Category: Ethnic considerations

McAtee Takes On The Editor of the Babylon Bee

“Unpopular take: mass immigration could save this country. They are hard-working mostly Christian/Catholic people coming in. The Democrats want to immediately hook them on welfare and turn them into a permanent underclass voting bloc. We could prevent that by assimilating them.

It’s a fact that first-generation Americans are more hard-working, more appreciative of America’s blessings, and more likely to have traditional families. The democrats want to bring these people in, keep them poor, and destroy their culture, just like they did to black Americans.

They’re doing that anyway right now. Maybe it’s time for Conservatives to start thinking about a realistic plan for amnesty, assimilation, and welcoming these folks as American citizens before the Democrats can destroy these people.

These people coming in are culturally conservative. Who knows–they just might save our culture.”

Joel Berry
The Babylon Bee — Managing editor

Now, before we dissect this we have to keep in mind that “The Babylon Bee” is a publication dedicated to satire. As such it may be that Joel was being satirical here on his twitter account. If he was he outdid himself in terms of the use of sarcasm’s caustic wit in the service of attacking and exposing human foolishness. The fact that anybody could seriously believe the above quote might be the epitome of human foolishness.

However, we are going to treat this vapid and jejune quote as Joel being serious. In doing so, we would say that the first thing this torpid sentiment establishes is that conservatism is dead. Berry and the Babylon Bee sells itself as a conservative publication but this tidbit of wisdom (that’s satire) proves that conservatives means only slightly less liberal and even sometimes slightly more liberal. When someone tells me “I am conservative” my response any more is, “I am sorry to hear that. There are remedies for that you know.” We are far from the conservatism of Burke or de Maistre or even the later conservatism of Hamilton Fish III, John T. Flynn, or Lindbergh. Indeed being genuinely conservative today is like being a genuine unicorn. So, again, I would say Berry’s quote is one more piece of evidence that claiming to be conservative today means only that if Walter Mondale were running for President today the modern conservative would vote for him. Berry is conservative the way that Stalin was a moderate.

In terms of the text itself, first, Berry offers that he is going to give a “unpopular take.” Unpopular take? Is that why we are gathering record numbers of “undocumented workers” at the border? Is it because immigrants are unpopular that some put the number of illegals here at 30 million? Is Berry’s view being unpopular seen by the disappearance of any notion of border? Is Berry’s view being unpopular seen by the constant idiot cant coming from pulpits across America on the virtues of untrammeled immigration? Saying that his view is unpopular is like a teenager saying that the Homecoming Queen is hated by everybody.

Next Berry offers that “mass immigration could save this country.” I can only offer that if mass immigration saves this country then the country that is saved is not the one that needed saving before the mass immigration began. Is Berry thinking that the third world immigration is going to save us the same way the immigration of the Goths, Visigoths, and Ostrogoths saved Rome? This is just ignorance on stilts. If the immigrants had the capacity to save this country would they not have been the grist by which the countries they are fleeing from would have been saved? Their home countries they could not save but America the can save?

Next the genius from the “Bee” writes of this immigrant horde descending upon us that, “they are hard-working mostly Christian/Catholic people coming in.” I would encourage Mr. Berry to read Ann Coulter’s “Adios America” for another opinion on this matter. Secondly, how can Mr. Berry possibly know this? Do he take a poll of the people coming in? Did he talk to the MS-13 gang members slipping in? Thirdly, since when did Protestants (Mr. Berry is Baptist) equate Roman Catholic with being Christian?  Fourthly, I can’t help but wonder if Mr. Berry has even examined Central American Christianity/Catholicism, mixed as it typically is with syncretism and expressive more often than not of some form of Liberation Theology? Now, this might not be a problem since America is no longer a Christian nation in any significant sense. I would go so far as to say that if these immigrants were indeed Christian or even faithful Catholics that there is no way in Hades that our elite would be allowing them to pour in like water through ever possible crevice. Mr. Berry perhaps reaches the very apex of his ignorance with this sentiment.

Berry actually gets it right with his next pearl of wisdom. The Democrats do want the immigrants in, in order to hook them on welfare so as to be a permanent underclass. However, Berry (who I would guess is Republican) fails to tell us is that Republicans also desire the immigrants to pour in, so that there is a ready pool of cheap labor to work in Mega-Corporate organizations. Also, were these people as hard-working as Mr. Berry asserted would not these hard-working people eschew welfare? Secondly, on this score, does Mr. Berry recognize that all these immigrants he wants to allow in are already ripping asunder the welfare safety net? There will be no welfare to get hooked on should the immigrants keep coming. Actually, that might be good news because once the hammock is torn asunder the immigration will cease.

