Divide and conquer – that is how we are being defeated. The name of our great confederacy is the United States of America, but we are the furthest thing from being united as a People. We are divided along religious, cultural, racial, gender, educational, economic, and linguistic lines. Instead of identifying as “Americans” first, we identify as black or white, male or female, gay or straight, Republican or Democrat, Christian or atheist, and so forth. Because we are confused about our identity, we are easily divided and sifted in other ways and are preparing for cultural collapse. 

What is an African American? What is an Asian American? What is a Hispanic American? What is a European American? What is a Native American? Have you ever stopped to think how absurd these titles are? Have you ever considered how incorrect, flawed, and divisive they are? 

How far do you have to reach back to determine your identity? What is the cut-off point? Not one single race in the world originally inhabited its current location. Blacks did not originate in Africa (neither did the human race). Whites did not pop up magically in what is today Europe. Asians did not sprout out of the Asian snow like daisies (bonus points if you caught the pop culture reference). American Indians were not planted in the Americas by the gods. Human migration is a fact of history and people of all races have mixed with people of all other races. 

I ask again, how far do you have to go back to define yourself? If you go back far enough, you reach Adam and Eve. We are all derived from that lone man and his wife. Mankind did not evolve, as postulated Darwin and his frenzied followers who deny God, reject the scriptures, and propose an impossibly unscientific theory devoid of evidence and sense. What did evolve, however, and is not inherent in us, is our race, skin color, and other outward characteristics. 

I do not suggest that race is a human construct, because there are eternal differences in people that go back beyond our birth in mortality. I also do not suggest that there are no inherent differences in what we call the various races of mankind. There most certainly are personality differences and proclivities stemming back to times in the distant past which God has seen fit not to reveal much about, though these seemingly racial differences are primarily learned differences and are determined far more by culture, religion, and tradition than by genetics. On this point, Harvard University has made some interesting observations: 

“Estimating our ancestral composition down to 0.1% seem to suggest that there are exact, categorical divisions between human populations. But reality is far less simple. Compared to the general public’s enthusiasm for ancestry testing, the reaction from scientists has been considerably more lukewarm. Research indicates that the concept of “five races” does, to an extent, describe the way human populations are distributed among the continents—but the lines between races are much more blurred than ancestry testing companies would have us believe. 

“A landmark 2002 study by Stanford scientists examined the question of human diversity by looking at the distribution across seven major geographical regions of 4,000 alleles. Alleles are the different “flavors” of a gene. For instance, all humans have the same genes that code for hair: the different alleles are why hair comes in all types of colors and textures. 

“In the Stanford study, over 92% of alleles were found in two or more regions, and almost half of the alleles studied were present in all seven major geographical regions. The observation that the vast majority of the alleles were shared over multiple regions, or even throughout the entire world, points to the fundamental similarity of all people around the world—an idea that has been supported by many other studies. 

“If separate racial or ethnic groups actually existed, we would expect to find “trademark” alleles and other genetic features that are characteristic of a single group but not present in any others. However, the 2002 Stanford study found that only 7.4% of over 4000 alleles were specific to one geographical region. Furthermore, even when region-specific alleles did appear, they only occurred in about 1% of the people from that region—hardly enough to be any kind of trademark. Thus, there is no evidence that the groups we commonly call “races” have distinct, unifying genetic identities. In fact, there is ample variation within races. 

“Ultimately, there is so much ambiguity between the races, and so much variation within them, that two people of European descent may be more genetically similar to an Asian person than they are to each other. . . . 

“The popular classifications of race are based chiefly on skin color, with other relevant features including height, eyes, and hair. Though these physical differences may appear, on a superficial level, to be very dramatic, they are determined by only a minute portion of the genome: we as a species have been estimated to share 99.9% of our DNA with each other. The few differences that do exist reflect differences in environments and external factors, not core biology. 

“Importantly, the evolution of skin color occurred independently, and did not influence other traits such as mental abilities and behavior. In fact, science has yet to find evidence that there are genetic differences in intelligence between populations. Ultimately, while there certainly are some biological differences between different populations, these differences are few and superficial. The traits that we do share are far more profound” (Vivian Chou, “How Science and Genetics are Reshaping the Race Debate of the 21st Century”). 

