Category: Marxism/Cultural Marxism

Examining Dr. McDurmon and American Vision on Immigration

There simply is no biblical reason to refuse legitimate refugees. The Bible is clear that national borders should be open to all peaceful and law abiding individuals. Further, when we properly understand the meaning of the Bible’s teachings on immigrants, we will understand that to loathe refugees is to loathe ourselves and our own nation.

Dr. Joel McDurmon
American Vision

1.) First we would note that Dr. McDurmon confuses the issue somewhat by conflating the categories of “refugee” and “immigrants.” A refugee is someone who has been forced to flee his or her home country, while an immigrant is someone who chooses to resettle to another country. There is a third category of “asylee” that is part of the conversation. These distinctions are important in this kind of conversation for without them it makes it even more difficult to make progress in the conversation.

2.) Dr. McDurmon makes this assertion in the face of what many have styled as “civilizational Jihad.” The recent deceased  Muammar Gaddafi, noted,

“We have 50 million Muslims in Europe. There are signs that Allah will grant Islam victory in Europe—without swords, without guns, without conquest—will turn it into a Muslim continent within a few decades.”

Consistent with Gaddafi’s observation, authors Sam Solomon and E. Al Maqdisi in their book, “Modern Day Trojan Horse; The Islamic Doctrine of Immigration,” call Muslim immigration to the West a “modern day Trojan Horse.” They go on to note that,“Mohammed himself proclaimed that migration is jihad,” and provides a flourish with. “from the Islamic jurisprudence view the immigration of the Muslims to the West is to be regarded as the most important step on the ladder for achieving the establishment of an Islamic state in the West. This is the primary objective of Islamic Mission in the West.”

Dutch political leader, Geert Wilders again echoes the above sentiments by noting that, “gradual and incremental transformation of our societies and legal systems, or what is termed ‘Isalmisation’ of our democratic societies by the vast growing numbers of Muslim immigrants who are importing Islam into our Western way of life.”

Ann Corcoran in her book, “Refugee Resettlement and the Hijra to America,” writes Hijara means migration and, according to Islam’s doctrine and its quietly acknowledged organizational strategies, the goal of migration, today is not peaceful assimilation to the political system and mores of the host country. Instead, the goal is jihad by non-violent means known as civilizational jihad or Islamization.

Would Dr. McDurmon have us believe that God would be pleased with embracing a immigration pattern, the soul intent of which is squashing what little remains of Biblical Christianity, by a Muslim immigration horde intended to be used as a hammer of submission to obliterate the Christian remnant in the West and all this to the end of the Humanist attempt to establish a New World Order?

3.) Next we would note that Dr. McDurmon is  just wrong in this assertion above, as OT Scholar Dr. James Hoffmeier points out ,

“The very positive statements about the treatment of strangers in the Bible, some of which were already quoted, show compassion for the alien in ancient Israel. The defenders of illegal aliens point to these passages as the rationale for rewriting current laws. The problem is that they make a simplistic correlation between the ancient Israelite social law and the modern situation as if the Bible was addressing the same problem. Three important questions must be raised before one attempts to apply Israelite law to the modern situation: 1) Was there such a thing as territorial sovereignty in the second millennium B.C. when these laws originated; 2) Within that socio-legal setting, what was a “stranger” or “sojourner;” and 3) How does one obtain this status?”

The fact of the matter is that McDurmon has likewise rushed passed these distinctions just as he rushed by the distinctions between “refugee” and “immigrant.” McDurmon completely disregards the distinction between the differing words in the OT translated as differing times as “stranger,” “foreigner,” “alien,” and “sojourner.” This is a significant error and reveals a certain sloppiness on Dr. McDurmon’s part.

In point of fact, as Ehud Would has written, putting the strongest contradiction possible to Dr. McDurmon’s opening quote,

“In biblical law foreign races were permitted to enter the border only under patronage and direct legal oversight of a native. Whether ambassadors, contracted laborers, or slaves, they were forbade from owning land, ascending to any positions of political power, forbidden to marry members of the nation, and weren’t allowed to lend to natives at interest (though natives could do so toward them). Nor could aliens conscript natives to perpetual slavery, but natives could buy chattel slaves so long as they were of other peoples. And any of foreign breed who would not consent to these terms for entry of Israel’s border was regarded a hostile invader and subject to forcible expulsion as in the cases of the mass deportations under Ezra and Nehemiah.”