The last phrase of Berry’s first paragraph above is perhaps the grandest knee-slapper of them all. Berry proposes assimilating these foreigners, strangers, and aliens. Has Berry never heard of Putnam’s “Bowling Alone?” Putnam decidedly demonstrates that foreigners don’t assimilate but instead when people of different ethnicities are thrown, cheek by jowl, next to each other the result is balkanization and a refusal to interact. There will be very little assimilating and what assimilation that happens will result in heartache for both cultures/ethnicities that end up assimilating.

Under the banner of conservatism, Berry has proposed every New World Order aficionado’s  wet dream. Keep in mind that the cry of “assimilation” is merely the cry for the white man being replaced. Berry’s conservatism is in support of the replacement theory which intends to breed the white man into numerical diminution.

In the second paragraph of the quote above, Berry presses on to reveal his abject stupidity. Berry talks about “it’s a fact.” How does Berry know this? Has Berry investigated the track record of the “South of the Border” influx to determine that immigrants “are more hard-working, more appreciative of America’s blessings, and more likely to have traditional families.” That might have been true once upon a time with earlier European immigrations, but so far as I know there are no statistical analysis of the first generation third worlders that have come since Ronald Reagan’s first amnesty program. Having said this, I quite agree that Americans, generally speaking, do not know what it means to work hard, are not appreciative of America’s blessings, and no longer have traditional families. Indeed, I would even contend that Mr. Berry is an example of that. If the man was more appreciative of America’s blessings he would not be advocating third-worldizing America by means of bringing in the third world to populate America.

Now we turn briefly to Berry’s third paragraph above. Maybe it is time for Mr. Berry to realize that these people have already been destroyed as seen by the countries they are coming from and that the only end for amnesty and assimilation is the destruction of what little is left of traditional America. Now, just to cover myself, I have no doubt that there are third-worlders who could be fine upstanding Americans. However, generally speaking I agree with former President Trump who wondered  why America would want immigrants from “all these shithole countries” and that the U.S. should have more people coming in from places like Norway.

Mark my word, the immigrants will eventually be given amnesty — either in a dejure or the current defacto sense and the result will be the morphing of this country into a “shithole country.” We are already seeing this transformation in our major cities in America. The damage has already set in and the fact that “thought leaders” like Berry can’t see it is the stuff upon with satire feasts.

Kinism and the Disappearance of the Christian God

Once man displaces God, whether in a defacto sense or a dejure sense, man displaces at the same time all things higher than himself as man becomes himself god. The absence of God brings with it the absence of all other higher hierarchies. So, when we see evidence that man is displacing all things higher than himself we know that man has already displaced God as sovereign. The eclipse of God is a leveling event followed by an inevitable move towards egalitarianism.

And here we find the nub of the Kinist’s contention with the modern churchmen. When the Kinist sees man denying the higher than himself thing called race, the higher than himself thing called distinctly Western culture and civilization, the higher thing than himself called our patrimony, the higher thing than himself called nation, we as Kinists see behind all of that that a prior denial of God Himself since the denial of all things higher like race, culture, patrimony and nation is but the consequent of or anticipation of the denial of God Himself.

Similarly, when God as the transcendent other is denied or eclipsed or suppressed the category of “transcendent” doesn’t go away. Instead what fills the category of “transcendent” is some immanent transcendent that partakes of the “otherness” that fallen man has denied or suppressed by denying or suppressing the reality of God. The most common candidate for us today in finding a immanent transcendent that partakes of the quality of “otherness” is alien races, cultures, and faiths. This explains multiculturalism.

In multiculturalism the otherness of the stranger and the alien is invested with transcendence since modern man in denying or suppressing God no longer has a transcendent transcendence in his life. The other cultures/races/faiths becomes the new immanent transcendent and is worshiped as such. That which previously partook of the transcendent God in terms of race/culture/faith is thus likewise increasingly hated as it reminds us too much of the God that we can’t escape. As such white Western Christian culture and civilization is hated and found wanting at every turn while races/cultures/faiths that are foreign and alien to the God that is denied and suppressed becomes the immanent transcendent other that we desperately need in order to provide the necessary sense of “otherness” having rid ourselves of God’s transcendent transcendence.