I again emphasize that there are inherent differences in people that stem back to pre-mortality, but these differences are not “racial” since we are all children of our Father in Heaven and because we all hail directly from two earthly individuals, Adam and Eve. In our pre-earth existence, we developed our various attributes, tendencies, desires, and proclivities. On earth, then, the Lord places us with other people with whom we share similar character traits, skills, and preferences. Race, then, is what is incidental – our true identities and the reasons we were born black, white, yellow, or red, go much deeper. 

A modern prophet of the Lord, David O. McKay, made this detailed remark on mankind’s origin and our division into different groups: 

“Revelation assures us that [the Father’s] plan antedates man’s mortal existence, extending back to man’s pre-existent state. In that pre-mortal state were “intelligences that were organized before the world was; and among all these were many of the noble and great ones; And God saw these souls that they were good, and he stood in the midst of them, and he said: These I will make my rulers; for he stood among those that were spirits, and he saw that they were good.” (Abr. 3:22-3) 

“Manifestly, from this revelation, we may infer two things: first, that there were among those spirits different degrees of intelligence, varying grades of achievement, retarded and advanced spiritual attainment; second, that there were no national distinctions among those spirits such as Americans, Europeans, Asiatics, Australians, etc. Such “bounds of habitation” would have to be “determined” when the spirits entered upon their earthly existence or second estate. . . . 

“. . . Songs of expectant parents come from all parts of the earth, and each little spirit is attracted to the spiritual and mortal parentage for which the spirit has prepared itself. 

“Now if none of these spirits was permitted to enter mortality until they all were good and great and had become leaders, then the diversity of conditions among the children of men as we see them today would certainly seem to indicate discrimination and injustice. But if in their eagerness to take upon themselves bodies, the spirits were willing to come through any lineage for which they were worthy, or to which they were attracted, then they were given the full reward of merit, and were satisfied, yes, and even blessed. 

“Accepting this theory of life, we have a reasonable explanation of existent conditions in the habitations of man. How the law of spiritual attraction works between the spirit and the expectant parents, has not been revealed, neither can finite mind fully understand. By analogy, however, we can perhaps get a glimpse of what might take place in that spirit world. In physics we refer to the law of attraction wherein some force acting mutually between particles of matter tends to draw them together and to keep them from separating. In chemistry, there is an attractive force exerted between atoms, which causes them to enter into combination. We know, too, that there is an affinity between persons – a spiritual relationship or attraction wherein individuals are either drawn towards others or repelled by others. Might it not be so in the realm of spirit – each individual attracted to the parentage for which it is prepared. Our place in this world would then be determined by our own advancement or condition in the pre-mortal state, just as our place in our future existence will be determined by what we do here in mortality. 

“When, therefore, the Creator said to Abraham, and to others of his attainment, “You I will make my rulers,” there could exist no feeling of envy or of jealousy among the millions of other spirits, for those who were “good and great” were but receiving their just reward. . . . 

“By the operation of some eternal law with which man is yet unfamiliar, spirits come through parentages for which they are worthy – some as Bushmen of Australia, some as Solomon Islanders, some as Americans, as Europeans, as Asiatics, etc., etc., with all the varying degrees of mentality and spirituality manifest in parents of the different races that inhabit the earth. 

“Of this we may be sure, each was satisfied and happy to come through the lineage to which he or she was attracted and for which, and only which, he or she was prepared” (David O. McKay, in Jerreld Newquist, ed., Prophets, Principles, and National Survival, 499-501). 

Yes, our differences are derived not from our skin color or physical place of birth on this earth, but from our pre-earth deeds, achievements, and attainment. I defy all the world to counter this truth. This doctrine is in the Bible and the various revelations of God, and one day we will have a fuller understanding of what we know in embryo now about our shared heritage – the lineage of the Gods. 

Another fact is that regardless of our race or skin color, we all have unlimited potential for greatness. Each individual may, if he or she meets the terms and conditions of God’s Gospel Plan, earn a seat in the Kingdom of God. Each may, if worthy, inherit a spot at the right hand of God with their Savior Jesus Christ who makes such a destiny possible and without whom this reality is unattainable. An ancient prophet living in the Americas circa 600 B.C. declared: 

“[God] doeth not anything save it be for the benefit of the world; for he loveth the world, even that he layeth down his own life that he may draw call men unto him. Wherefore, he commandeth none that they shall not partake of his salvation. 

