Why the Left hates HP Lovecraft

They hate Lovecraft because he saw the future, and the evil that the immigrants would commit, and the harm they would do to America, much more clearly than any of the vaunted science fiction writers ever did.

The Street
H.P. Lovecraft

There be those who say that things and places have souls, and there be those who say they have not; I dare not say, myself, but I will tell of The Street.

     Men of strength and honour fashioned that Street; good, valiant men of our blood who had come from the Blessed Isles across the sea. At first it was but a path trodden by bearers of water from the woodland spring to the cluster of houses by the beach. Then, as more men came to the growing cluster of houses and looked about for places to dwell, they built cabins along the north side; cabins of stout oaken logs with masonry on the side toward the forest, for many Indians lurked there with fire-arrows. And in a few years more, men built cabins on the south side of The Street.

     Up and down The Street walked grave men in conical hats, who most of the time carried muskets or fowling pieces. And there were also their bonneted wives and sober children. In the evening these men with their wives and children would sit about gigantic hearths and read and speak. Very simple were the things of which they read and spoke, yet things which gave them courage and goodness and helped them by day to subdue the forest and till the fields. And the children would listen, and learn of the laws and deeds of old, and of that dear England which they had never seen, or could not remember.

     There was war, and thereafter no more Indians troubled The Street. The men, busy with labour, waxed prosperous and as happy as they knew how to be. And the children grew up comfortably, and more families came from the Mother Land to dwell on The Street. And the children’s children, and the newcomers’ children, grew up. The town was now a city, and one by one the cabins gave place to houses; simple, beautiful houses of brick and wood, with stone steps and iron railings and fanlights over the doors. No flimsy creations were these houses, for they were made to serve many a generation. Within there were carven mantels and graceful stairs, and sensible, pleasing furniture, china, and silver, brought from the Mother Land.

     So The Street drank in the dreams of a young people, and rejoiced as its dwellers became more graceful and happy. Where once had been only strength and honour, taste and learning now abode as well. Books and paintings and music came to the houses, and the young men went to the university which rose above the plain to the north. In the place of conical hats and muskets there were three-cornered hats and small-swords, and lace and snowy periwigs. And there were cobblestones over which clattered many a blooded horse and rumbled many a gilded coach; and brick sidewalks with horse blocks and hitching-posts.

     There were in that Street many trees; elms and oaks and maples of dignity; so that in the summer the scene was all soft verdure and twittering bird-song. And behind the houses were walled rose-gardens with hedged paths and sundials, where at evening the moon and stars would shine bewitchingly while fragrant blossoms glistened with dew.

     So The Street dreamed on, past wars, calamities, and changes. Once most of the young men went away, and some never came back. That was when they furled the Old Flag and put up a new Banner of Stripes and Stars. But though men talked of great changes, The Street felt them not; for its folk were still the same, speaking of the old familiar things in the old familiar accents. And the trees still sheltered singing birds, and at evening the moon and stars looked down upon dewy blossoms in the walled rose-gardens.

     In time there were no more swords, three-cornered hats, or periwigs in The Street. How strange seemed the denizens with their walking-sticks, tall beavers, and cropped heads! New sounds came from the distance—first strange puffings and shrieks from the river a mile away, and then, many years later, strange puffings and shrieks and rumblings from other directions. The air was not quite so pure as before, but the spirit of the place had not changed. The blood and soul of the people were as the blood and soul of their ancestors who had fashioned The Street. Nor did the spirit change when they tore open the earth to lay down strange pipes, or when they set up tall posts bearing weird wires. There was so much ancient lore in that Street, that the past could not easily be forgotten.

     Then came days of evil, when many who had known The Street of old knew it no more; and many knew it, who had not known it before. And those who came were never as those who went away; for their accents were coarse and strident, and their mien and faces unpleasing. Their thoughts, too, fought with the wise, just spirit of The Street, so that The street pined silently as its houses fell into decay, and its trees died one by one, and its rose-gardens grew rank with weeds and waste. But it felt a stir of pride one day when again marched forth young men, some of whom never came back. These young men were clad in blue.

