“The More in Common” Argument Coming From the Evangelical Left

Back in August it all started with the Pope of Moscow;

“I have more in common with a Nigerian Anglican Woman than with my conservative white pagan neighbor” 

Doug Wilson 
Blog & MehBlog

Yesterday on Twitter Andy Sandlin took it up;

“The white American Christian billionaire male has more in common with the poorest Christian sub-Saharan female than he does any of his unconverted countrymen.”

Andrew Sandlin

And R. C. Sproul Jr, the Doyen of “being famous for being famous” agrees;

“Hard to believe anyone could question this. I guess those who do have this in common with the woke- believing demographic identity is greater than identity in Christ. Stay strong brother. “

R. C. Sproul Jr.
Responding to Doc Sandlin

Clearly we are seeing a Gnostic theme gaining steam here. As such let’s examine this for a moment.

In our examination we will go with the humorous sarcastic lampooning side first. This from my friend Thomas Achord;

“Christianity trumps any marriage. The Christian husband has more in common with his neighbor’s Christian wife than he does with his own unconverted wife. Christian men and women should transcend their individual marriages and embrace the universal marriage ideal.”

Similarly we could add;

“Christianity trumps any parental arrangement. The Christian child has more in common with the Christian parents next door than he does with his own unconverted parents. Christian children should transcend their individual parentage arrangements and embrace the universal Christian parenting ideal, since, after all, they have more in common.”

Pressing on we could note how these statements by Wilson, Sandlin and Sproul 2.0 lack precision. Certainly we can all agree that as it pertains to eternal verities we have more in common with a Biblical Christian version of Richard Nikolaus Eijiro, Count of Coudenhove-Kalergi than I have with my cousins who are outside of Christ. However, when it comes to every day matters like supporting a Burkean like social order, or longing for the good old days of Strom Thurmond’s “Dixiecrats,” or the preference for a good old country Fish Fry, or going Coon hunting or setting a trotline or attending a lecture on Great Southern Generals I suspect that I have more in common with the unbelieving good old boys of South Carolina who lived in the community I once Pastored then I do with Wilson, Sandlin, Sproul 2.0 and their ilk.

Think about it. If I were to draw a 90 mile radius with my congregation in the center I would have within that radius many Reformed Churches. I can guarantee you that except for abstract statements that comprise Biblical, Historical, and Systematic theology I would have much more in common with at least some of those Christ hating in that radius than I would many of those in “Reformed Churches.” Truth be told, I don’t find too much in common with “Reformed” Christians anymore as Iron Ink constantly testifies to.

Also down this line in order for me to talk about all that I have in common with any other Christian we better be defining what we mean by Christian. For example, the presumption of charity requires that I believe that Wilson, Sandlin, and Sproul 2.0 are all Christian but I clearly have a hard time finding common ground with these people. I mean, we would agree on any number of abstract theological statements but we are seeing that when it comes to the concrete — not so much. Or we could take the R2K “Reformed” church in Lansing Michigan. The presumption of charity requires I count the Pastor and staff there Christian but I guarantee you that I have even less in common with those people than I do Wilson, Sandlin, and Sproul 2.0. In point of fact, I think those people with their R2K are treasonous baseborn. But if I can make it into the gates of heaven by God’s grace alone so can they and so I count them Christians that I don’t have spit in common with. Similarly, we could talk about liberal Christian ministers who I used to gather with for confabs. Not much in common with those people either.

All this to say that to go around talking the way Wilson, Sandlin, and Sproul 2.0 talk demonstrates a lack of precision that is embarrassing for a minister and frankly, like it or not, in this environment it does come across as Gnostic and Cultural Marxist all at the same time.

To argue this way, is not to proclaim, contra Sproul 2.0, that I am claiming some common ground with the WOKE crowd over common ground with Wilson, Sandlin, and Sproul 2.0. The ironic fact of the matter is that it is Wilson, Sandlin and Sproul 2.0 who are sharing the common ground with the WOKE crowd. Both the WOKE crowd and the Christianity of Wilson, Sandlin, and Sproul 2.0 are screaming at people that nature either doesn’t exist or isn’t important. WOKE teaches that there is no such thing as nature. Wilson, Sandlin, Sproul 2.0 and their legion ilk are saying instead that grace destroys nature. They are in essence saying that once Christians are converted then who they were prior to being Christians, as considered according to who they were as God created them, is extinguished.

Maleness or Femaleness — In Christ gone.
Italian or Irish — In Christ gone.
Age — In Christ gone.
White, Yellow, Brown — In Christ Gone.

All of this passing as Christianity is not a great deal different from what we did in High School at a party when we emptied every kind of alcohol we could find into one container in order to chug it down.

As I recall, we called that drink, “A suicide.”

Christianity & Civil Liberty

In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. Gen. 1:1

You alone are the LORD. You created the heavens, the highest heavens with all their host, the earth and all that is on it, the seas and all that is in them. You give life to all things, and the host of heaven worships You. Neh. 9:6

The Scripture teaches here that God is. This of course immediately means that materialism, which teaches that God isn’t, is not true. It is this simple truth that God is that leads to so much when it comes to this issue of Christian Liberty/Freedom.