And so the formerly Christian white man having as his inheritance the Christian faith and Christian culture, in an act of ethnocide, immolates himself on the altar of the non-white, non-Christian, non-civilized man in order to continue apace his hatred of Christ.

We note this especially about the White European descendent since it is the white European descendent that is most closely associated with the God of the Bible who is the explanation of all that was healthy about Christian Western civilization. We have no doubt that this could also be true in many respects for Christians who embraced Biblical Christianity as coming from other races/ethnicities.

This provides in part an explanation for the appeal of multiculturalism.

Doug Wilson, R. Scott Clark, Michael Shover and Me

In the video above Doug Wilson does a classic presuppositional take down of R. Scott Clark as Wilson dissects an interview that R. Scott Clark did w/ the Babylon Bee on the subject of Christian Nationalism.

It is clear that Doug desires a Christian nation contra the idiot R. Scott Clark on the subject. And on that point Wilson undresses Clark and publicly humiliates him for all with eyes to see.

So two cheers for Doug on this score.

However, we can’t toss that third cheer for Doug up in the air because even though Doug desires a Christian nation he does not desire Christian Nationalism which is the only way one can get to a Christian nation. Doug is championing some form of Christian multiculturalism/multi-racialism for a nation and for that we have no respect and so must lift a Bronx cheer for Doug on that score.

Now, when I make that point above Rev. Michael Shover publicly made the following comment I’d like to respond to;

Rev. Shover writes,

I think one of the main issues of concern that Doug and others have about talking about an ethno-nationalist state in multicultural America, is how one would effectively accomplish that? Round people up and kick them out of the country? And who is going to determine that? And who is going to stay, and who is going to go? And the concern is that black Americans have ancestors that have been here longer than some white Americans ancestors. The whole situation is indeed very messy and we cant just say we need ethno-nationalism, as if that is going to solve any problems. It very well could and would create new and possibly worse problems. The toothpaste is out of the tube. You cant put it back in. And I think that when people who dont know you hear you talk about these things, they think you want to round up the blacks and asians and Indians and Mexicans and forcibly remove them from America. I think that is what people think you are saying.

1.) First we have to insist that there is no genuine nationalism except for ethno-nationalism. All other Nationalism are propositional in some sense and so are not genuinely Nationalisms.

2.) I quite agree that the toothpaste is now out of the tube and can’t be put back in. The toothpaste continues to squeezed out of the tube as the borders are virtually non-existent. The Politicians are even saying that we are looking at 4-5 million more illegals in the next 2 years. If the politicians are admitting that it is likely four or five times that many. All of that is on top of the 20-30 million illegals that are already living in this country. Clearly the toothpaste is out of the tube and is never going to be put back in.

3.) Keep in mind that my argument has always been that in order to function as a Christian Nationalist state we don’t need 100% racial/ethnic purity. Along with other Kinists I have argued that if we had the percentage that we had before the 1965 Immigration Act we would be fine.

4.) However, we will never now get to that point as the charts and stats are telling us. By the year 2100, per recent stats I have been looking at, my youngest grandchild (who will be 78 at that time) will be living in a country that is 42% white. My grandchildren will be a minority in the land that their father’s built.

As a side note, this is going to be very bad news for blacks as this new coming nation is not going to feel it incumbent to uniquely provide a safety net that privileges them. If the projected numbers are correct they will statistically be far less than both Hispanics and Whites and not much ahead of Asians.

5.) That is why, I advocate for the break-up of America in order to reach a Christian Nationalist state. This country is already balkanized beyond repair and the only hope now for Christians of European descent is to have some small nation to call their own as gerrymandered from the former United States of America.

6.) Actually, the break-up of the US is something that all people should hope for given the inevitability of totalitarian top down tyranny that is coming our way if something like a break-up doesn’t happen. These Davos people are dead serious with their New World Order Great Reset.

One more observation on this subject. Part of the immigration problem probably could be solved in terms of the saturation levels of people from Mexico and Central American countries coming here if we would but turn off the spigot of government benefits and largesse for these people. It is likely that at least a healthy percentage would then return to their homes if they were receiving handouts upon arriving here.

Kevin DeYoung … Also Clueless When it Comes to Nationalism

“Is this (the conclusions in Stephen Wolfe’s book) really the direction we’re to be pushed by the gospel? Are we really to pursue a social ordering on earth so different from that which is present in heaven? Are we really so sure that our love for people like us and our ostracism of people unlike us are God-given inclinations and not fallen ones?”