     With the years worse fortune came to The Street. Its trees were all gone now, and its rose-gardens were displaced by the backs of cheap, ugly new buildings on parallel streets. Yet the houses remained, despite the ravages of the years and the storms and worms, for they had been made to serve many a generation. New kinds of faces appeared in The Street; swarthy, sinister faces with furtive eyes and odd features, whose owners spoke unfamiliar words and placed signs in known and unknown characters upon most of the musty houses. Push-carts crowded the gutters. A sordid, undefinable stench settled over the place, and the ancient spirit slept.

     Great excitement once came to The Street. War and revolution were raging across the seas; a dynasty had collapsed, and its degenerate subjects were flocking with dubious intent to the Western Land. Many of these took lodgings in the battered houses that had once known the songs of birds and the scent of roses. Then the Western Land itself awoke, and joined the Mother Land in her titanic struggle for civilisation. Over the cities once more floated the Old Flag, companioned by the New Flag and by a plainer yet glorious Tri-colour. But not many flags floated over The Street, for therein brooded only fear and hatred and ignorance. Again young men went forth, but not quite as did the young men of those other days. Something was lacking. And the sons of those young men of other days, who did indeed go forth in olive-drab with the true spirit of their ancestors, went from distant places and knew not The Street and its ancient spirit.

     Over the seas there was a great victory, and in triumph most of the young men returned. Those who had lacked something lacked it no longer, yet did fear and hatred and ignorance still brood over The Street; for many had stayed behind, and many strangers had come from distant places to the ancient houses. And the young men who had returned dwelt there no longer. Swarthy and sinister were most of the strangers, yet among them one might find a few faces like those who fashioned The Street and moulded its spirit. Like and yet unlike, for there was in the eyes of all a weird, unhealthy glitter as of greed, ambition, vindictiveness, or misguided zeal. Unrest and treason were abroad amongst an evil few who plotted to strike the Western Land its death-blow, that they might mount to power over its ruins; even as assassins had mounted in that unhappy, frozen land from whence most of them had come. And the heart of that plotting was in The Street, whose crumbling houses teemed with alien makers of discord and echoed with the plans and speeches of those who yearned for the appointed day of blood, flame, and crime.

     Of the various odd assemblages in The Street, the law said much but could prove little. With great diligence did men of hidden badges linger and listen about such places as Petrovitch’s Bakery, the squalid Rifkin School of Modern Economics, the Circle Social Club, and the Liberty Café. There congregated sinister men in great numbers, yet always was their speech guarded or in a foreign tongue. And still the old houses stood, with their forgotten lore of nobler, departed centuries; of sturdy colonial tenants and dewy rose-gardens in the moonlight. Sometimes a lone poet or traveller would come to view them, and would try to picture them in their vanished glory; yet of such travellers and poets there were not many.

     The rumour now spread widely that these houses contained the leaders of a vast band of terrorists, who on a designated day were to launch an orgy of slaughter for the extermination of America and of all the fine old traditions which The Street had loved. Handbills and papers fluttered about filthy gutters; handbills and papers printed in many tongues and in many characters, yet all bearing messages of crime and rebellion. In these writings the people were urged to tear down the laws and virtues that our fathers had exalted; to stamp out the soul of the old America—the soul that was bequeathed through a thousand and a half years of Anglo-Saxon freedom, justice, and moderation. It was said that the swart men who dwelt in The Street and congregated in its rotting edifices were the brains of a hideous revolution; that at their word of command many millions of brainless, besotted beasts would stretch forth their noisome talons from the slums of a thousand cities, burning, slaying, and destroying till the land of our fathers should be no more. All this was said and repeated, and many looked forward in dread to the fourth day of July, about which the strange writings hinted much; yet could nothing be found to place the guilt. None could tell just whose arrest might cut off the damnable plotting at its source. Many times came bands of blue-coated police to search the shaky houses, though at last they ceased to come; for they too had grown tired of law and order, and had abandoned all the city to its fate. Then men in olive-drab came, bearing muskets; till it seemed as if in its sad sleep The Street must have some haunting dreams of those other days, when musket-bearing men in conical hats walked along it from the woodland spring to the cluster of houses by the beach. Yet could no act be performed to check the impending cataclysm; for the swart, sinister men were old in cunning.

     So The Street slept uneasily on, till one night there gathered in Petrovitch’s Bakery and the Rifkin School of Modern Economics, and the Circle Social Club, and Liberty Café, and in other places as well, vast hordes of men whose eyes were big with horrible triumph and expectation. Over hidden wires strange messages travelled, and much was said of still stranger messages yet to travel; but most of this was not guessed till afterward,when the Western Land was safe from the peril. The men in olive-drab could not tell what was happening, or what they ought to do; for the swart, sinister men were skilled in subtlety and concealment.