The fact “God is” answers the question; “Why is it that only Christianity can support social orders that can be described as genuinely having liberty.”

And the answer to that is it is only Christianity that provides the religious and ideological framework wherein liberty can be nurtured. It is only Christianity that consistently repudiates the notion of materialism that is so prevalent in the West.

Read your dystopian novels and the one thing you see consistent about them is that the dystopia being described has no place for a personal extra-mundane spiritual being. In brief they are materialistic. When you have materialism for your worldview — when you deny the God of the Bible then only humanist force can provide the principle of order and regulated or ordered liberty as informed by transcendent non-material truth is crushed. Sisley Huddleston caught this in his little record called “France; The Tragic Years.” Huddleston wrote,

Not only had Russia fallen a victim to the conception of a purely materialist universe, in which force alone counted, not only had Russia become a vast prison in which all the liberties of which we were wont to boast were suppressed, in which a group of men, sitting in the Kremlin, had forged a system of terrorism, of totalitarianism, dependent on an army of police and spies, but outside Russia, in almost every country, the missionaries of Bolshevism had made large numbers of converts.

Sisley Huddleston

A generation prior to Huddleston the great Christian theologian and Churchmen J. Gresham Machen could write touching also on the relation to materialism and liberty;

“Place the lives of children in their formative years, despite the convictions of their parents, under the intimate control of experts appointed by the state, force them to attend schools where the higher aspirations of humanity are crushed out, and where the mind is filled with the materialism of the day, and it is difficult to see how even the remnants of liberty can subsist.”

J. Gresham Machen
Christianity & Liberalism

Materialism is the wench mother of all slave orders because materialism is the idea that all that is, is matter and that a personal extra-mundane God does not exist. This materialism in turn leads to the civil bondage that Huddleston speaks of as being directed by “force alone” and Machen doubts, that where present, the remnants of liberty can subsist.Where materialism gains footing then humans are just matter in motion and have no significant meaning. As such the idea that little instantiations of matter in motion should have freedom or liberty is irrelevant to those who see themselves as bringing in the materialist Utopia.

In the kind of world where there is no being who is situated in or relating to a region beyond the material world to whom we will all one day be answerable and to whom alone can provide order, meaning, and definition by His revelation the only option left is Orwell’s boot stamping on a face forever.

So, here we see the connection between spiritual freedom and civil freedom. Men who are in rebellion against God are in bondage to themselves as their own gods. The consequence is the bondage that they have in themselves they translate into everything they touch. Men in spiritual bondage create social orders that are characterized by the killing of liberty and so civil bondage.

R. J. Rushdoony says much the same;

“Society changes only as the members of society change, only as men and women are regenerated by Jesus Christ. Apart from regeneration, a society can have some material progress, but no real advantage or freedom for most men as a rule. The areas of freedom have been the areas of Christian faith, and, as that faith wanes, freedom wanes….

Freedom has only come to a people, as they have become, one by one, free men in Jesus Christ. As a people advance into freedom in Christ, they move their society and country into that freedom, and as a people drift into unbelief and sin, their country declines into slavery.”

R. J. Rushdoony

… as a people drift into unbelief and sin, their country declines into slavery.”

And that is because spiritual slavery translates into civil bondage.

One more from a different voice so that you can see that there is a wide testimony supporting my contention that spiritual bondage always leads to civil bondage. This one from the masterful wordsmith Malcolm Muggeridge;

People, that is to say, are never enslaved unless they have become slaves already. They swim into the Great Leviathan’s mouth (a reference to the Statist Tyrant) He does not need to chase them.”

Malcolm Muggeridge

Farewell to Freedom?

So how can we summarize so far as to the last two weeks?

We have noted that only Christianity can support liberty and this is because only Christianity gives us a extra-mundane personal God who has made Himself and His will known so that we have an authority outside of us by which we can know what ordered-liberty looks like.

By faith we understand that the universe was formed at God’s command, so that what is seen was not made out of what was visible

We have noted that absent this what the West has, generally speaking, adopted are forms of Materialism. Materialism insists that man is not made in the image of God but rather is just matter in motion. Man therefore has no intrinsic value that has to be honored by those who have captured social-orders as gods to run the social order to the end of building a Utopia. Man having no intrinsic value has no need to be given liberty/freedom as authorized and defined by God.

As such all social orders where men are in spiritual bondage will result in civil bondage as sure as night follows day.

Though civil bondage may be the rule, genuine Christians who have been set free from their sin and misery can never have their spiritual freedom/liberty taken away. Their sin no longer masters them and so they are free indeed.

The only thing that can reverse civil bondage is Reformation characterized by heralding Jesus Christ. Political rallies, activism and/or voting campaigns have their place as a “hold my beer” kind of rear guard action. They are useful in delaying the tyrant but they can never of themselves usher in civil order freedom because they are dealing with symptoms and not the disease.

Listen to RJR in support of that statement;

The ballot box has a very important function in a free society, but it can never be expected to do anything more than to reflect the character, the desires, and the will of the people. If the people who vote are of weak or bad character, if their desires are larcenous and envious, and if their will be perverse and evil, the election results will merely reflect their own nature on a broader scope.
This means too that people who expect to reform the state or country by means of the vote, by elections, are headed for failure and disillusionment. Reformation must begin in the lives of the people in order to show up in the ballot box.