Dr. James Hoffmeier, unlike Dr. McDurmon in the opening quote, pays close attention to the different OT Hebrew words that are so significant in this discussion, and confirms much of Ehud Would’s observation immediately above,

“The delineation between the “alien” or “stranger” (ger) and the foreigner (nekhar or zar) in biblical law is stark indeed. The ger in Israelite society, for instance, could receive social benefits such as the right to glean in the fields (Leviticus 19:9-10; Deuteronomy 24:19-22) and they could receive resources from the tithes (Deuteronomy 26:12-13). In legal matters, “there shall be one statute for you and for the stranger who sojourns with you, a statute forever throughout your generations. You and the sojourner shall be alike before the LORD. One law and one rule shall be for you and for the stranger who sojourns with you” (Numbers 15:15-16). In the area of employment, the ger and citizen were to be paid alike (Deuteronomy 24:14-15). In all these cases, no such provision is extended to the nekhar or zar. In a sense, the gerwere not just aliens to whom social and legal protections were offered, but were also considered converts, and thus could participate in the religious life of the community, e.g. celebrate Passover (Exodus 12:13) and observe Yom Kippur, the day of atonement (Leviticus 16:29-30). They were, moreover, expected to keep dietary and holiness laws (Leviticus 17:8-9 & 10-12). It is well known that within Israelite society, money was not to be lent with interest, but one could loan at interest to a foreigner (nekhar). These passages from the Law make plain that aliens or strangers received all the benefits and protection of a citizen, whereas the foreigner (nekhar) did not. It is wrong, therefore, to confuse these two categories of foreigners and then to use passages regarding the ger as if they were relevant to illegal immigrants of today.”

4,) Another problem with Dr. McDurmon’s quote above is that Dr. McDurmon is calling for the State to have charity but as Dr. R. J. Rushdoony notes, “the state has no part in charity; the scripture never says that the state is to administer it. ” Rushdoony, in the same lecture,  “Justice and World Law,” offers about this issue of immigration,  “first of all they [illegal immigrants] have broken the law. And justice to everyone requires that the law be upheld. So if they are illegal aliens they should be deported. Now that’s justice because it’s comparable to breaking and entering into a man’s house.” From this quote we see that Dr. Rushdoony also disagrees with Dr. McDurmon’s opening quote.

In conclusion it is interesting that seemingly all of Institutional Christendom is insisting that civilizational Jihad must be embraced, and that the West must embrace its death by commandment of God. Whether it is the long acknowledged Left like the “Sojourners” organization or whether it is the Cultural Marxist Churches, or whether it is organizations like Lutheran World Relief or Catholic Relief Services or any number of other Denominational organizations what Christian laity are almost universally being told is that that if they don’t support the dissolution of themselves in their undoubted catholic Christian faith and as a people and  they don’t love Jesus and are guilty of Racism. This call to accept civilizational jihad now even comes from those organizations that heretofore were considered “conservative” such as American Vision.

Christians need to be assured that they can oppose immigration and still be considered Christ honoring. Opposition to the kind of immigration that is being foisted upon the West today can happen in the context of obeying the 1st commandment, the 5th commandment, and the 8th commandment. Opposition to the kind of immigration that is being foisted upon us today can be embraced on the basis of the admonition of the necessity to provide for one’s own household.  Opposition to the kind of immigration that is being foisted upon us today can be embraced on the basis of the same kind of love for our people that we find St. Paul expressing in Romans 9:3. In point of fact, I would insist that opposing the kind of immigration that is being foisted on the West today is the duty of every Christ loving Christian.

“

Theopolis Institute’s Terrible Article On Immigration

First, we should clarify that there is not the slightest shred of biblical justification for any government to legislate against the free movement of law-abiding citizens from one country to another. There should be no laws against immigration.

Rev. Steve Jeffery
Federal Visionist UK Pastor
Federal Visionist Theopolis Institute

Now think about this for just a second.

If the above were true why would it not similarly be true that there is not the slightest shred of biblical justification for any government to legislate against the free movement of law-abiding citizens from one family’s property to another family’s property? After all, all nations are are extended families.