     And yet the men in olive-drab will always remember that night, and will speak of The Street as they tell of it to their grandchildren; for many of them were sent there toward morning on a mission unlike that which they had expected. It was known that this nest of anarchy was old, and that the houses were tottering from the ravages of the years and the storms and the worms; yet was the happening of that summer night a surprise because of its very queer uniformity. It was, indeed, an exceedingly singular happening; though after all a simple one. For without warning, in one of the small hours beyond midnight, all the ravages of the years and the storms and the worms came to a tremendous climax; and after the crash there was nothing left standing in The Street save two ancient chimneys and part of a stout brick wall. Nor did anything that had been alive come alive from the ruins.

     A poet and a traveller, who came with the mighty crowd that sought the scene, tell odd stories. The poet says that all through the hours before dawn he beheld sordid ruins but indistinctly in the glare of the arc-lights; that there loomed above the wreckage another picture wherein he could descry moonlight and fair houses and elms and oaks and maples of dignity. And the traveller declares that instead of the place’s wonted stench there lingered a delicate fragrance as of roses in full bloom. But are not the dreams of poets and the tales of travellers notoriously false?

     There be those who say that things and places have souls, and there be those who say they have not; I dare not say, myself, but I have told you of The Street.


A portrait in Churchianity

I tweeted this to the #jewsforrefugees hashtag and promptly received this response from a “pastor”.

Pastor Richard ‏@thebiblestrue
And you call yourself a Christian?


Supreme Dark Lord ‏@voxday
Yes. Who said this?  “It is not right to take the children’s bread and toss it to the dogs.”


Pastor Richard ‏@thebiblestrue
Jesus said it. But what did he mean?


Supreme Dark Lord ‏@voxday
He meant that the nations exist, and the interests of the children of the nation come before the interests of other nations.


Pastor Richard ‏@thebiblestrue
@voxday Wrong. He meant the gospel came to the Jews first. But he still healed the gentile woman’s daughter. God loves all people equally.

This is all too typical. Pastor Richard is clearly a Churchian and one of the wolves in sheep’s clothing of whom the Apostle Paul warned. The Churchians preach a god who does not hate the wicked and they preach the Gospel of Babel, in which there are no nations and everyone is the same and all are loved equally by their god.

And their god is not our God. Their god is the prince of this world.

Notice how this dishonest “pastor” is playing the usual deceptive bait-and-switch. He switches the context with regards to the meaning of the phrase spoken by Jesus, and claims that the meaning of the phrase is somehow defined to the contrary of its clear meaning by substituting for it the meaning of a different part of the story that is not even referenced in that phrase!


Moggies at the Mall

It’s only a matter of time before the Somalis stage a much bigger, much more lethal attack at the Megamall. But seriously, St. Cloud? Aside from the Vikings at training camp, there wasn’t a single black, Arab, or Asian to be seen in St. Cloud when I was young.

At least eight people were taken to a hospital with injuries after a stabbing attack at a Minnesota shopping mall that ended with the suspected attacker, who reportedly made references to Allah, shot dead by an off-duty police officer, authorities said.

The attack took place at Crossroads Center mall in St. Cloud.

St. Cloud Police Chief Blair Anderson said during a news conference shortly after midnight that eight people were taken to St. Cloud Hospital with non-life-threatening injuries following the attack first reported about 8.15pm Saturday.

One person was admitted. No further details were released. During the news conference, Anderson said the attacker who was armed with a knife made references to Allah during the attack and asked at least one person whether they were Muslim.

And let’s not forget the bombing yesterday in New York City. At this point, it’s clear that Americans will be better off fighting an ethnic war sooner rather than later. Stabbings here, bombings there, shootings everywhere; that is the new US reality. There is not going to be any peace until the USA is 90 percent American again.

You cannot live in a civilized manner among barbarians, and tens of millions of barbarians are now inside the gates. Mass immigration is war.

Interesting times are upon us because the previous two generations were stupid. Better carry. You never know when you’ll need it.