Elsewhere he noted;

Freedom is not a natural fact but a religious principle, and the decline of Freedom is an aspect of the rise of false faiths, false forms of “Christianity,” as well as other varieties of faith…. For all too long, those who have believed the most have been Marxists, Keyensians, fascists, and humanists generally. Their ‘freedom’ has been slavery, for ‘the tender mercies of the wicked are cruel (Prov. 12:10)…. If Christians lose their freedom, they will only have themselves to blame, and their indifference to the Author of true liberty, the Lord our King.

Roots of Reconstruction — pg. 55

Written in 1980

However, let us say again that where spiritual freedom begins to multiply in a social order there you can be sure that civil order freedom will soon follow. This is in defiance to R2K reasoning who wants to suggest that though men can be spiritually free their spiritual freedom dare not translate into the civil realm breathing Christian defined liberty into all social order institutions. How do I know this? They tell us.

“I asked David Van Drunen a question that I believe goes right to the heart of this issue. I asked him what God would think of a nation whose magistrate and people had become overwhelmingly (and sincerely) Christian, and who decided to confess Christ in the common realm, in the formerly secular realm. I asked if God would be displeased with that, and Van Drunen said yes, he thought God would be displeased with that. “

Doug Wilson

Talk about the problem of fifth columnists.

Let us add something here. Of course all of this is worldview warfare. Materialism vs. Christianity;

Bertrand Russell has not exaggerated in summing up the present significance of Marxism somewhat as follows: dialectical materialism is God; Marx the Messiah; Lenin and Stalin the apostles; the proletariat the elect; the Communist party the Church; Moscow the seat of Church; the Revolution the second coming; the punishment of capitalism hell; Trotsky the devil; and the communist commonwealth kingdom come.”

― Robert A. Nisbet

The Quest For Community: A Study In The Ethics Of Order And Freedom

So, yes it can be argued that the Scriptures are primarily about how God has provided the means for fallen man to be rescued from their sin and misery. Yes, the Scriptures are primarily about the finished work of Jesus Christ. Perhaps it can even be said that the Scripture weren’t written primarily to be a cookbook that if followed will give you your “best life now.”

However, having admitted all that we would still say that if people are indeed rescued by so great a salvation Scripture also teaches that people who embrace the whole of Christianity are a people who thirst for ordered liberty in their personal life, their family lives, their church lives, their community lives and their social-order lives.

Christians who are content with civil order bondage should be thought of as being either immature Christians or not Christians at all. Where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty.”



“The Scriptures clearly teach that human government is of divine ordination and does not have its origin in any social compact or contract, as Hobbes and Locke taught, nor was it created by man himself to meet the needs of his society. Rather does Christian theism insist that government was ordained of God for man and that its just powers come from Him and not from man. Government is not ordained primarily to defend human liberty but to ensure that kind of society necessary for man to carry out those duties which he owes to God alone.”

C. Gregg Singer

We would only add that any society where man is free to carry out those duties which he owes to God alone is a society that is defined by regulated freedom.







Independence Day Potpourri

The Original Independence Spirit

1.) King George III called the American war for Independence;

“A Presbyterian rebellion.”

2.) “There is no good crying about the matter,” Horace Walpole told the House of Commons when news of the American Revolution arrived in England. “Cousin America has run off with the Presbyterian parson (Witherspoon), and that is the end of it.”

3.) “I fix all the blame of these extraordinary American proceedings upon them (Presbyterians) …. The Presbyterians have been the chief and principle instruments in all these flaming measures; and they always do and ever will act against government, from that restless and turbulent anti-monarchical spirit which has always distinguished them.”

A letter from a Tory by the name of Galloway

4.) “Call this war my dearest friend, by whatsoever name you may, only call it not an American Rebellion, it is nothing more or less than an Irish-Scotch Presbyterian revolt.”

Captain Johann Heinrichs
Member of Hessian Jager Corps


5.) “The Revolution of 1776, so far as it was affected by religion, was a Presbyterian measure.  It was a natural outgrowth of the principles which the Presbyterianism of the Old World planted in her sons, the English Puritans, the Scotch Covenanters, the French Huguenots, the Dutch Calvinists, and the Presbyterians of Ulster.”

Historian George Bancroft

Bancroft elsewhere listed Calvin as the, “the father of America.” Continuing by noting; “He who will not honor the memory and respect the influence of Calvin knows but little of the origin of American liberty,”

The Reformed Clergy then drove the rank and file Colonialists to fight for freedom from British Tyranny.

The original Independence Day Spirit exhibited by American Clergy;

“Thou profane, wicked monster of falsehood and perfidy… your late infamous proclamation is as full of notorious lies, as a toad or rattle-snake of deadly poison — you are an abandoned wretch…. Without speedy repentance, you will have an aggravated damnation in hell you are not only a robber, a murderer, and usurper, but a wicked Rebel: A rebel against the authority of truth, law, equity, the English Constitution of government, these colony states and humanity itself.”

Rev. John Cleveland of Ipswich Massachusetts addressing British Gen. Thomas Gage as published in the Essex Gazette on 13 July, 1775.