Unrestricted immigration is a violation of the 8th commandment since the kind of movement required in untrammeled immigration means the disregarding of the ownership of property. The fact that the State claims ownership of all property is the only thing that keeps untrammeled immigration from being clearly seen as theft. Because we think that, since the State owns everything ,the State, as owner of everything, has the place to open up borders in order to give to the alien and stranger what belongs to the home born. In order for Rev. Jeffrey to make this claim he must first assume the State is owner of everything and so can make laws that allow the placement of the alien and stranger above the home born.

Remember that Rev. Jeffery said above that there is not the slightest shred of biblical justification for any government to legislate against the free movement of law-abiding citizens from one country to another. I have already given more than a shred by invoking the 8th commandment.

Another fact that shreds Rev. Jeffery’s “not a shred” argument is the 6th commandment which requires us to not only “not murder,” but also that,

“I am not to dishonour, hate, injure, or kill my neighbour by thoughts, words, or gestures, and much less by deeds, whether personally or through another … ”

And yet the kind of immigration that Rev. Jeffrey is calling for is a case of dishonoring, hating and injuring our own family and neighbors by supporting a policy that will create a permanent economic underclass. The kind of policy that Rev. Jeffrey is calling for will result in eliminating the middle class while creating a have vs. have not social order. The support for this statement can be found in Harvard Economist George Borjas analysis in this article,

http://cis.org/node/4573

Rev. Jeffrey and the Theopolis institute are confusing sojourning with integration. Biblical sojourning was segregated. This handy chart reveals that there were different categories for non resident and that the non resident remained distinct from the resident member of the Nation.

http://www.biblestudytools.com/encyclopedias/isbe/stranger-and-sojourner-in-the-old-testament.html

These Old Testament distinctions are completely disregarded by Rev. Jeffrey and the Theopolis Institute. This is a ham-handed handling of Scripture on the part of Rev. Jeffrey and the Theopolis Institute and makes for a distinct misrepresentation of truth and reality.

 
This whole line of thinking would be news to Moses who asked permission for Israel to merely pass through Edom. And when permission was denied, he offered to pay a toll. After that was denied, Israel went round Edom. Moses never insinuated that Israel had a right to pass through on the grounds that “the free movement of law-abiding citizens from one country to another” may not be impeded.
 
This is Libertarian make believe without a shred of justification from Scripture.

Midland Apologetics

If you’d like to see Jeff’s end of the conversation cut and paste the below link and go to comments.

http://www.ourmidland.com/blogs/truth-and-meaning-i-am-racist/article_9d2c6626-4db1-11e5-b016-1392ceb74318.html

Jeff Liebmann

In a package that is given to teachers by the Toronto District School Board called “Teaching about Human Rights: 9/11 and Beyond,” it states that “While people in different contexts can experience prejudice or discrimination, racism, in a North American context, is based on an ideology of the superiority of the white race over other racial groups.”

Only two groups would ever admit to such beliefs: white supremacists and disciples of Foucault. The difference is that the one group adopts it sadistically, to oppress and punish their inferiors; the other does so masochistically, to oppress and punish themselves. The primary thrust of the TDSB’s policy is a symptom of a new religion which seeks to propitiate cultural guilt. It constitutes a new form of atonement, a social constructivist scapegoat.

Jeff, you are a high priest in that new religion.

Bret

_____________

Jeff Liebmann

1.) Where does the bible teach that dark skinned people are the offspring of Cain? Chapter and verse please.

2.) Institutional racism is a myth. The embrace of such an idea only proves your white guilt and self loathing. Your desire to “level the playing field,” is an attempt for you, in a masochistic hue, to provide your own false propitiation for your false guilt.

3.) White privilege is what you’d expect to find in a white country. Who goes to Japan or China and complains about Yellow privilege? Who goes to Africa and complains about Black privilege? If I were to visit your home I would not be upset with you in the least if you practiced Liebmann privilege. Indeed, throughout my life I have unabashedly shown McAtee privilege in my home. For example, I bought my children clothes and not all the other children on the block. I bough my children books and not all the other children in the city. I took my children on vacation with me and not all the other children in the state.