Rev. Dr. Kevin DeYoung
PCA “Clergy” 

1.) If Jesus is the Gospel than I’d say that, “yes” Wolfe’s book is really the direction we’re to be pushed to the Gospel;22 And, behold, a woman of Canaan came out of the same coasts, and cried unto him, saying, Have mercy on me, O Lord, thou son of David; my daughter is grievously vexed with a devil. 23 But he answered her not a word. And his disciples came and besought him, saying, Send her away; for she crieth after us. 24 But he answered and said, I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel. 25 Then came she and worshipped him, saying, Lord, help me. 26 But he answered and said, It is not meet to take the children’s bread, and to cast it to dogs.27 And she said, Truth, Lord: yet the dogs eat of the crumbs which fall from their masters’ table. 28 Then Jesus answered and said unto her, O woman, great is thy faith: be it unto thee even as thou wilt. And her daughter was made whole from that very hour.

This passage teaches the great grace of the Lord Christ to all men. It teaches the necessity to be importunate in prayer. It teaches the centrality of faith. And by today’s standard among the “clergy” and the Church in the West it demonstrates that Jesus was a racist and that He understood the idea of properly ordered affections. Keep in mind that “dogs” is a pejorative term that is not loaded with any expression of kindness.  

2.) DeYoung misreads the book of Revelation thinking that Revelation teaches that Heaven is an amalgamationist paradise, when in point of fact the book of Revelation teaches that the Saints are present in the New Jerusalem as belonging to their Nations (See Rev. 21).

23 And the city had no need of the sun, neither of the moon, to shine in it: for the glory of God did lighten it, and the Lamb is the light thereof. 24 And the nations of them which are saved shall walk in the light of it: and the kings of the earth do bring their glory and honour into it. 25 And the gates of it shall not be shut at all by day: for there shall be no night there. 26 And they shall bring the glory and honour of the nations into it.

The New Jerusalem is not inhabited by atomistic individuals but by people as still belonging to their respective nations. Heaven is inhabited by the Church as that Church belonged to their respective nations. Thus, the New Jerusalem finds nations remaining yet distinct, yet together united in their worship of the great and magnificent Lord Jesus Christ. This is the concept of the One and the Many incarnated into the Church in the New Jerusalem.

DeYoung’s ham-fisted reading of Scripture, interpreting it to be a place where “all colors bleed into one” is irresponsible, and in this climate, criminal exegesis.

3.) I’d love to see a quote from Wolfe’s book where he is insisting that we need to ostracize people unlike us. Am I ostracizing people when I spend my paycheck providing for my wife and family? Am I ostracizing other women when I don’t bed them while only bedding my wife?

The “Conservative” Guru of the PCA writes,

Likewise, Wolfe’s argument doesn’t reckon with the way the Bible relativizes our sense of family (Mark 3:31–35), tears down dividing walls between people groups (Eph. 2:11–22), and presents a multitribal and multilingual reality (and hoped-for future) as a heavenly good (Rev. 5:9–10).

1.) I dealt with DeYoung’s eisegesis in #2 above.

2.) Next, the Ephesians passage. I am working here to expose why DeYoung shouldn’t be allowed anywhere near a pulpit;

The dividing wall in Ephesians is a reference to the Mosaic Law. Christ tears down the “dividing wall of hostility by abolishing the law of commandments expressed in ordinances” (Eph 2:14b-15a).

When Christ died, God no longer imposed on Jews the rules that once separated them from Gentiles. The purpose of those aspects of the law has now been fulfilled. The laws that specifically divided Jew and Gentile are now done away with. It is not just the ceremonial laws that are now gone, but the old covenant to which they were intricately attached has been replaced by the new covenant. Under the new covenant God no longer imposes these expectations on his children. This arrangement grants Gentiles wide open access to enter the kingdom of God as Gentiles. Gentiles don’t have to become religio-cultural Jews in order to become Christian.

 

Further, in Ephesians Paul is not talking about generic ethnic divides but specifically the aspects of the law-covenant that divided Jew from Gentiles. Therefore, someone cannot impose ethnic distinctions onto Paul’s words. The apostle has something uniquely covenantal in mind.