“Behold, doth he cry unto any, saying: Depart from me? Behold, I say unto you, Nay; but he saith: Come unto me all ye ends of the earth, buy milk and honey, without money and without price. 

“Behold, hath he commanded any that they should depart out of the synagogues, or out of the houses of worship? Behold, I say unto you, Nay. 

“Hath he commanded any that they should not partake of his salvation? Behold I say unto you, Nay; but he hath given it free for all men; and he hath commanded his people that they should persuade all men to repentance. 

“Behold, hath the Lord commanded any that they should not partake of his goodness? Behold I say unto you, Nay; but all men are privileged the one like unto the other, and none are forbidden. . . .   

“. . . [God] doeth that which is good among the children of men; and he doeth nothing save it be plain unto the children of men; and he inviteth them all to come unto him and partake of his goodness; and he denieth none that come unto him, black and white, bond and free, male and female; and he remembereth the heathen; and all are alike unto God, both Jew and Gentile” (2 Nephi 26:24-28, 33). 

This is crystalline truth. All individuals are privileged in God’s eyes. He invites them all to come to Christ. If they come to Christ, repent, are baptized in His name by proper authority, and follow His commandments, they will all receive the same eternal reward. The resurrected Lord did not exaggerate or lie when He enjoined His disciples: 

“Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you” (Matthew 28:19-20). 

He did not tell them to go into all nations, except India, or except the Sub-Saharan Africa, or except white Europe. He did not tell them to treat anyone differently because of superficial skin color differences, nationality origins, cultural upbringings, socio-economic status, gender, or any other factor. Rather, He invited all to come to Him and commanded His followers to teach all nations. 

If the Lord commanded us to reach out to all peoples everywhere, but the prevailing opinion of our day is that we should all be divided into groups, classes, races, genders, and self-identities, then who did this idea come from? Satan. He is the Father of Lies and the source of division, contention, hatred, prejudice, and evil. If you are guilty of following his plan of division along any lines except merit, I invite you to shake off your false philosophies, repent, and heed the words of God. 

I can’t express how very little it matters to me that some people will think I’m naïve for referencing scripture, citing prophets, or basing my ideas on unpopular yet revealed truth. At the end of the day, however, man-made “science,” personal opinions, and both multicultural and identarian politics, will melt away into nothingness and pure truth will remain. 

The point of all of this is to show how flawed and nearsighted our self-definitions are. We divide ourselves when there is no reason for it. We overemphasize skin color and other traits that are out of our control, yet focus little on merit, worthiness, and the overarching fact that we are all children of the same God, who is our literal Father. It is an inherently Marxian practice to identify people by classes and then pit them against each other. If you look at the origin of most of the contentious self-identifying groups (LGBT, Black Lives Matter, etc.), you find that they grew out of a Judeo-Marxian mindset and were deliberately created to fuel division and break down the existing societal order. 

This brings us back to the title of this article: Hyphenated America. I took the title from Teddy Roosevelt. He may have been a deluded Progressive, but he was an American first. In 1915, he gave a speech called “Americanism.” It deserves to be read by all now living. In it he condemned the trend of labeling people by superficial qualities, like their nation of origin, and forgetting the unifying factors. He affirmed: 

“What is true of creed is no less true of nationality. There is no room in this country for hyphenated Americanism. When I refer to hyphenated Americans, I do not refer to naturalized Americans. Some of the very best Americans I have ever known were naturalized Americans, Americans born abroad. But a hyphenated American is not an American at all. This is just as true of the man who puts “native” before the hyphen as of the man who puts German or Irish or English or French before the hyphen. Americanism is a matter of the spirit and of the soul. Our allegiance must be purely to the United States. We must unsparingly condemn any man who holds any other allegiance. But if he is heartily and singly loyal to this Republic, then no matter where he was born, he is just as good an American as anyone else. 

