands that any light that is seen in politics is because of the light provided by theology that makes politics genuinely politics.

The danger of the Natural Law position, of course, is the inability to realize that neutrality is a myth. No man comes to politics (or any other discipline) without carrying his theological baggage into his conclusions. There exists no theological nowhere man living in a theological nowhere land.

The thread on X wherein I began with found the exchange above found a Dr. Daniel Strand piping in. His comment was interesting because Strand apparently teaches “ethics.” Strand says of Wolfe’s anti-theology in politics stance;

“A very sensible position. I read theology but am not a theologian. I tend to defer on matters of theology proper. I wish theologians took a similar attitude to ethics and politics, which they often are ill equipped to address.”

This is astounding if only because it is hard to imagine of any discipline that is more theology dependent than ethics. Strand says here that theologians are ill equipped to address the issue of ethics. Such a statement tis to boggle the mind. Ethics are the immediate consequence of theology. What a man thinks and believes about the character of God necessarily forms and shapes his ethics. Scripture teaches that we become what we worship. If we worship a vile God our ethics will be vile.

The inability of people to connect theology with all of life leaves me bumfuzzled. I can’t understand the inability to understand the centrality of theology.

At one time I had hopes that Wolfe and company might overthrow R2K but increasingly I doubt that the Wolfe project, even if successful, will leave us in any better of a situation than we would be if R2K continued to dominate the “conservative,” “Reformed,” “churches.”

A Brief Biblical Case Detailing God’s Opposition to Inter-racial Marriage

A common maxim in Reformed theology is that “grace restores nature.” What is being communicated here is that once the Triune God visits a man with redemption that man becomes, over the course of time in light of ongoing sanctification, the best version of himself.  Grace, in this understanding doesn’t make the man into something other than when he was when visited by and with grace but rather it restores what was taken from man by the fall and his sinful nature. So, because of this when a man or woman is visited by renewal unto eternal life he/she neither loses his maleness or femaleness. Neither do they lose their genetic predispositions, but grace restores those predispositions in a Christ honoring direction. In the same sense once a person is redeemed, they are not evacuated of their ethnic/racial identity. To insist that grace unmakes nature so that the convert is now something completely other than what they were before grace is a Gnostic position. It is a denial of nature and an insistence that grace un-anchors us from whom God providentially created us to be.

This is demonstrated in the reality that the Lord Jesus Christ, who is now at the right hand of the Father remains male, remains a member of the tribe of Judah, and retains His human nature. Even in resurrection (an event akin to our regeneration) Christ is not other than who He was, according to His divine and human nature, before His death and resurrection, though now glorified.

The scriptures teach that the Triune God ordained not only our redemption, but He ordained who we would be in creation as well. God ordained that we would be male or female. God ordained our genetic strengths and weaknesses. God ordained what family, tribe, nation and race to which we would belong. So, we see in scripture the beginnings of races, languages and nations according to God’s creational intent. These distinctions are maintained even after redemption. This is seen in texts like,

Rev. 7:9 After these things I looked, and behold, a great multitude which no one could number, of all nations, tribes, peoples, and tongues, standing before the throne and before the Lamb, clothed with white robes, with palm branches in their hands,

Rev. 5:9 And they sang a new song, saying:

“You are worthy to take the scroll,
And to open its seals;
For You were slain,
And have redeemed us to God by Your blood
Out of every tribe and tongue and people and nation,


Rev. 11:9 Then those from the peoples, tribes, tongues, and nations [a]will see their dead bodies three-and-a-half days, and not allow their dead bodies to be put into graves.

Rev. 14:6 Then I saw another angel flying in the midst of heaven, having the everlasting gospel to preach to those who dwell on the earth—to every nation, tribe, tongue, and people—

Rev. 20:3 and he cast him into the bottomless pit, and shut him up, and set a seal on him, so that he should deceive the nations no more till the thousand years were finished. But after these things he must be released for a little while.

Rev. 20:8 and will go out to deceive the nations which are in the four corners of the earth, Gog and Magog, to gather them together to battle, whose number is as the sand of the sea.

Notice the repeated mention of nations as nations being present in the New Jerusalem.  This is testimony that grace does not destroy nature. This is testimony that it is not God’s intent for distinct nations to disappear into a Gospel blob that finds all colors bleeding into one. Christianity does not put humanity in a giant genetic blender while hitting the high-speed button. This was the agenda of those at Babel (Gen. 11). The agenda of a coffee-latte colored multi-racialist/cultural nation has always been the agenda of the Marxists. Always.

Our Lord Christ Himself maintained the creational distinctions ordained from eternity. Jesus, whose own genetic descent was instrumental to His Messiahship (Matthew 1, Luke 3, Romans 1:3), sent His disciples first only to the “lost sheep of the house of Israel” (Mt. 10:6, cmp. Mt. 15:24) yet later the resurrected and ascended Lord Christ directs St. Paul to the Gentiles (Acts 22:17-29 cmp. Acts 13:2-3). During His own ministry Jesus says,

16 And other sheep I have which are not of this fold; them also I must bring, and they will hear My voice; and there will be one flock and one shepherd.