 

Second, the dividing wall was originally the will of God. To take the word “hostility” in and apply it to racism is dangerous. The dividing wall to which Paul is referring is the Mosaic Law, and the Mosaic Law was God’s idea. He made the wall; then he removed it in Christ. The division that stood between Jew and Gentile in the Old Covenant was God’s will, not the by-product of human sin. “Racism,” (where it can genuinely be found) on the other hand, is the result of human sin and never is the result of what God commands. By applying Ephesians 2:14 to ethnic strife today you effectively turn God into a “racist.”

 

Third, did Christ remove, by his death, the various differences between cultures today? Not at all. Before Christ’s death, one culture may prefer beer. Another culture may prefer wine. After the death of Christ the first culture still likes beer and the second culture still likes wine. The death of Christ was not intended to move the needle on these types of cultural differences (except for the aspects of man’s culture that are sinful). Nor did it overturn other aspects of human relations grounded in creation, biology, and nature.

(Note: — The above 5 paragraphs were largely crafted by a chap who is now in hiding from the Stalinists cancel culture maniacs.)

Similarly Christ’s death did not remove the tendencies that belong to different ethnic peoples. Before Christ’s death Cretans were liars and gluttons. After Christ’s death Christian Cretans doubtless had to battle the besetting sin of lying and gluttony. The death of Christ does not destroy nature. For centuries McAtees have been hopelessly stubborn. I have been converted for decades now and a sinful stubbornness/defiance remains a besetting sin (ask my wife). The same is true for my children. It was true of my Father and it was true of his parents. This trait is in our genes. It is a characteristic long associated with the Scots. Peoples remain different, even after conversion. There is no sin in acknowledging that. Did Christ remove, by his death, the various differences between ethnicities today? Not at all.

(Note: In the previous paragraph we see why contra Doug Wilson that race/ethnicity is not merely about skin.)

We have the words of an OT scholar Martin Wyngaarden that bears on this issue. Please Rev. Dr. DeYoung listen to Calvin Seminary Dr. Professor Martin Wyngaarden from the 1960’s on Isaiah 19;

 

Now the predicates of the covenant are applied in Isa. 19 to the Gentiles of the future, — “Egypt my people, and Assyria, the work of my hands, and Israel, mine inheritance,” Egypt, the people of “Jehovah of hosts,” (Isa. 19:25) is therefore also expected to live up to the covenant obligations, implied for Jehovah’s people. And Assyria comes under similar obligations and privileges. These nations are representative of the great Gentile world, to which the covenant privileges will therefore be extended.”

Martin J. Wyngaarden, The Future of the Kingdom in Prophecy and Fulfillment: A Study of the Scope of “Spiritualization” in Scripture (Eugene: Wipf & Stock, 2011), p. 94.

And again;

“More than a dozen excellent commentaries could be mentioned that all interpret Israel as thus inclusive of Jew and Gentile, in this verse, — the Gentile adherents thus being merged with the covenant people of Israel, THOUGH EACH REMAINS NATIONALLY DISTINCT.”

“For, though Israel is frequently called Jehovah’s People, the work of his hands, his inheritance, yet these three epithets severally are applied not only to Israel, but also to Assyria and to Egypt: “Blessed be Egypt, my people, and Assyria, the work of my hands, and Israel, mine inheritance.” 19:25.

Thus the highest description of Jehovah’s covenant people is applied to Egypt, — “my people,” — showing that the Gentiles will share the covenant blessings, not less than Israel. YET the several nationalities are here kept distinct, even when Gentiles share, in the covenant blessing, on a level of equality with Israel. Egypt, Assyria and Israel are not nationally merged. And the same principles, that nationalities are not obliterated, by membership in the covenant, applies, of course, also in the New Testament dispensation.”

Wyngaarden, pp. 101-102.

3.) Now the Mark 3 passage

32 And the multitude sat about him, and they said unto him, Behold, thy mother and thy brethren without seek for thee.33 And he answered them, saying, Who is my mother, or my brethren? 34 And he looked round about on them which sat about him, and said, Behold my mother and my brethren! 35 For whosoever shall do the will of God, the same is my brother, and my sister, and mother.

 DeYoung insists that the passage above relativizes our sense of family. I’d dearly like to hear DeYoung explain what he means by “relativizes.” If he simply means that the family can’t be raised above our union with Christ or that loyalty to family/people can’t rise above our loyalty to Christ who could ever argue? However, if “relativizes” means that family does not remain a priority, in its proper place, DeYoung has to deal with;

4 For God commanded, saying, Honour thy father and mother: and, He that curseth father or mother, let him die the death. 5 But ye say, Whosoever shall say to his father or his mother, It is a gift, by whatsoever thou mightest be profited by me; 6 And honour not his father or his mother, he shall be free. Thus have ye made the commandment of God of none effect by your tradition. 7 Ye hypocrites, well did Esaias prophesy of you, saying,

Clearly, our Great Master and Lord, Jesus Christ, does not relativize family/people to the point that somehow they become eclipsed in our responsibilities to them.