“The one absolutely certain way of bringing this nation to ruin, of preventing all possibility of its continuing to be a nation at all, would be to permit it to become a tangle of squabbling nationalities, an intricate knot of German-Americans, Irish-Americans, English-Americans, French-Americans, Scandinavian-Americans or Italian-Americans, each preserving its separate nationality, each at heart feeling more sympathy with Europeans of that nationality, than with the other citizens of the American Republic. The men who do not become Americans and nothing else are hyphenated Americans; and there ought to be no room for them in this country. The man who calls himself an American citizen and who yet shows by his actions that he is primarily the citizen of a foreign land, plays a thoroughly mischievous part in the life of our body politic. He has no place here; and the sooner he returns to the land to which he feels his real heart-allegiance, the better it will be for every good American. There is no such thing as a hyphenated American who is a good American. The only man who is a good American is the man who is an American and nothing else. 

“I appeal to history. Among the generals of Washington in the Revolutionary War were Greene, Putnam and Lee, who were of English descent; Wayne and Sullivan, who were of Irish descent; Marion, who was of French descent; Schuyler, who was of Dutch descent, and Muhlenberg and Herkemer, who were of German descent. But they were all of them Americans and nothing else, just as much as Washington. Carroll of Carrollton was a Catholic; Hancock a Protestant; Jefferson was heterodox from the standpoint of any orthodox creed; but these and all the other signers of the Declaration of Independence stood on an equality of duty and right and liberty, as Americans and nothing else. . . . 

“For an American citizen to vote as a German-American, an Irish-American or an English-American is to be a traitor to American institutions; and those hyphenated Americans who terrorize American politicians by threats of the foreign vote are engaged in treason to the American Republic.” 

Powerful words. They are also true. These United States united not around racial lines or because most of their ancestors had come from the various nations of Europe, but, rather, they united around principle. They shared common aspects but diverged in many others. Europeans, though they have nearly always been white-skinned, have been some of the most fractious and tribalistic people on the planet. The people of America, though they came from every nation in Europe, threw aside those differences that didn’t matter to form a new nation founded on law, ordered Liberty, and natural rights. 

The French philosopher Alexis de Tocqueville, after exploring the United States in its early years, observed many things about what unified us and made us great. In part, he said: 

“If we carefully examine the social and political state of America after having studied its history, we shall remain perfectly convinced that not an opinion, not a custom, not a law, I may even say not an event, is upon record which the origin of that people will not explain. The readers of this book will find the germe of all that is to follow in the present chapter, and the key to almost the whole work. 

“The emigrants who came at different periods to occupy the territory now covered by the American Union, differed from each other in many respects; their aim was not the same, and they governed themselves on different principles. These men had, however, certain features in common, and they were all placed in an analogous situation. The tie of language is perhaps the strongest and most durable that can unite mankind. All the emigrants spoke the same tongue; they were all offsets from the same people. Born in a country which had been agitated for centuries by the struggles of faction, and in which all parties had been obliged in their turn to place themselves under the protection of the laws, their political education had been perfected in this rude school, and they were more conversant with the notions of right, and the principles of true freedom, than the greater part of their European contemporaries. At the period of the first emigrations, the parish system, that fruitful germe of free institutions, was deeply rooted in the habits of the English; and with it the doctrine of the sovereignty of the people had been introduced even into the bosom of the monarchy of the house of Tudor. . . . 

“All the British colonies had then a great degree of similarity at the epoch of their settlement. All of them, from their first beginning, seemed destined to behold the growth, not of the aristocratic liberty of their mother-country, but of that freedom of the middle and lower orders of which the history of the world has as yet furnished no complete example. . . . 

“The settlers who established themselves on the shores of New England all belonged to the more independent classes of their native country. Their union on the soil of America at once presented the singular phenomenon of a society containing neither lords nor common people, neither rich nor poor. These men possessed, in proportion to their number, a greater mass of intelligence than is to be found in any European nation of our own time. All, without a single exception, had received a good education, and many of them were known in Europe for their talents and their acquirements. The other colonies had been founded by adventurers without family; the emigrants of New England brought with them the best elements of order and morality, they landed in the desert accompanied by their wives and children. But what most especially distinguished them was the aim of their undertaking. They had not been obliged by necessity to leave their country, the social position they abandoned was one to be regretted, and their means of subsistence were certain. Nor did they cross the Atlantic to improve their situation, or to increase their wealth; the call which summoned them from the comforts of their homes was purely intellectual; and in facing the inevitable sufferings of exile, their object was the triumph of an idea. 