A fold is a portion of the larger flock. The Lord Christ has one flock, but that flock is made of folds that exist in many ethnic/racial places. The Church has a unity (one flock) found in a diversity of folds. In the Church there is unity in diversity. There are German folds, Japanese folds, Ndebele folds but together they form one flock with Christ the chief shepherd. The reality and even necessity of various folds does not negate the unity found in the flock (Church). Again, even in heaven these folds will be present as one flock. When the New Jerusalem is let down upon the New Earth in the eschaton (Rev. 21:1-3) we read

Rev. 21:24 And the nations of those who are saved shall walk in its light, and the kings of the earth bring their glory and honor into it. 25 Its gates shall not be shut at all by day (there shall be no night there). 26 And they shall bring the glory and the honor of the nations into it. 

Here we see the creational distinctions that God ordained in Gen. 10:5, Dt. 32:8, and Acts 17:26 would be perpetually established into the eschaton.

5 From these the coastland peoples of the Gentiles were separated into their lands, everyone according to his language, according to their families, into their nations.

Dt.32:8When the Most High divided their inheritance to the nations,
When He separated the sons of Adam,
He set the boundaries of the peoples
According to the number of the children of Israel. 

Acts 17:26 And He has made from one blood every nation of men to dwell on all the face of the earth, and has determined their preappointed times and the boundaries of their dwellings,

The sin of Babel was the same attempt that modern man pursues now and that is the sin of amalgamation. The desire in Gen. 11 (Bable) was to adulterate the nations (adulterate in the sense of water down or dilute) with the humanistic purpose of fallen man apart from God seeking to “make a name for himself.” This attempt at adulteration/amalgamation of the races/nations is what the multi-racialist/culturalist pursues today. They are the intellectual descendants of Nimrod and Babel. The fact that many of these Babel-ites are clergy only increases their guilt.

The Scripture teaches that God condemned those who would remove these distinctions by means of amalgamation/adulteration.

Dt. 7:3 Nor shall you make marriages with them. You shall not give your daughter to their son, nor take their daughter for your son.

Ezra 9:10 And now, O our God, what shall we say after this? For we have forsaken Your commandments,

Nehemiah 9:2 Then those of Israelite lineage separated themselves from all foreigners; and they stood and confessed their sins and the iniquities of their fathers. (See all of Nehemiah 9-13).

Now the typical Evangelical and Cultural Marxist Reformed response to these passages is to insist that the only segregation/separation that God requires is a forbidding of marriage and breeding between believers and unbelievers regardless of their race/ethnicity. The problem with this defense against the clear teaching of Scripture is found in the abhorrence of Isaac and Rebecca as to Esau’s choice of wives. Gen. 25-28 teaches that one of Esau’s rebellions was his miscegenation. However, Esau was no believer marrying unbelieving women who were not members of the covenant. Esau was an unbeliever marrying unbelievers. Now combine this observation that Jacob in marrying Rachel was hardly marrying a daughter who wasn’t from a pagan family. (Witness her theft of her father’s gods.) Clearly, there is something other going on in the Holy record besides Isaac and Rebecca being put out because Esau as an unbeliever married unbelieving Hittites or Ishmaelite women or Jacob as a covenant child married Rachel who could not be considered a covenant member at this time. Clearly, there are racial/ethnic considerations going on here. Isaac and Rebecca are put out because Esau married outside his kin and Rebecca sends Jacob to her brother Laban to find a wife among her and Isaac’s kin, even if Rachel, the wife to be, was not at that time a servant of Yahweh.

Also, we need to consider in all this that in the Ezra and Nehemiah texts where the requirement is to send away all the foreign women that the Israelites had married, that the requirement was also to send away children of those unions. If it was the case that the problem was only that the Israelites had married unbelieving women why then were the covenant children of those unions also to be sent away? Clearly, God held there to be such a problem with these unions that both the foreign wives and the children born of those foreign wives had to be sent away. The issue here in Ezra and Nehemiah is not one only of unbelieving wives. The issue in Ezra and Nehemiah is also one of ethnic mixing that displeased the God of the Bible.

Underscoring all this is God’s instructions regarding beast and crop;

Lev. 19:19 ‘You shall keep My statutes. You shall not let your livestock breed with another kind. You shall not sow your field with mixed seed. Nor shall a garment of mixed linen and wool come upon you.

Rushdoony comments on this passage,

“These laws forbid the blurring of God-ordained distinctions. The nature and direction of sin is to blur and finally erase all the God-ordained boundaries … God’s laws are case laws. If vegetable seeds are not to be mingled, nor an ass and a horse crossbred, then in the human realm it follows that the confusion of God-ordained boundaries is even more serious.”

