Recently, a social media site found former Communist and Bulgarian Bojidar Marinov commenting on a Dr. Joel McDurmon thread. He is addressing a learned and mature Christian with whom he disagrees on the issue of immigration. I place it here in order to demonstrate Mr. Marinov’s dissembling and exaggeration techniques. I place the quote first followed by analysis.
Mr. Marinov wrote,
“Your pathetic attempts at sarcasm show you are out of arguments. Like I said, I don’t care for Sowell, Woods, or Hoppe; their thinking is not Biblical and therefore is schizophrenic and inconsistent where moral issues are involved. And like I said, Woods is not even following von Mises’s methodological individualism in his essay but speaks as a collectivist. And like I said, Rushdoony didn’t mention any immigration restrictions in the Law of God, and what he criticized was not free movement of individuals but forced movement by the state. If you have to say anything on my arguments, do it. If you are just going to babble in desperation, hoping to prove something about yourself, you are only exposing yourself in a not very favorable light. Thomas Jefferson couldn’t give the Barbary pirates work permits because “work permits” didn’t exist then as a policy of the Federal government. Unlike you, these men had at least some Biblical worldview, and they were not so eager to accept tyranny as you are.”
Mr. Marinov has a bad habit of exaggeration, pejorative, and creative dissembling. In this brief quote we see this in the following,
1.) Earlier Marinov complained about certain people that his target was quoting as not being Christians and yet here he seems to see the non-Christian Ludwig Von Mises as an authority to be cited. Note a few of the quotes from the Von Mises that Marinov takes as some kind of authority. I post these quotes here because Christians like Marinov are redefining Christianity in the direction of Misean Christianity with its “von Mises-ian methodological individualism. In point of fact it is my conviction that the whole institutionally organized Theonomy and Reconstruction movement has been co-opted by Misean Libertarianism. Below is some of what Mises thought of Christianity.
Mises says that the gospel of Jesus was
‘utterly negative.’ “He [Jesus] rejects everything that exists without offering anything to replace it. He arrives at dissolving all existing social ties. The disciple shall not merely be indifferent to supporting himself, shall not merely refrain from work and dispossess himself of all goods, but he shall hate ‘father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life’ . . . His zeal in destroying social ties knows no limits. The motive force behind the purity and power of this complete negation is ecstatic inspiration, enthusiastic hope of a new world. Hence his passionate attack upon everything that exists. Everything must be destroyed because God in His omnipotence will rebuild the future order . . . The clearest modern parallel to the attitude of complete negation of primitive Christianity is Bolshevism. The Bolshevists, too, wish to destroy everything that exists because they regard it as hopelessly bad. But they have in mind ideas, indefinite and contradictory though they may be, of the future social order. They demand not only that their followers shall destroy all that is, but also that they pursue a definite line of conduct leading towards the future Kingdom of which they have dreamt. Jesus’ teaching in this respect, on the other hand, is mere negation.”
Theonomic Christians must start asking themselves if they want to rely on sources like institutional Theonomic-Reconstruction organizations given the fact that these organization are increasingly selling out Reconstruction thought to Libertarianism.
As Mises saw it, since Jesus simply repudiated all values of this life. Mises again on Christianity,
“His (Jesus) teachings had no moral applications to life on earth.” In another place he said: “Jesus offers no rules for earthly action and struggle; his Kingdom is not of this world. Such rules of conduct as he gives his followers are valid only for the short interval of time which has still to be lived while waiting for the great things to come.”
Marinov’s Libertarianism, with its “Methodological individualism” is throwing off the heritage of R. J. Rushdoony. Rushdoony, embraced Libertarianism in light of Theonomy but todays putative followers of Rushdoony are embracing theonomy in light of Libertarianism.
2.) Marinov fails to realize that current immigration patterns are indeed being, “forced by the state.”
Mr. Marinov doesn’t seem to realize that our current immigration patterns, and so problems, have been NWO policy for some time.
This book spends a little time telling that story,
The Humanist Governments of the West have, since WW II, been implementing policy that is designed to remake the West into a non Christian reality. Mr. Marinov is just wrong to suggest that our immigration problems are not the cause of Western Christ hating governments.
3.) Mr. Marinov notes that “Jefferson didn’t give work permits because they didn’t exist.” Marinov almost seems to suggest that if work permits had existed circa 1800 Jefferson might well have given the Barbary Pirates work permits instead of canon fire.
4.) Jefferson — the man who excised all of the miraculous accounts from the famous “Jefferson Bible” — is thought by Mr. Marinov to have had more of a Biblical Worldview then the learned and Christian man he is targeting with verbal explosions.
5.) Elsewhere Mr. Marinov, in the same dialog, wrote,
“For all your quoting of Rushdoony, you should have been aware that Rushdoony specifically separates between those two in his commentary on the naturalization laws of Deuteronomy, and specifically adds: “These are NOT immigration laws.” Another testimony that you either can’t read, or you read selectively and dishonestly.”
“Rushdoony was emphatic that the Law of God doesn’t contain immigration restrictions and therefore the civil government is not allowed to impose such restrictions.”
This is a rather bold claim by Mr. Marinov, and as it turns out, consistent with Mr. Marinov’s debating technique is also a patently dishonest claim as can be seen by what Rushdoony wrote on Dt. 23.
“Immigration laws protect a nation by state discrimination, which can be good or bad, whereas these laws established the discrimination on a family level.”
So, we see that as Rushdoony interpreted Deut 23, those specific laws mentioned concerned the family and NOT national immigration policy. Notice also what Rushdoony says, “Immigration laws are for the protection of a nation” and they can be “good or bad.” We see then that Marinov was in error in his report.
6.) More errant commentary by Mr. Marinov on Immigration
“The US Constitution doesn’t allow the Federal government to control immigration.”
Yet the Constitution disagrees with Mr. Marinov’s “wisdom.”
Article 1, Section 8: “The Congress shall have Power … to provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions; … to make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers.”
Article 1, Section 9: “The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight.”
The implication clearly here is that Congress *could* prohibit the migration of said persons after 1808, which it of course did.
Also this from Constitutional scholar William Rawle,
“If war should break out between the United States and the country of which the alien resident among us is a citizen or subject, he becomes on general principles an alien enemy, and is liable to be sent out of the country at the pleasure of the general government, or laid under reasonable restraints within it, and in these respects no state can interfere to protect him.”
—William Rawle, “A View of the Constitution,” Chapter 9
Mr. Marinov repeatedly has revealed himself as a person whose declarative statements of “fact,” and whose citation of sources needs to be carefully checked.