This whole notion of “White Privilege,” is inculcated to create false guilt while turning white people into Masochist seeking to atone for their false guilt by a false propitiation.

The idea that we practice White privilege in this country has seen the lie put to it by our affirmative action legislation, by our electing a black President, by electing Indian governors in two Southern states, etc. etc. etc.

But your self loathing and guilt will never be satisfied.

Jeff, the only thing that can answer your false guilt is the work of Jesus Christ for sinners such as you and I. Christ died on the cross to turn away the Father’s just wrath against those who would claim His prerogatives. The death of Christ was a taking away of the true guilt of those who would give up their false guilt. The death of Christ alone can answer your masochistic tendencies to destroy yourself and so many others. God commands you to repent Jeff of this theology that would pull God off His throne in favor of your own imaginings.

I’m just one beggar trying to tell you as another beggar where to find bread Jeff.

____________________

Jeff Liebmann

1.) You said the Scriptures taught that dark skinned people were the offspring of Cain. I asked for chapter and verse. You then demonstrate that there is no chapter and verse. Therefore I conclude that you were wrong when you stated that the Bible teaches that dark skinned people were the offspring of Cain. That people read into the Scripture something that was not there does not prove the Scriptures teach such a thing. Interesting that you are making the same kind of error that those folks made by misrepresenting the facts.

2.) My second point is only argumentative in the sense that your moral sense about “common decency” is uncommonly immoral. Your solution for what you perceive to be the problem of white privilege is not to lift minorities up but rather to pull white people down so that all people are equally miserable. Your advocacy of “white privilege” and “institutional racism” fills people, who are not yet successful, with a real envy based on false facts. This is why I insist that your moral sense of “common decency” is uncommonly immoral. Instead of advocating a position that would inspire people to achieve, you come with a message of grievance, jealousy, and envy. All of which has the effect, not to lift people up, but rather to pull people down. This is altogether unseemly of you and does not befit a man of the cloth.

3.) Your linked article merely tells me what white privilege is according to the Marxist worldview in which you share. It tells me nothing about truth. As the previous paragraph, its only intent is to either fill people with false guilt, or to create in them a canker eating envy. In both cases you are doing the devil’s work Jeff.

And yet despite all this I’ve laid out you want to characterize your position as acceptance and openness? You splay your intolerance all over your writings and then have the chutzpah to characterized that as “reason and discernment.” You enjoin people unto false guilt, self loathing, jealousy and envy and then you talk about how you serve a god who ‘loves all people for their gifts just as they are.’

I’m more then willing to let the reader decide who is ranting and who is merely giviing the facts.

Shalom,

 

Alienism & Christianity

Breathes there the man, with soul so dead,
Who never to himself hath said,
This is my own, my native land!
Whose heart hath ne’er within him burn’d,
As home his footsteps he hath turn’d,
From wandering on a foreign strand!
If such there breathe, go, mark him well;
For him no Minstrel raptures swell;
High though his titles, proud his name,
Boundless his wealth as wish can claim;
Despite those titles, power, and pelf,
The wretch, concentred all in self,
Living, shall forfeit fair renown,
And, doubly dying, shall go down
To the vile dust, from whence he sprung,
Unwept, unhonour’d, and unsung.

– Sir Walter Scott

Civility is a kind of relation that recognizes the moral priority of more intimate relations. We don’t owe fellow citizens the same sort of obligations we owe family, friends, and co-religionists. Civic relations respect this order of duties and affections, as when a wife is excused from testifying against her husband. (Nomocratic rule supports this moral priority). But in teleocratic regimes, everything may be collapsed into political membership, and children may be ordered to inform on their parents, or taken away from parents who subvert their loyalty to the state, as by teaching them religion…. 

What is plain, at any rate, is that Alienism is far from a marginal force. It offers malcontents of all sorts an ideology or gnosis that enables them to interpret normal life maliciously as a crude though somewhat disguised struggle between oppressors and victims. If the oppression isn’t obvious, that is because the oppressors are so cunning and their victims so totally subjugated that even their perceptual powers are in thrall. Acquiring the liberating gnosis is called “consciousness-raising.” The process enables the initiate to strip off the mask of oppressive structures and see capitalism as exploitation, freedom as “repressive tolerance,” and prosperity as “invisible poverty.”
 