“Let none be disheartened from the prospect of the expense; though it should be to the half, or even the whole of our estates. Compared with the prize at stake, our liberty, the liberty of our country, of mankind, and of millions yet unborn, it would be lighter than the dust on the balance: for if we submit, adieu forever; adieu to property, for liberty will be lost, our only capacity of acquiring and holding property.”

Rev. Moses Mather

1775 Sermon

“The ministers of the Revolution were, like their Puritan predecessors, bold and fearless in the cause of their country. No class of men contributed more to carry forward the Revolution and to achieve our independence than did the ministers… By their prayers, patriotic sermons, and services they rendered the highest assistance to the civil government, the army, and the country.”

B. F. Morris

The Christian Life & Character of the Civil Institutions of the US

And here we are with a world full of clergy effeminates.

How did Presbyterians go from the Black Robed Regiment to the Pink Panty Brigade in 247 years?

Rev. John Adams of Durham, New Hampshire… traveled to the fort at Newcastle, New Haven to move the supplies stored there to a more secure and accessible place in the event of a British attack. It is believed that Rev. Adams stored the gunpowder taken from the fort under his pulpit. This undoubtedly aided in Rev. Adams giving explosive sermons.

Dan Fisher
Bringing Back the Black Robed Regiment — p. 78

And today? The conservative Presbyterians can barely keep the sodomite out of their pulpits.


The humanist pagan historians desire to give Thomas Paine all the props for energizing the American mind when it came to the necessary rebellion against the Crown but the Biblical Christian knows that the real literary work that shaped the Colonial mind on this subject was Vindiciae Contra Tyrannos by authors anonymous though history points to Huguenots Philippe Duplessis-Mornay (1549-1623) and Hubert Languet (1518-1581).

John Adams said this book was “as prevalent and important as Thomas Paine.” It certainly had far more appeal to the Christian population. The point to keep in mind though is that Paine was writing out of a Atheist Christ hating worldview while the authors of the Vindiciae were writing out of a Christian worldview. Paine belonged to the French Revolution while the authors of the Vindiciae belonged to Christian counter-Revolution. The argument in the Vindiciae is grounded in scripture, articulate, and thorough, though even today the pacifist Reformed types curl up into a fetal position when its ideas are promulgated by someone from the pulpit.

One can be sure that there would have been no American Revolution were it not for that famous and now unknown Vindiciae Contra Tyrannnos (Vindication against Tyrants).


Keep in mind during our celebration of Independence day that this could never have happened in America were it not for those damn Calvinists and their clergy. It was the black robed regiment that rang the tocsin for freedom across the land at that time. In their sermons they rallied the people to the battle against English tyranny. It was the Reformed pulpits that kept the rank and file informed about the Usurpations of the British parliament against colonial rule. It was Presbyterian and Congregational clergy up and down the coast and into the hinterlands that informed their congregants that rules must conform themselves to God’s higher law and if those rulers did not then they were not to be counted rulers.

There could not have been a 1776 if not for John Calvin. World renowned German Historian Leopold Van Ranke could write,

“John Calvin was virtually the founder of America.”

Which explains why I hate today’s Reformed clergy so thoroughly.


The War for American Independence was never really a Revolution. It was to be more precise a counter-revolution. It was a completely different creature than the French Revolution pursued a few years later. The American Revolution was premised upon the Christian principles associated with the understanding that when a Covenant Head (King George III) violates covenant then the partner to the covenant (the Colonies) are no longer obligated to obey and have the place to throw off their former covenant partner (King George III). The rebellion of the American colonies was a Christian rebellion based on Reformational political covenantalism. The French Revolution on the other hand was based on Atheistic principles and was in pursuit of throwing off God.

This is seen in the various watchwords of the two Revolutions.

In the colonies there were mottoes like; “No King, but King Jesus,” and “Obedience to tyrants is disobedience to God.”

In the French Revolution the mottoes were; “No God, No King,” and “We will not be satisfied until the last King is strangled with the entrails of the last priest.”

There were two very different types of Revolutions. The American Revolution was in pursuit of restored Christian order whereas the French Revolution was in pursuit of a humanist order.


The War for American Independence was never really a Revolution. It was to be more precise a counter-revolution. It was a completely different creature than the French Revolution pursued a few years later. The American Revolution was premised upon the Christian principles associated with the understanding that when a Covenant Head (King George III) violates covenant then the partner to the covenant (the Colonies) are no longer obligated to obey and have the place to throw off their former covenant partner (King George III). The rebellion of the American colonies was a Christian rebellion based on political covenantalism. The French Revolution on the other hand was based on Atheistic principles and was in pursuit of throwing off God.


Gary T. Amos in his book, “Defending the Declaration” argues that the Declaration of Independence was a supremely Christian document. He makes a convincing case. You should give that book a read and see why the idea that the Declaration of Independence was an Enlightenment document is pure myth.


Ephraim Brevard was the author of the Mecklenburg Declaration of 1775. When Thomas Jefferson sat down and penned the “Declaration of Independence” there is little doubt that Jefferson did so with Brevard’s Mecklenburg Declaration at his right hand lifting whole phrases from the Mecklenburg Declaration and putting them into the Declaration of Independence. Indeed, it is no stretch in the least to say that Jefferson plagiarized Brevard in much of the Declaration of Independence. Compare to the two documents if you doubt me.