R. J. Rushdoony

Commentary on Leviticus – p. 230

A second’s thought understands that if God wants lesser distinctions retained how much more would we expect God to desire greater distinctions as between races to be retained?Now, in this discussion we take notice of the 7th commandment.

“Thou Shalt Not Commit Adultery”

Adultery includes the obvious sexual sins that are commonly associated with it. However, the forbidding of “Adultery,” includes the forbidding of “Adulteration.” The adulteration that is forbidden includes a watering down or diluting of the original stock. When a marriage is contracted between people of different races the issue from that marriage is an adulteration from both racial stocks.

Calvin in his commentary on Genesis 36 touches the subject of adulteration,

24. This was that Anah that found the mules. Mules are the adulterous offspring of the horse and the ass. Moses says that Anal was the author of this connection. [131] But I do not consider this as said in praise of his industry; for the Lord has not in vain distinguished the different kinds of animals from the beginning. But since the vanity of the flesh often solicits the children of this world, so that they apply their minds to superfluous matters, Moses marks this unnatural pursuit in Anah, who did not think it sufficient to have a great number of animals; but he must add to them a degenerate race produced by unnatural intercourse. Moreover, we learn hence, that there is more moderation among brute animals in following the law of nature, than in men, who invent vicious admixtures.

John Calvin

Commentary — Genesis 36:24

Calvin clearly here shows the modernly ignored meaning of adultery: to bastardize/adulterate. While marital adultery (promiscuity) is definitely a sin, the inherent meaning of miscegenation/mongrelization is included in the word “adultery” and “adulterate” and that is all but forgotten in our modern context. As we have also seen in Genesis, God referred to Esau’s taking of wives outside his racial family as fornication (Hebrews 12:16)!

The reader would profit greatly from taking the time to learn about adulteration from this article

A Kinist Commentary on the Ten Commandments: The Seventh Word

Heritage Reformed people, following Calvin, have always had this abhorrence of all attempts to wipe out God ordained distinctions. We follow Calvin here,

“But the notion that what ails the world [inseparably from sin] is confusion had much practical value for Calvin … Thus, when Calvin associated disorder with obscurity, he could conceive of correcting it by sharpening the contours of the various entities composing the world; once one thing has been clearly distinguished, physically or conceptually, from others, it can be assigned its proper place in the order of things … Thus he abominated ‘mixture,’ one of the most pejorative terms in his vocabulary; mixture in any area of experience suggested to him disorder and unintelligibility. He had absorbed deeply not only the traditional concern for cosmic purity of a culture that had restricted mixture to the sublunary realm but also various Old Testament prohibitions. Mixture, for Calvin, connoted ‘adulteration’ or ‘promiscuity,’ but it also set off in him deep emotional and metaphysical reverberations. He repeatedly warned against ‘mixing together things totally different.’ …

The positive corollary of Calvin’s loathing of mixture was his approval of boundaries, which separate one thing from another. He attributed boundaries to God Himself: God had established the boundaries between peoples, which should therefore remain within the space assigned to them … ‘Just as there are in a military camp separate lines for each platoon and section,’ Calvin observed, ‘men are placed on the earth so that each nation may be content with its own boundaries.’”

W.J. Bouwsma

John Calvin: A Sixteenth Century Portrait — p.34-35

 

The reason this kind of defense of intra-racial marriage is necessary is due to the constant Cultural Marxist hyper push on achieving what those behind the Tower of Babel could only have dreamed of achieving. If this kind of push in the larger culture (Governments, Media, Hollywood, Advertising, etc.) didn’t exist these kinds of arguments here would not be needed. Clearly, it is not the occasional occurrence of a inter-racial marriage here or there that calls for this kind of clarity. What demands this kind of clarity is the ever-increasing achievement of the long-held Marxist dream of eliminating all races and nations. Further, what demands this kind of clarity is the clear intent to completely genocide the White race — particularly White Christians. Replacement theory is no myth.

It is obvious that this reasoning can be taken to extremes that I would not be comfortable with and that I would oppose. Being a believer in freedom of association, I would not support laws that would find the state trying to legislate on these matters. These matters are better being put under the government of the family. Further, I understand that inter-racial marriages are going to happen, as much as I don’t think that is profitable, especially for the children of such unions. Compassion on those children as well as on my people group requires me to speak as a Christian minister. What I am trying to lift my voice against is the current Babel zeitgeist that finds miscegenation being stuck in the face ad nauseum of what at one time was referred to as Christendom. There clearly is an agenda here and that agenda needs to be opposed the way Samson opposed the Philistines.

There is nothing that I oppose more than the presence of the New World Order in the Church and the attendant clergy who have reinterpreted Christianity through the lens of Cultural Marxist worldview.