Joe Sobran
Pensees
 

When Christianity embraces Alienism the result is that God favors eliminating the natural priority of family in favor of prioritizing the stranger and the alien so that the stranger and alien, in essence, are now the benefactors of the priority that was once bent towards family. Alienism, run amok, thus prefers the alien and the stranger above and over members of one’s own household. When Christianity embraces Alienism the result is that the proverb “Charity begins at home,” is seen as demonically sourced. When Christianity embraces Alienism the result is the owning of the sulfur doctrines of the “Fatherhood of God of all men,” and the “Brotherhood of men with all men,” with the consequence that the  Universal affection those doctrine require stamp out all the particular affections of family, people, and nation.  Christianity, does indeed teach the necessity of the Universal when it teaches to, “do good to all men,” but not without adding, “especially to those who are of the household of faith,” thus demonstrating that the Particular still remains. Christianity insists upon the Particular when it teaches, “But if anyone does not provide for his relatives, and especially for members of his household, he has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever,” and this without denying the noble character of the Good Samaritan.

Alienism is the faith of the Unitarian. It believes in and actively seeks to build a world where “all colors bleed into one,” so that mankind is as undifferentiated as the Unitarian God it serves. Alienism is the faith that hates all God ordained distinctions in favor of an equality of the garbage scow where distinctions likewise are non-existent. Alienism denies the God ordained distinctions of mankind just as Unitarianism denies the Trinitarian distinctions in the Godhead. As the Alienist worships a Unitarian God, mankind must be made in that god’s Unitarian image.  As such, distinctions melt away in the name of equality (sameness) as equality is pursued in the name of practical Unitarianism.  Women are men. Children are purple penguins. Marriage is distinction-less. Bathrooms are gender-less. Ethnicity is a social construct. Pronouns must become gender neutral. All roads lead to god. Why can’t you “Co-exist”?

Alienism, as it comes into the Christian faith, trades in the Revolutionary language of “Citizen,” or “Comrade,” — that language that flattens out all distinctions in favor of a grand oneness —  for the Anabaptist “Brother,” which does the same thing but with a Christian patina. Alienism, as it comes into the Christian faith, posits a eschatological vision of a Unitarian border-less world where, because Jesus has triumphed, therefore the particularity of Nations cease to exist. Where such a eschatological vision exists any pointing to passages in the Scriptures that speak about Nations remaining in the New Jerusalem is shouted down as “heresy,” and “hateful.”

Alienism will settle for nothing less than the complete inversion of orthodox Christianity.  According to Alienism it is a positive good when thy sons and thy daughters shall be given unto another people, and thine eyes shall look, and fail with longing for them all the day long; and there shall be no might in thine hand. According to Alienism it is a sure sign of Christian maturity when,  the stranger that is within thee shall get up above thee very high; and thou shalt come down very low.  He shall lend to thee, and thou shalt not lend to him: he shall be the head, and thou shalt be the tail.  This is all acceptable to Christian Alienism just as long as we so reduce the meaning of Christianity so that everyone can be considered Christian. The definitional distinctions that a robust Christianity demands are as offensive as every other distinction to the Christian Alienist. In such a way the rank and file Christian can be brow beat about his insensitivity and lack of love for Jesus if he even begins to object to the Alienist vision and worldview.

Usually, Christian Alienism, is not quite as cutting edge as “secular” Alienism. For some reason Christians think that they honor Jesus if they stay 10-15 years off the cutting edge. Because this is so Christian Alienists will allow for Homosexual Christians as long as those Homosexual Christians are not practicing Homosexual Christians. “See,” thinks the Alienist Christian, “we are sensitive to the need to blur distinctions also.” Alienist Christians can be found who will even speak about their “Brother Muslims.” Alienist Christians prove their mettle most obviously when they insist that Jesus is especially pleased when the worship of the WASP  takes place in multicultural settings. This despite the fact that these same people take great pleasure in the existence of uniquely Korean congregations in their denominations.

In the end, Alienism as Christianity, is just another disguised version of the Marxist vision to eliminate all distinctions.
The aim of socialism is not only to abolish the present division of mankind into small states and end all national isolation; not only to bring the nations closer together, but to merge them….”

