“Take the language of invasion as an example. I think it is legitimate to speak in political terms about an invasion when referring to mass immigration being brought into a country. That kind of language functions the same way politicians speak about fighting or war. But that is very different from an actual military invasion.
If China or Russia or some other foreign power started paratrooping troops into my home city, with soldiers dropping from the sky, it would be legitimate for me to grab the guns I own and shoot those invaders. That is a real invasion. That is not the same thing as political rhetoric about immigration.
Rev. Joseph Spurgeon
Has this man never heard of guerilla warfare? Has he never read about the Vietcong guerilla tactics during the Vietnam war? Harmless civilians by day … terrorists by night.
Clearly, Spurgeon doesn’t know what time it is culturally speaking. We are being invaded unto the end of being replaced. This is not political rhetoric. It is religious rhetoric. God nowhere calls us to disappear as a people. That is the effect of Spurgeon’s inability to differentiate categorically between criminals/invaders and neighbors.
Here I quote one Elizabeth Makis (an attorney) who just eats Spurgeon’s lunch with her response;
“This post is a great example of classic, White naivete, where you project your own ethics onto foreign hostile groups. Russians and Chinese, etc., KNOW they could never accomplish a full frontal ground assault. It’s called asymmetrical warfare, and they intentionally use “immigration” as a weapon precisely because of attitudes like yours (Spurgeon’s). If the American communists are intentionally using 3rd world immigration as a weapon, would it matter if the people being imported knew the full extent of the intentions of those importing them? If the causal factor in their being here is the intended destruction of American culture and civilization, then it’s an invasion. They ARE the weapon. The whole reason why it works is BECAUSE we would not be justified in violently unaliving random people. That also doesn’t mean they’re legitimate neighbors anymore than the people still in Somalia are our neighbors.”
I wonder, if Spurgeon read “The Camp of the Saints” if he would get it even then?
____
“The question then becomes how they treat the people they actually meet. That calls for a different kind of action. I am not blurring distinctions. The people critiquing me are the ones doing that.”
Rev. Joseph Spurgeon
Illegals are criminals and invaders and so, to honor God, we are to treat them as criminals. You don’t give casseroles and babysitting services to a criminal.
As REO Speedwagon once sang,
That ain’t love
Well, at least it doesn’t sound like love to me
Well, at least it doesn’t sound like love to me
You would aid them if you happened upon them unconscious and beaten up on the side of the road. In that case you would take them to a ICE hospital where they could be stitched back together and then extradited back home. However, if you wouldn’t invite Ted Bundy or Charlie Manson to have tea and crumpets with your house as with your wife and children the principle is established that one treats criminals different than they would the Stewarts who have lived across the street for 20 years as your neighbor.
_____
“In particular, in his commentary on the Good Samaritan, Calvin says that Jesus teaches our neighbor does not end with those who are like us in nationality or religion. All people are neighbors, including even our enemies, which is why Jesus says we can love our enemies. So Calvin upholds the fact that distinctions are real, while also upholding a general love that we owe to all people. He affirms that civil magistrates can and should do what is best for their people, while also calling individuals to do good to their neighbors.”
Rev. Joseph Spurgeon
1.) Love for enemies here does not exclude doing that which they would consider “hate.” For example when one gives the Law to the sinner he considers that act of love to be an act of hate. In the same way love of civilian invaders can be an act that they would consider “hate.” Would Rev. Spurgeon insist that it would be a lack of love to enemy if I turned in my illegal invader neighbor to ICE? Would Rev. Spurgeon say it was an act of hate to my illegal invader neighbor if I asked them over for a meal and invited ICE agents as well in order to arrest them? I would say that these are acts of love. It is an act of love to not let the Criminal get away with their criminality and/or criminal behavior.”
2.) Rev. Spurgeon here also continues with his habit of forgetting about the necessity we have to love our White Anglo Saxon Christian neighbor. Is it neighbor love to them to welcome the stranger and alien thus allowing the stranger and alien to eat up resources that will not longer be available to the citizens of this nation? Rev. Spurgeon seems to be forgetting that these people we are to love are criminals as seen in their theft and fraud – not to mention being here illegally. Love does not allow the criminal to continue to be a criminal… does not reward the criminal for being a criminal. The illegals are criminals. God’s law does not say… “Treat the criminal as if he is not a criminal. Treat him as if he were the Stewart family who has lived next door to you for 30 years.” Love to God requires us to do all we an to make sure the criminal is arrested by ICE.
We see therefore that Rev. Spurgeon really does not understand what love is when dealing with criminals and invaders.
3.) Rev. Spurgeon makes the mistake of turning the criminal/invader into the victim as found in the parable of the Good Samaritan where the fact of the matter is, is that the criminal/invader are those who beat up the victim that the Good Samaritan finds beaten and bruised.
I close with a quote from a friend of mine, Dr. Jaime Castillo, a Filipino;
It looks like the example of the Good Samaritan has been used to defend (wrongly) the naïveté dealing with members of dangerous tribes. Helping a person with true needs does not mean being recklessly indiscriminate about groups that are physically proximal to us.
Clearly the Samaritan was being wise knowing that the person was indeed fully helpless and alone, and hence was not a threat. I will assist such a person too, regardless of their tribal affiliation. It is situational compassion however, not unity of tribes as happy neighbors in one multicultural Babylon and its many gods.
There are also scammers and criminals looking like they also direly need help after all. We know this. Mercy without discernment about them leads to one’s own destruction. If we are not screening people groups by number, faith, and culture, and we are neglecting that we still have priorities that obviously include safety and preservation of our own communities, we end up increasingly weakened and spread too thinly. We will soon be incapable of expressing true love because we are unable to help anyone who do need our assistance, especially those who belong to our own families and tribes.