Now, the interesting thing about Brevard is that he was a Presbyterian deacon and the interesting thing about the Mecklenburg Declaration is that a large percentage who signed that document were Presbyterians.

So… all this calls into question the idea that the Declaration of Independence is an “Enlightenment document” that is dependent upon the ideological world of the rationalist thinkers.

There is more Presbyterianism in the Declaration of Independence than anyone wants to admit?

Doubt me? Read Gary T. Amos’ “Defending the Declaration.”


When the Declaration of Independence spoke about “All men being created equal,” the notion of equality there was not a philosophical abstraction. The sentiment was not that of the later French Revolution that all men were or should be of the same status and ability. The idea that Jefferson was communicating was that all Englishmen were created equal with the implication being that one set of Englishmen (those in England) could not dictatorially rule over another set of Englishmen (those in the Colonies). Jefferson was communicating one of the main beefs of the Colonialists and that was that the Colonialist were not being treated as those who has the same rights and privileges as other Englishmen.

How do I know this?

Well, one hint to this is found in the Declaration of Independence itself where Jefferson complains of the King;


“He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages, whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.”

Note the word “savages” above. If Jefferson was really using the idea of “equality” there the way that the WOKE crowd use “equality” today do you think he would have referred to his equals as “savages?”

Obviously Jefferson did not believe that the Indian savages were his equal.

Equality in the Declaration of Independence referred to only the idea that all Englishmen were equal.

Jefferson himself wrote a treatise on Natural Aristocracy where he argued  for a hypothetical political elite that derives its power from talent and virtue (or merit).

(1) No legislation without representation.

The colonists insisted that they could be governed only by the colonial legislatures. The British Parliament had other ideas. The colonialists insisted that the British Parliament had no authority over them since there charters were with the King and not Parliament. You will notice in the Declaration of Independence there is no mention of Parliament but only complaints against the King. This was because the colonies did not recognize the jurisdiction of the British Parliament over the colonies.

So, one key principle of the war for American Independence was the principle of self-government. This is was a key foundation in the American War for Independence. This same issue came up again in the War of Northern Aggression as the Southern States argued for the same principle for which their Colonial Fathers had argued.

2) Contrary to the modern Western view of the state that it must be considered one and indivisible, the colonists believed that a smaller unit may withdraw from a larger one. The American War for Independence then was about the ability to politically secede. The colonialist depending of the Reformed theory of Political Covenantalism believed they had that right since King George III as their partner to the political covenants and charters had violated his responsibilities. King George III had broken covenant and so secession was an option. Again, this issue came up in 1861 when Southerners insisted they had the same right of secession as their colonial forbears.

Today we are supposed to consider this so unthinkable that we put it in the mouths of our children when they say the “Pledge of allegiance to the Flag.” They recite “One Nation Under God, Indivisible.”

That line is hogwash. The Nation was never meant to be indivisible and that is just one of the reasons  that I don’t stand and recite the Pledge of Allegiance.

To support the idea that the Nation was never considered Indivisible by its founders we turn to

“I have endeavored to show, in the preceding part of this review, that the people of the several States, while in a colonial condition, were not “one people” in any political sense of the terms; that they did not become so by the Declaration of Independence, but that each State became a complete and perfect sovereignty within its own limits; that the revolutionary government, prior to the establishment of the confederation, was, emphatically, a government of the States as such, through Congress, as their common agent and representative, and that by the Articles of Confederation, each State expressly reserved its entire sovereignty and independence. In no one of the various conditions, through which we have hitherto traced them, do we perceive any feature of consolidation; but their character as distinct and sovereign States is always carefully and jealously preserved. We are, then, to contemplate them as sovereign States, when the first movements towards the formation of the present Constitution were made.”

Abel Parker Upshur
Our Federal Government; Its True Nature and Character – p.90



The American war for Independence was in all actuality a war for Independence on the behalf of 13 separate sovereign Colonies. The Colonists at the time looked upon one another as foreigners. The Virginians did not think of those living in Massachusetts or Pennsylvania as fellow countrymen and vice-versus.


When the Crown brought English troops to the Colonies the custom was to quarter troops in the houses of the Colonialists upon demand. There was no negotiating. If the Crown put a couple soldiers in your home you were responsible to provide room and board for that soldier. Also, that soldier was obviously untouchable and the result of their status meant that many a Colonialist head of household had his wife and/or daughters molested by the quartered English troops. This issue was so important that it was included in the reasons listed by Jefferson in the Declaration of Independence as to a reason why Independence was being declared and explains the third amendment in the Bill of Rights.


On this Independence Day do try to keep in mind that these united States won Independence from Britain in 1776 only to have their Independence taken away in 1865. You must understand that the “United States” as a consolidated, monopolistic government is a fiction invented by Lincoln and the Radical Republicans and instituted as a matter of policy at gunpoint and at the expense of some 600,000 American lives during 1861—1865 and at the expense of enslaving white and black men together to the FEDS.

In this vein this is why as combined with the greater reason that they surrendered on the 4th of July, 1863 that the residents of Vicksburg, Mississippi did not celebrate Independence day for 80 years until 1944.