“The emigrants, or, as they deservedly styled themselves, the pilgrims, belonged to that English sect, the austerity of whose principles had acquired for them the name of puritans. Puritanism was not merely a religious doctrine, but it corresponded in many points with the most absolute democratic and republican theories. It was this tendency which had aroused its most dangerous adversaries. Persecuted by the government of the mother-country, and disgusted by the habits of a society opposed to the rigour of their own principles, the puritans went forth to seek some rude and unfrequented part of the world, where they could live according to their own opinions, and worship God in freedom. . . . 

“In England the stronghold of puritanism was in the middle classes, and it was from the middle classes that the majority of the emigrants came. The population of New England increased rapidly; and while the hierarchy of rank despotically classed the inhabitants of the mother-country, the colony continued to present the novel spectacle of a community homogeneous in all its parts. A democracy, more perfect than any which antiquity had dreamed of, started in full size and panoply from the midst of an ancient feudal society. . . . 

“The remarks I have made will suffice to display the character Anglo-American civilization in its true light. It is the result (and this should be constantly present to the mind) of two distinct elements, which in other places have been in frequent hostility, but which in America have been admirably incorporated and combined with one another. I allude to the spirit of religion and the spirit of liberty. 

“The settlers of New England were at the same time ardent sectarians and daring innovators. Narrow as the limits of some of their religious opinions were, they were entirely free from political prejudices. 

“Hence arose two tendencies, distinct but not opposite, which are constantly discernible in the manners as well as in the laws of the country. 

“It might be imagined that men who sacrificed their friends, their family, and their native land, to a religious conviction, were absorbed in the pursuit of the intellectual advantages which they purchased at so dear a rate. The energy, however, with which they strove for the acquirements of wealth, moral enjoyment, and the comforts as well as the liberties of the world, was scarcely inferior to that with which they devoted themselves to Heaven. . . . 

“These two tendencies, apparently so discrepant, are far from conflicting; they advance together, and mutually support each other. 

“Religion perceives that civil liberty affords a noble exercise to the faculties of man, and that the political world is a field prepared by the Creator for the efforts of the intelligence. Contented with the freedom and the power which it enjoys in its own sphere, and with the place which it occupies, the empire of religion is never more surely established than when it reigns in the hearts of men unsupported by aught beside its native strength. 

“Religion is no less the companion of liberty in all its battles and its triumphs; the cradle of its infancy, and the divine source of its claims. The safeguard of morality is religion, and morality is the best security of law as well as the surest pledge of freedom” (Alexis de Tocqueville, Democracy in America, Vol. 1, 27-29, 31-32, 35, 42-44). 

There are some profound ideas acknowledged here. First, we note that the thing that unified the early settlers to America was their belief in God and devotion to His laws, as they interpreted them. Second, we see that the political laws they enacted were designed to accord with scripture and the Gospel of Jesus Christ. These two loyalties were key. One may add that families were crucial. Thus, we have the trio of values that I have personally sworn to defend – Faith, Families, and Freedom. 

Alexis de Tocqueville noted that it was the settlers’ principles and beliefs, not their country of origin, skin color, or physical location that bound them together with ties of unity and strength. He noted a shared language also as being of great value, and surely it is. However, even linguistic ties are not as powerful as ideological ones. 

Now, and forever, those societies that bind themselves together with their principles – especially if those principles are correct and point their souls to Jesus Christ and to human Freedom – will prosper, while those that form themselves upon other principles – whether race, skin color, or anything else – will eventually fail. America is failing precisely because we have allowed other factors to define us and nudge us toward class warfare – race, LGBT identities, economic status, etc. 

When will my countrymen wake up to the awful reality that their sorrows have been deliberately caused by them following Marxists in sheep’s clothing who stoke conflict, create contention, emphasize differences rather than similarities, sew division and discord, and who salivate over the idea of a new American civil war with brother against brother, father against son, and neighbor against neighbor. 

That is exactly where this is all heading – to the breakdown of the United States as a unified “nation under God” and guided by His laws and an inspired charter of Liberty. These calamities are on our doorstep. Prepare your family to whether the storm with their faith in Christ Jesus who will deliver a righteous remnant. 