Then there are the words of God that teach that family most certainly is not over relativized;

8 But if any provide not for his own, and specially for those of his own house, he hath denied the faith, and is worse than an infidel.

DeYoung and many like him are creating false dichotomies in order to avoid a Nationalism that is ethno by definition.

DeYoung is not a wise man on several matters. This is but one.

But why should he be the only clergy who is not wise in this regard?

I may have more in a future entry to say about DeYoungs misfiring in his analysis of Wolfe’s book.

The Stranger & the Alien/Foreigner in Israel

“I came across this quote from Gillespie in Aaron’s Rod Blossoming. It is actually from another author, John Seldon, in a book that I cannot find translated into English yet. If any one knows of a copy in English I would love to get it. The title is De jure naturali et gentium juxta disciplinam Ebraeorum.”

Online Friend

“In respect of members’ for, as Mr. Selden hath very well observed concerning that sort of proselytes who had the name of Proselyti Justitiae.” They were initiated into the Jewish religion by circumcision, baptism and sacrifice; and they were allowed not only to worship God apart by themselves, but also to come into the church and congregation of Israel, and to be called by the name of Jews, nevertheless they were restrained and secluded from dignities, magistracies and preferments in the Jewish republic, and from divers marriages which were free to the Israelites, even as strangers initiated and associated into the church of Rome have not therefore the privilege of Roman citizens.”

Gillespie
Aaron’s Rod Blossoming, pg 4

It is easy to see that Selden and Gillespie both rejected the “open borders” “easy citizenship” ideas that so permeate our culture, especially the church. No matter the religious standing in Israel, a “stranger” remained that in the civil realm, no matter their religious affiliation. Even “divers marriages” were kept from these “strangers and aliens.”

This quote tracks well from a portion of a sermon I did in 2015

So, what we see here, in this examination of the Hebrew word “ger” is that this idea of stranger, alien, sojourner requires context in order of us to understand how it is being used. Clearly in this Dt. 28 passage the word is being used in more of a discontinuity sense. We know this because God is saying that disobedience will bring the result that the alien — the one not belonging to the Israel as Israel — will rise higher and higher over them. A clear demarcation is being made between the immigrant and the native son.

The resident alien (ger) in Israel was never so integrated and assimilated into the Israeli social order that the distinction between citizen born and alien evaporated. The resident alien (ger) was held to the same law, could become part of the worship cult BUT they were always known as distinct from Israeli born. Hence they are continuously referred to as ger (stranger).

Having said this we should realize that clearly there is a immigrant class that is living among the people of God. This people are not to be oppressed. They are to be treated with justice according to God’s law and they are to be able to find a way in the land. However, they are clearly the “tail” of the social order.

We know this because the text teaches that the roles will be reversed for disobedience. They who were once the head will become the tail and those who were once the tail will become the head.

Some one judgment of God upon Israel’s disobedience is that God’s people will become strangers and aliens in their own land.

We should note here also that this text does away with notions of egalitarianism. All peoples in all settings are not equal. God speaks here of one people being a tail and one people being a head and says that He is the one that makes that to be the case and in here we learn that obedience to God’s Law results in being the head.

It is not Christianity that teaches egalitarianism but rather it is Liberalism as Machen noted,

“… one thing is perfectly plain—whether or not liberals are Christians, it is at any rate perfectly clear that liberalism is not Christianity. And that being the case, it is highly undesirable that liberalism and Christianity should continue to be propagated within the bounds of the same organization. A separation between the two parties in the Church is the crying need of the hour… The modern liberal doctrine is that all men everywhere, no matter what their race or creed, are brothers.”

J.Gresham Machen
Christianity and Liberalism, p.133 

Of course we have come to the point that we no longer think in terms of categories like stranger, alien, foreigner, and sojourner which means we no longer think in terms of family. If we take Deuteronomy 28 seriously and see our delight with the stranger being lifted above us we must at least ask ourselves if we are under God’s just punishment for our disobedience.

When we think of our own immigration issues we see that the result here is also that the head is becoming the tail and that the tail is becoming the head