“In all there were three periods of drastic communal upheaval and sudden changes of fortune in the extended Calvinistic Anglo-Saxon Revolution. There was the Cromwell uprising leading to the short-lived English Republic. This was followed by the conclusive disruption of the Stuart dynasty, leading to the enthronement of William and Mary, succeeded by the Hanoverians. Finally there was the American War of Independence.”


W. A. de Klerk
The Puritans in Africa; The Story of Afrikanerdom – p. 154


Americas separation from England was a separation inspired by the ideology of John Calvin. The theology of Calvin rippled through English-American history and was exhibited in political theology by the rise of Cromwell, the ascension of William & Mary and the overthrow of King George III. Though these events were separated by more than 100 years they were each driven by the same Calvinistic theology.


The Declaration of Independence should be taken as little more than a press release to the Western world that America was its own entity. It was never intended to be a governing document and we would be better off without taking that way.


The non-Christian can not know liberty. He will say he knows liberty but what he is calling liberty is just some form of licentiousness. The non-Christian can not know liberty because he is a man in bondage to his sin and as being in bondage to his sin all he will create in the name of liberty are social order institutions that reflect his bondage to sin.

Only the Christian who has been set free from the bondage of sin by the finished work of Jesus Christ on the cross can talk sanely about freedom, liberty, and independence. That is because they understand that their freedom, liberty, and independence means a freedom to obey Christ which they could never do before, a liberty to walk in righteousness which they could never do before, and a independence from the bondage which was characteristic of their life outside of Christ.

There is no social order Liberty that can long be maintained by a people who have abjured Christ and foresworn Christianity. No social order freedom to be had by a Church which disconnects the lifeline between freedom from sin and freedom from wicked governments and magistrates.

Social order liberty is the God-given inheritance bequeathed to a people set free from sin and gathered in resolve to incarnate that liberty in all their social order institutions.

A post-Christian world that blathers on about “liberty,” “freedom,” and “independence,” don’t know what they are talking about.


“Unlike every other nation on Earth, we were founded based on an idea.”

Pederast Joe Bite-me

Independence Day speech

This is a damnable lie. It is the lie that insists that America is a propositional nation. It is not true. America was not founded based on an idea. That nonsense didn’t rise till Lincoln sold it in his Gettysburg Address. America, like all nations, was based on descent from common ancestors (blood and soil). The fact that America was founded upon blood and soil is seen in the preamble to the US Constitution where the founders write that;

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity,


On this Independence Day we have to realize that while there definitely were Christian influences operating there were also deep state influences operating. The whole “Norvus Seculam Ordo,” BS on our money is one sign of that as well as the whole pyramid and eye of Horus thing.


FOn this Independence Day learn that it was the Reformed Clergy in America that inspired the Colonialists to take up arms against the Tyrannical Parliament in Britain. If we had today’s R2K clergy back in 1175 forward we would have put up with the King George refusing to interpose on the Parliaments tyrannical violating of the original Colonial Charters.

Reformed Clergy had steel in their spines in those days unlike the effeminate clergy claptrap today who kisses the arse of every estrogen-filled pajama boy civil magistrate who shows up with some kind of threat.


“Very important for people to realize that while the founding fathers their achievement was not because they were male but they transcended their sex. They weren’t just chauvinists or racists. They created ideas out of the enlightenment that meant that you would have woman’s suffrage, that you would have civil rights because that was the logic of “all men are created equal.” They didn’t have to do that. There is nothing in the Constitution that mentions race or gender so that they were male is incidental.”

Victor Davis Hanson

On Tucker Carlson show


1.) The founding father’s transcended their sex? What does even mean?

2.) While they were chauvinists and racists they weren’t JUST chauvinists and racists. Well, that is a relief to know.

3.) I guran-damn-tee you that very very few, in any of those founding fathers would have supported women’s suffrage or civil rights.

4.) The majority of the founding fathers were not operating out of an Enlightenment worldview.

5.) The founding fathers did not believe that all men were created equal in the modern egalitarian sense. They believed all Englishmen were equal. That was the issue at hand. Whether Englishmen in the colonies were equal to Englishman in England. The fact that they did not believe that all men were created equal in the modern egalitarian sense is seen in the fact that in the Declaration of Independence they refer to the Indians as “savages.” An odd thing to say if you believe all men are created equal in the sense that Hanson is using it.

6.) I suppose that they were white is incidental as well. I mean, just as women could have as easily produced the same document (after all the men transcended their gender) so nonwhite men could likewise have produced that same document since race and gender are incidental.

What a maroon.


“America’s original sin is rebellion.”

Rev. Brian Lee

United Reformed Church Ministerial Idiot


The only thing this quote tells me is that Rev. Lee has never studied American History. The Colonists did not rebel against the Crown but rather drew a line in the sand regarding the Crown’s violating their Charters (Political Covenants) with the Crown. If anyone was rebelling in the run-up to the American war for Independence it was the English Crown. The English Crown was rebelling against the Political Covenants that spelled out the responsibilities and privileges of both sides entering into political covenant via the Colonial charters. This is why, in the Declaration of Independence, the list of grievances is present. The Colonialists were saying to the Crown, “You have rebelled against our Political Covenants and because of your rebellion and breaking of the covenants we no longer, as before God, required to keep our commitments to the covenant documents.