A righteous remnant is one that looks at first principles, cherishes truth, defends human Freedom, stands firm in the Gospel of Jesus Christ, and welcomes all of any race, nation, and background who wish to join our ranks. The bickering divisiveness, partisanism, and sectional strife must end. 

Am I preaching peace at all costs? Of course not! Far from it. That would entail capitulating to the enemy, accepting that which is evil, and shaking hands with the Devil. There is no compromise with sin and wrong principles; disciples of Christ must stand uncompromisingly for the Lord’s truth and be a witness for Him at all times, in all things, and in all places. That is precisely why I reject those with whom I otherwise nearly completely agree but who make race their guiding issue and who refuse to acknowledge the importance of principles over people, parties, and partisanship. 

Let me illustrate the stupidity of looking solely at skin color, ancestry, or national origin, as if one’s skin color, family tree, or place of birth gives them merit or worth in the eyes of God or any rational human being. My wife is a beautiful, brown-skinned Latina from the nation of Panama. Were you to judge her purely on her skin color, you would classify her as “other,” as an “outsider,” or as “foreign.” 

Interestingly, most of her ancestors were not Panamanian or Latin. Rather, they were Europeans from France and Spain. They migrated to Panama to help build the Panama Canal barely more than a century ago. Yet, if the identarians (with whom I agree far more than not) have their way, my wife, whose blood is as European as mine, would be rejected. Yet, she stands for more American values – like closing the border to illegal immigrants, prohibiting LGBT maniacs from entering our schools, mandating the death penalty for pedophiles and rapists, rejecting feminism, safeguarding the home, and worshiping Christ – than many white, native-born “Americans.” 

Can you see how idiotic, superficial, and unintelligent it is to view people through such a lens as skin color and nationality? Many of the people who promote a race-based ideology are Europeans – Europeans who are utterly oblivious to their own history. Europeans are highly mixed. 

Some Europeans and Americans are of the vaunted “white nationalist” variety. I’ve never condemned so-called “white nationalism” because, as noted, I share the majority of their views and reject the controlled media’s slanderous use of the term. As all sane people are, I’m against forced and unregulated immigration that artificially mixes a society, such as the deliberate browning of the white portion of the world that we see taking place. 

Societies that mix naturally over time have no problems, as formerly was the case in the United States, but ones that throw groups together too fast and without rhyme or reason have severe problems. This is mostly, though, because of the glaring disparity in understanding and culture more than about racial differences. The trend of third world hordes that bring to America socialist tendencies and a mindset of obedience to government (except to the government whose laws they are violating by sneaking into its territory) is an example of forced, artificial, and detrimental mixing. 

Somalis being airlifted and transplanted by the thousands to Minnesota is another unnatural example and strains society. You can’t simply take uneducated people of different backgrounds, different cultural heritages, different educational and economic levels, different religions and morals, and, to top it off, different races, throw them together overnight, and expect peaceful, problem-free coexistence. It doesn’t work, and those who insidiously promote and fund this volatile mixture know it. 

I don’t personally care one iota if my neighbor is from Somalia or Iraq, Australia or Brazil. I don’t care if their skin color is red, yellow, black, brown, or white. I naturally feel an affinity for fellow white people, as people of all races generally feel more comfortable with fellow members of their own race, but this has more to do with the fact that races often share different values and mine are more compatible with other white people’s values. But, if my neighbors are decent and sincere people who want to be in my country, who respect our laws and heritage, and who want to become “American” in principle and loyalty, welcome! 

To those who would obsessively point out skin color, race, or national heritage, I might ask, what about me? My family line – the Strong family – goes back nearly four hundred years on this continent. Our ancestors are from England, Scotland, Switzerland, Germany, and beyond. Intriguingly, I am also related – on both my mother’s and father’s sides – to the Indian princess Pocahontas, as well as to a Cherokee woman. So, what should I be called? English? Scottish? Swiss? Indian? Perhaps it’s best to call me an English Scottish German Swiss Native American. I’ll settle simply for “Native American.” If, after 400 years in this land, my family can’t be called “native,” then who can? 