Vladimir Lenin
The Rights of Nations to Self Determination — pg. 76

“Princes and nations will disappear without violence from the earth, the human race will become one family and the world the abode of reasonable men.”

-Adam Weishaupt, quoted in Paul Johnson, Intellectuals (London: Orion Books Limited, 1993), p. 32.

Capitalism developed the ever more inhuman polarization of the sexes. The cult of making distinctions, which serves only for oppression, is now being swept away by awareness of resemblance and identity.

M. Walser
Uber die neusten Stimmungen im Westen
In: Kursbuch, Bd. 20, 1970, S. 19-41.

”What will be the attitude of communism to existing nationalities?

The nationalities of the peoples associating themselves in accordance with the principle of community will be compelled to mingle with each other as a result of this association and hereby to dissolve themselves, just as the various estate and class distinctions must disappear through the abolition of their basis, private property.”

~ Frederick Engels in “The Principles of Communism”, 1847

“The equality of races and nations is one of the most important elements of the moral strength and might of the Soviet state. Soviet anthropology develops the one correct concept, that all the races of mankind are biologically equal. The genuinely materialist conception of the origin of man and of races serves the struggle against racism, against all idealist, mystic conceptions of man, his past, present and future.”

—Mikhail Nesturkh, Soviet anthropologist, 1959
“The Origin of Man” (Moscow)Mikhail Nesturkh, Soviet anthropologist, 1959

Alienism is very likely the greatest threat to orthodox Christianity today and so of course the Church has embraced it.

 

 

 

Robert Conquest … He Was Right You Effing Marxists

The historian of Stalin’s “Great Terror,” and “Harvest of Sorrow,” and a poet, Robert Conquest passed away 03 August at the age of 98. Somehow this slipped my notice until now. Conquest was one of those authors that I was required to read in my Undergraduate education and along with Dr. Fred Schwarz and Alexander Solzhenitsyn, I was rooted in my continued interest in and resistance to all ideologies tainted with Marxism. Conquest was part of a handful of authors (Swarz, Gareth Jones, Malcolm Muggeridge) who had pointed out the bloodletting of the Marxist regime. He was not taken seriously until Alexander Solzhenitsyn confirmed Conquests’s conclusions. Conquest had limericked the genocide of Lenin and Stalin,

There was a great Marxist called Lenin
Who did two or three million men in.
That’s a lot to have done in,
But where he did one in
That grand Marxist Stalin did ten in.

Conquest lived to see his disputed work and figures vindicated with the fall of the Soviet Union. After the opening up of the Soviet archives in 1991, detailed information was released that supported Conquest’s earliest conclusions that had been disputed by the Establishment Commie lovers in the West. When Conquest’s publisher asked him to expand and revise “The Great Terror,” after the opening of the Soviet Archives, Conquest is famously said to have suggested the new version of the book be titled, “I Told You So, You Fucking Fools.” Actually, this quote comes from one of Conquest’s friends (Kingsley Amis) and not Conquest himself.

Interestingly enough the NY Times in its obituary for Conquest had this to say about the proposed title,

In a moment of gleeful malice, Mr. Conquest told friends that his suggested title for the new edition was “I Told You So, You Fools” (with a vulgar adjective inserted between the last two words).

First, note that the NYT (the “Paper of record”) couldn’t even investigate far enough to realize that Conquest did not say what it accuses him of saying. Secondly, the NY Times does not manage to mention its continued malice that refuses to return the Pulitzer won by its journalist, Walter Duranty, who knowingly lied about and covered up the genocide in the Soviet Union that Conquest would later investigate. The New York Times finds it necessary to mention Conquest’s putative “gleeful malice,” without mentioning its complicit role of malice in the genocide of millions of people. The Times thus continues its jaded and irresponsible lying journalism.

Isegoria lists these as Conquest’s three laws of politics:

1.) Everyone is conservative about what he knows best.

2.) Any organization not explicitly right-wing sooner or later becomes left-wing.

3.) The simplest way to explain the behavior of any bureaucratic organization is to assume that it is controlled by a cabal of its enemies.

I’ve read a good deal of Conquest and thought this passing of one of the few who didn’t sleep was worth noting. On this matter Conquest was a giant of the 20th century.