Germans demand a solution

Albeit not a Final one, yet. The Governor of Bavaria and head of the CSU party has issued something of an ultimatum to Angela Merkel:

Ever since German Chancellor Angela Merkel opened up the country’s borders to refugees in early September of 2015, Horst Seehofer has been using every opportunity at his disposal to voice his disagreement. As head of the Christian Social Union (CSU) party, he is not someone who can easily be shrugged off. The CSU is the Bavarian sister party to Merkel’s Christian Democratic Union (CDU). The two parties, which collectively are known simply as the “union,” have a long tradition of campaigning together ahead of general elections and of divvying up cabinet posts should the center-right end up in government, which, for the last 12 years, it has. The CSU has no chapters in any other state while the CDU has no state chapter in Bavaria.

As the rift has widened, Seehofer has begun calling that long partnership into question, even raising the possibility that his party might campaign on its own ahead of next year’s parliamentary elections and put up a CSU chancellor candidate. To avoid that eventuality, he is demanding that Merkel take clear steps toward reversing her immigration policies and adopting a ceiling on the number of refugees Germany is willing to take in, a step Merkel has refused to take, citing potential inconsistencies with the German constitution. Last week, the CSU released a paper, called “Germany Must Remain Germany,” outlining steps it would like to see taken, including the abolishment of dual citizenship and a preference for migrants from the “Christian-Western culture.”

SPIEGEL: We have examined dozens of interviews that you have given in recent months. You talk a lot about refugee policy, but one thing is constantly left ambiguous, perhaps intentionally. What concrete steps does Angela Merkel have to take before you will say: “Okay, now we’ll back off?”

Seehofer: We want a solution to the immigration problem. To do that, we first need a ceiling. We don’t want unlimited immigration like we saw last year and that’s why we need binding measures as a guarantee. When announcements are made that we are combatting the root causes of flight, then they must be combined with concrete measures. When it is said that those who don’t have a right to asylum will be sent back, then we together with the federal government must enact a detailed, binding repatriation program. We want a clear system of rules that clearly and credibly reduces immigration to a reasonable level.

SPIEGEL: So you are sticking to your demand for a hard ceiling of 200,000 immigrants per year despite its potential inconsistencies with the guaranteed fundamental right to asylum?

Seehofer: Yes. We want a policy that safeguards this ceiling. We also, by the way, already changed the constitution to make this possible 23 years ago. With the support of all parties. Our constitution does not require us to take everybody who appears at our borders and demands asylum. And when someone comes from a safe country of origin, we can immediately repatriate them. The ceiling will work and it is consistent with the constitution.

SPIEGEL: The chancellor and several other CDU politicians have repeatedly insisted that they will not accept a ceiling. If the approval of such a ceiling is the prerequisite for an agreement, then there won’t be any agreement.

Seehofer: We’ll see. We will not back away from the 200,000 ceiling. It’s about our credibility, plain and simple.

SPIEGEL: Given that anything seems possible at this point, is a situation conceivable whereby the CDU enters the campaign with Merkel as its candidate for chancellor and the CSU says: We won’t support her?

Seehofer: We as a party will make personnel decisions in the first quarter of 2017. German history is full of serious mistakes pertaining to premature personnel decisions.

SPIEGEL: Last weekend, CSU leaders presented a paper containing the party’s refugee policy demands and it is full of odd sentences. Such as this one: “We are opposed to our cosmopolitan country being changed by immigration or refugee flows.” How cosmopolitan can a country be if it doesn’t want to be changed by immigration?

Seehofer: The paper’s title is: “Germany Must Remain Germany.” The chancellor has used almost the exact same formulation. When she says it, it’s considered liberal and future oriented. When we say it, it’s seen as reactionary and backwards.

SPIEGEL: Merkel never said that immigration cannot be allowed to change the country.

Seehofer: Look, Bavaria is a dynamic, cosmopolitan state. Those who don’t adapt fall behind. But we need ground rules. In every governmental speech I give before state parliament, I say: Bavaria will remain Bavaria. That’s not a contradiction.

SPIEGEL: Another question about your paper: In rejecting dual citizenship, the paper says that it is impossible to “serve two masters.” We always thought that it wasn’t citizens who served their state, but the other way around.

Seehofer: You aren’t asking why we are opposed to dual citizenship. Instead, you are quibbling over locution. The sentence is true and completely okay. I am allergic to this paternalism and censorship.