Of course, Lee doesn’t know this, and just like all bottom feeders he sees America’s original sin as being rebellion and goes on to warn against our rebelling against the Masked, and social distanced mandates and pleads with Christians everywhere to kiss the arse of all wicked magistrates as they require us to break the 6th and 9th commandment. (And often the 8th).

It is interesting that Lee would do this, since as an R2K lover, he is of a crowd who is forever saying that, “Ministers need to stay in their lanes.” This means that Minister, per the R2K crowd, shouldn’t talk about history (among other things) since that is not their lane. But here is Brian Lee doing just that — recklessly careening into the lane of Historians and writing about something he doesn’t know Jack Squat about.

Lee may intend well (who doesn’t?) but his theology at this point is uninformed (see, I can be polite).


“I have endeavored to show, in the preceding part of this review, that the people of the several States, while in a colonial condition, were not “one people” in any political sense of the terms; that they did not become so by the Declaration of Independence, but that each State became a complete and perfect sovereignty within its own limits; that the revolutionary government, prior to the establishment of the confederation, was, emphatically, a government of the States as such, through Congress, as their common agent and representative, and that by the Articles of Confederation, each State expressly reserved its entire sovereignty and independence. In no one of the various conditions, through which we have hitherto traced them, do we perceive any feature of consolidation; but their character as distinct and sovereign States is always carefully and jealously preserved. We are, then, to contemplate them as sovereign States, when the first movements towards the formation of the present Constitution were made.”

Abel Parker Upshur
Our Federal Government; Its True Nature and Character – p.90

McAtee Examines George Will’s Conservative Bonafides

“You have exalted yourself against the Lord of heaven…”

Daniel 5
Daniel Addressing Belshazzar 

“But a free market economic system is a system. It is a public product, a creation of government. Any important structure of freedom is a structure, a complicated institutional and cultural context that government must nurture and sustain. Obviously, free speech is not free in the sense that it is free of prerequisites. It is not free of a complicated institutional frame. Free speech, as much as a highway system is something government must establish and maintain,” and so on and on.

A welfare state is certainly important to and probably indispensable to social cohesion and, hence, to national strength. A welfare state is implied by conservative rhetoric. A welfare state can be an embodiment of a wholesome ethic of common provision.”

George Will 
In Defense of the Welfare State — 1983

1.) Note first that Will has always been cast by the Mainstream media as a Conservative. This reveals that 35 years ago Conservatism was a joke. How much more so now? Thoughtful Christians have to realize that in terms of the political spectrum in this country we have no dog in the fight. Our dog died in 1861.

2.) Note also that the free market is not only a creation of the (presumably Federal) Government, per Will, but the free market being the creation of the Government it is up to the Government to nurture and sustain this thing that the Government has created. The whole idea of Creation, Sustaining and Governing used to be ascribed, in systematic theology, to God’s providence. Will has replaced the Christian God with the state as God walking on the earth. The State is the creator, sustainer, and governor. Man is Plato’s political animal.

3.) If a free market economic system is a ‘creation of Government’ then how is it the case that it is ‘Free market?” If it is a creation of the Government then why not refer to it as the “Government market?”

4.) Will is presupposing the old fascist line of ‘everything inside the state, nothing outside the state.’ Will has posited that the State is the overall conditioning environment in which man lives, moves, breathes and has his being. Of course, the fascists got that idea from Hegel who got it from Aristotle and Plato. No Biblical Christian can abide this horse manure thinking from the “conservative” George Will.

Increasingly, one is hearing the modernist clergy bleat about how politics does not belong in the pulpit. This quote proves that the pulpit cannot help but be political. When our wisemen, politicians, talking heads, and cultural gatekeepers arise to denounce God’s sovereignty how can the pulpit not sing out in defiance of all such pagan thinking? For the pulpit to remain mute in light of the claim that the Government is God walking on the earth would be to abandon the calling to be salt and light, it would be to go all treasonous at the very moment when faithfulness is most desperately needed, as done on a large scale it would be the end of Institutional Biblical Christianity. The pulpit must be political because politics is increasingly seeking to muscle in on the bailiwick of the pulpit. Ministers who refuse to thwap pagan thinking upside the head when pagan thinking is seeking to mold the thinking of God’s people are either stupid or cowards.

Modern conservatism is just right-wing Hegelianism.

Immigration and its Social Order Consequence

“Immigration and ethnic diversity tend to reduce social solidarity and social capital. New evidence from the US suggests that in ethnically diverse neighborhoods residents of all races tend to `hunker down’. Trust (even of one’s own race) is lower, altruism and community cooperation rarer, friends fewer.”

Robert Putnam
E Pluribus Unum: Diversity and Community in the Twenty-first Century
The 2006 Johan Skytte Prize Lecture

By saying that “immigration and ethnic diversity tend to reduce social solidarity and social capital,” what Putnam is getting at here is that ethnic harmony produces stability.  This obvious truth is controversial and the articulation of it threatens careers in a time where there is a mania about denying the obvious.