As you no doubt sense, I’m being somewhat sarcastic, though what I said about my heritage including Indians and people of numerous nationalities is perfectly true. Does me having American Indians in my family tree change a single thing about me, my principles, my beliefs, or my defense of Americanism, America-first principles, the U.S. Constitution, or our unique American heritage? Of course not. Doest the fact that I am literally of the blood of the house of Israel through the tribe of Ephraim, as is my wife, alter anything? Does the fact that I married outside of my own race, though with a fellow Ephraimite, change anything about my values, commitment to Americanism, knowledge of right and wrong, or anything conceivable? No. 

In terms of identity, I only want you to call me three things – a Christian, an Ephraimite, and an American. The rest is fluff. I’m white and very happy to promote our Western civilization’s traditional values and defend its noble institutions, because they have far surpassed those produced by any other races or nations and they are most compatible with the holy scriptures, but what does that matter in the eternal scheme of things? 

I’ve met numerous non-white people who defend these same values and systems with equal fervency. I’ve chatted with people from Chile who are more adept at recognizing communism and opposing it than many white Americans. I’ve met kind and good people – true Christians – from around the world. I’ve met rational, family-oriented, good-hearted men and women from the Middle East and elsewhere who excelled many European-derived people I’ve known. 

When I lived in Russia for two years as a missionary with The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and talked with everyone I could about God and life, I found the Muslims from Central Eurasia to be vastly more polite and willing to talk and listen than the atheists, hedonists, and fake white Orthodox Christians of Russia who are Christians-in-name-only. Though on paper I have more in common with Russians, I have far less in common with them in reality than with many other non-white peoples around the globe. 

It is our principles and morals that should unify us. A statement attributed to Benjamin Franklin states: “Where Liberty dwells, there is my country.” An old Latin phrase similarly states: “Ubi libertas, ibi patria.” Who can honestly disagree? 

I would not have much difficulty leaving the United States and settling elsewhere, even among people who don’t look or sound like I do, if we lacked Freedom and they possessed it. As it is, however, my years abroad have filled me with increasing anticipation for the day I will return to my blessed homeland. I love America. There is no place like her. In our degraded state, we still surpass any nation in the world in terms of our potential, greatness, beauty, resources, constitutionally guaranteed rights, and heritage of Liberty. God has watched over His land of America, it is a promised land, and He will yet rule over her and cleanse us until we are again righteous enough for Him to dwell among us. 

In my article “America Needs Nationalism,” I explained the type of unity that ought to prevail throughout the world: 

“The type of proud nationalism that once dominated the United States was primarily of the ideological type. America was often called an “Empire of Liberty.” This referred to the fact that the principles of Liberty were the glue that held our People together. Our unique Americanist ideology – that of limited government, checks and balances, constitutional republicanism, states rights, individual Liberty, power in the People springing from the ward level on up, free enterprise economics, and so forth – was the rallying point for all who wanted to be Americans. People of all races, religions, and backgrounds were free to join this confederacy of love for law and Liberty. 

“Theoretically, this American brand of nationalistic sentiment could expand beyond borders and encompass all of humanity, binding them together in the love of Freedom. Perhaps a cross-border ideology sounds the opposite of nationalism, but in fact it’s not. Love of law and Liberty would not destroy nations and rope them into a collectivized super state. Rather, it would embolden their inherent nationalist tendencies and make them into free and independent states like the United States. 

“Remember, though we are one People, the United States is a confederacy of sovereign units representing the individuals within them. Each state has its own culture, customs, geography, demographics, and so forth. But each is bound together under the principles set forth in the national Constitution and in their shared heritage of Liberty unsurpassed by any other people on earth. It is this example of ideological nationalism in action – this patriotic love of Liberty that propels a people to sacrifice to “secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity” – that America can offer to the world. 

“. . . I plead with Americans of all races, faiths, and backgrounds to rally around the principles and ideologies that made the United States the greatest nation in world history. The Constitution and its sublime principles should be our standard. We should cling to the laws of God that undergird the Constitution. We must defend our Faith, Families, and Freedom at all costs from the international communist conspiracy. Join with me in rallying around principles and ideas, not parties and individuals.” 

I again plead with people everywhere to humble themselves before Christ the Lord, unite with His Church, embrace His laws and doctrines, hold high the standard of Liberty as embodied in the U.S. Constitution, reject error and evil, discard false beliefs such as race-based ideologies that looks more at outward characteristics rather than on one’s principles, and seek unity with people who stand for Faith, Families, and Freedom regardless of their background, appearance, nationality, or past. 

I echo Teddy Roosevelt’s declaration – there is no room in America for hyphenated Americans. There is zero place for “African” Americans or “Hispanic” Americans or “LGBT” Americans or any of the other divisive identifiers being used today. There are only Americans and non-Americans. There are those loyal to this nation, her heritage, and her Constitution, and traitors. There are those committed to Christ’s Gospel and the universal precepts of right and wrong upon which the laws and institutions of the United States were founded, and those who are not. Those who are not deserve dignity as children of God, but they are not with us. 

This should be our dividing line. We can accept people of all races and nationalities and create an Empire of Liberty, or, if you rather, the Kingdom of God. He is “no respecter of persons” (Acts 10) and neither should we be. Those who join our cause – the cause of Faith, Families, and Freedom – are our allies and friends regardless of whether they come from Sweden or Sudan, Cuba or Canada, Israel or Ireland, Japan or Germany. 

Here, in the United States, seeing ourselves as Americans first is paramount, all other factors notwithstanding. If you come here from another country, or if you are from a minority group, ditch the self-identifier. You are not “African” American, you are simply an American. If you have an allegiance that you feel more strongly matches your beliefs, leave and go there. If you are a Jew (or Chrisitan, for that matter) who loves Israel more than your home soil, vacate this continent and go there to make your home. The same goes for anyone of any race, creed, and persuasion. Put America first or surrender your citizenship; and don’t come here in the first place unless you are willing to abandon your citizenship elsewhere and America as your home.  

We torpedo ourselves when we divide into groups, factions, and tribes. I’m belaboring the point, but it’s crucial. The Founding Fathers talked much about unity. They did not preach “diversity makes us stronger,” because as it is interpreted today, that is not true. Forced “diversity” never strengthened anyone. But an organic admixture of Liberty-loving, moral patriots who want to call this land home does strengthen us. 

I end with a quote from Thomas Paine regarding the American experiment in principle-focused brotherhood. Early America is a model for all other nations who would be free, prosperous, and united. The key is to be united for the right reasons. Paine wrote: 

“The revolution of America presented in politics what was only theory in mechanics. So deeply rooted were all the governments of the old world, and so effectually had the tyranny and the antiquity of habit established itself over the mind, that no beginning could be made in Asia, Africa, or Europe, to reform the political condition of man. Freedom had been hunted round the globe; reason was considered as rebellion; and the slavery of fear had made men afraid to think. . . . 

“. . . The independence of America, considered merely as a separation from England, would have been a matter but of little importance, had it not been accompanied by a revolution in the principles and practice of governments. She made a stand, not for herself only, but for the world, and looked beyond the advantages herself could receive. Even the Hessian, though hired to fight against her, may live to bless his defeat; and England, condemning the viciousness of its government, rejoice in its miscarriage. 

“As America was the only spot in the political world where the principle of universal reformation could begin, so also was it the best in the natural world. An assemblage of circumstances conspired, not only to give birth, but to add gigantic maturity to its principles. The scene which that country presents to the eye of a spectator, has something in it which generates and encourages great ideas. Nature appears to him in magnitude. The mighty objects he beholds, act upon his mind by enlarging it, and he partakes of the greatness he contemplates. — Its first settlers were emigrants from different European nations, and of diversified professions of religion, retiring from the governmental persecutions of the old world, and meeting in the new, not as enemies, but as brothers. The wants which necessarily accompany the cultivation of a wilderness produced among them a state of society, which countries long harassed by the quarrels and intrigues of governments, had neglected to cherish. In such a situation man becomes what he ought. He sees his species, not with the inhuman idea of a natural enemy, but as kindred; and the example shows to the artificial world, that man must go back to Nature for information” (Thomas Paine, The Rights of Man, 13-14). 

Brothers united in principle and gathered around the Liberty tree is what we need to be. Hyphenated Americans, those who promote class warfare and division, and those who see only superficial differences instead of overarching primary truths, have no place in America. As our forebears once told each other, “Join, or Die.” That’s our ultimatum – unite as a People or fall into tribalistic oblivion. 

Zack Strong, 
April 22, 2023