The obviousness that ethnic harmony produces stability while ethnic diversity reduces social solidarity and social capital is even seen in the historic definition of the word nation, which stems from the Latin “nasci.” Webster’s 1828 dictionary gives us the definition of “nation,”

“nation as its etymology imports, originally denoted a family or race of men descended from a common progenitor, like tribe.”

Of course, this flies in the face of the modern insistence that America particularly is a “propositional nation.” The idea contained in that phrase is that America was never intended to be a nation of common blood and ancestry, but instead, America has always been a place that found its union in the idea that a governed people find their unity in a shared commitment to a shared set of ideological truisms.

That this is historical revisionism is seen by just a few quotes, In The Federalist Papers, John Jay emphasized ethnic unity and religious unity as the source of American strength, saying 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….”

A lesser-known Founding Father John Dickinson in his “Observations on the Constitution Proposed by the Federal Convention” likewise wrote,

“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?”

One can find other sentiments like the above throughout US History. John Calvin Coolidge, when Vice President echoing Robert Putnam above, wrote,

“There are racial considerations too grave to be brushed aside for any sentimental reasons. Biological laws tell us that certain divergent people will not mix or blend…. Quality of mind and body suggests that observance of ethnic law is as great a necessity to a nation as immigration law.”

Dr. Joel McDurmon captured some of this sentiment when he wrote in his,  “Preventing the Warfare State: the biblical laws for kings,”

“The U.S. Constitution returned to the pre-1066 Anglo-Danish standard of “kith and kin.” The word “King” is related to the English “kin” which has an ethnic reference. “Kith and kin” means “same country and family.” Without this quality among a leader, there cannot be any true loyalty to the people. And while this sounds like a side matter, it is not: a ruler who identifies with the people almost as a family will fight to defend them and their liberties. A ruler, however, without that loyalty will more likely be less interested in defense. It’s the difference which Jesus taught between the shepherd and the hireling.”

All of this to say that the strength of a nation is found in ancestral roots which form a common ethnic bond. These roots provide the organic, interwoven connections among kith and kin who have lived cheek by jowl for generations in shared communities. What immigration does as it comes from nations that share no blood, religion, manners, history, and language with the White Anglo Saxon Christian origins of this nation is that it destroys the organic community roots by snapping off the shared plausibility structures, destroying the shared common way of life, and poisoning the well where the waters of common culture are drawn.  Where harmony of interests existed what is interjected by way of alien immigration is an instant conflict of interest driven by placing contradictory religions, ideologies, and theologies in the same proximate space. Where shared interests and values once existed as the glue that holds cultures together now room must be made for polygamy, clitorectomy, jihads and who knows what other foreign interest and value. Where community had been the coin of the realm, now balkanization is hegemonic.

Immigration is better called “recolonization,” and when practiced with passion, “genocide.” What is lost when mindless immigration is practiced is something of greater value than stock dividends and an ever-ballooning Gross Domestic Product. What is lost is a sense of identity, generational history, and belongingness to a particular people in favor of an egalitarian cosmopolitanism that atomizes the individual with the consequence that the only possible identity comes from identifying with the State which becomes both the destroyer and the pretended protector of the original stock.

In the end, the simple truism that “proximity + diversity = war” is indeed accurate. World history testifies to that truthfulness. Whether one looks at the Muslim conquest of the Northern African Littoral, or the Norman conquest of the Anglo-Saxons, or Stalin’s population transfers, or the Austro-Hungarian Empire, or former Yugoslavia repeatedly it is found that pronounced diversity in one geographic area is a recipe for significant cultural conflict. The vacuous and jejune egalitarian idea that “diversity is our strength” is just stupidity on steroids and no amount of reciting that mantra is going to make it become true. Not even when one sprinkles it with Christian pietistic sparkles. Similarly, the ubiquitous and now tired habit to use the cultural Marxist magic hex word “racism” in order to sublimate the reality that immigration and ethnic diversity is a bad thing sure to create conflict has become tantamount to peeing in a stiff breeze. It may make someone feel better short term but it only results in getting all wet.

The result of all this will either be genocide if the host culture surrenders or if the host culture does not surrender the result will be a Hobbesian war of all against all which will make the Lebanese civil war look like Red Sox vs. Yankees Baseball game.

In the former Christendom (The West) we are now absorbing the largest immigration movement in World history. Much of the visible church mindlessly blather about how God is bringing the world to us in order to be converted. Hearing the visible Church leadership exult in this mass migration is like being present to hear  Montezuma and the Aztec leadership rejoice with the arrival of Cortez. Those with eyes to see know that it is not the immigrant world that is being assimilated to Christianity but rather it is Christianity that is being assimilated and redefined in a non-Christian direction. When we rejoice with the entry of the third world into the West we are rejoicing at the death of Christianity and the death of that ethnic group that God has pleased, by His grace alone, to make the primary civilizational carrier of Christianity.

All of this is why Enoch Powell as the canary in the coal mine could lament 50 years ago

“Those whom the gods wish to destroy, they first make mad. We must be mad, literally mad, as a nation to be permitting the annual inflow of some 50,000 dependants, who are for the most part the material of the future growth of the immigrant-descended population. It is like watching a nation busily engaged in heaping up its own funeral pyre.”