I thought it was particularly interesting that DER SPIEGEL was particularly interested in undermining the CSU demand for banning dual citizenship. Dual citizenship is one of the least defensible aspects of globalism, so it is something of a weak link that nationalists will do well to attack.

Notice that despite the headlines and the various outrages, the German establishment is considerably to the right of the the American establishment on immigration. Seehofer is openly saying things even Donald Trump wouldn’t dare, and he’s not only an elected politician, he’s one of the most powerful men in the country. And he’s a moderate compared to AfD.


The changing immigration narrative

And all of them are lies. Those who are conservatives or moderates, and still resist the inevitable rise of identity politics, would do well to consider who were the original architects of the arguments upon which your optimistic cases rest.

Your country has been invaded by 60 million aliens. Defend your land and repatriate them or be dispossessed. Like them or not, those are your options. Remember, if current trends prevail, one day “Americans” will deny that your grandchildren are white in the same way people now deny that I am an American Indian.

After all, they won’t look white.



Whites are the new Indians

Lawrence Murray chronicles the invasion and conquest of white America:

It is clear that the coastal and border regions of the United States, home to our largest cities and power centers, seem destined to become solidly non-white, leaving a large but relatively sparse—and therefore colonially vulnerable—interior region as the only place with a large White majority. The United States is reverting to a colonial society, one of foreign cities and a disconnected indigenous countryside. We’ve become the Indians.

This is a problem. Cities are the focal points of social and financial mobility in the United States, centers of political power, and where high status is conferred upon people, something normies crave. That we are becoming physically and culturally excluded from this world I think is a net negative, despite much of the alt-right’s hostility to urban life. Indeed, how much of that hostility is an indictment of the demographics of cities and their derived politics rather than of the physical spaces of the cities themselves? Our situation is a perverse one, one in which our cities are foreign to us even though urbanization is an integral part of modernity.

The idea that we can abandon our own cities for farther and farther away suburbs, a phenomenon which has been going on for decades, is one whose time is going to be cut short sooner or later by the simple reality that ordinary people cannot afford to move away from jobs. Not to mention that we will run out of land eventually. At this point it is a game of chicken with (((international financial capitalism))) to see whose rotten undergirding falls out first—do the cities collapse under their own dead weight as a result of our flight and replacement with net tax-consuming vibrants, or do we become impoverished in the long-run as a result of unplugging ourselves from “where the money is”?

For the foreseeable future, we will continue to have a  racially-driven reverse movement of people out of cities into the hinterland. Traditionally, cities were grown from the countryside as people migrated to them in search of opportunity and employment. Our ongoing revolt against the flow of history does not stop urbanization, however. Instead of our own countryside fueling the growth of our cities, it is migration from the global south, which exacerbates White flight further. Is there really any good reason why unemployed or underemployed native English speakers from say, the Rust Belt, couldn’t be encouraged to move to our cities for work? Why instead import what are largely foreign functional illiterates?

The so-called global city is really just a third world colony in the White world. Colonization is not just a metaphor for the current state of affairs, it is the reality of them. How did European colonists live outside of Europe during our high tide? They lived in and built fortified cities and ports in foreign lands where they were a minority. Today it has been reversed; we are the ones living beyond the Pale, watching ivory towers filled with ebony rise in our conquered capitals.

The loss of our own cities is unique problem of the White world, the sort of thing Stoddard warned us would happen if we yielded the outer dikes without shoring up the inner dikes. A Japanese city is Japanese. A Mexican city is Mexican. An Indian city is Indian. A Chinese city is Chinese. It is only in Europe and the Anglo satellites where you have this phenomenon of cities being not just slightly divergent from the general population but foreign to it. New York, for example, is not an Anglo-American city, but an Israeli-Puerto Rican-Chinese-Pakistani-Ecuadorian-Mexican-Filipino-Dominican-African-Korean city. Paris is not a French city, but an Algerian-Moroccan-Portuguese-Senegalese-Vietnamese-Malian city. London is not a British city, but an Indian-Pakistani-Jamaican-Polish-Bengali-Arab-Chinese-Nigerian city. It will pose a geopolitical problem in the future, that metropolitan and non-metropolitan counties in the same country are different races from one another. Indeed, there can be no harmony in a country where the centers of power and economic life are radically different from the wider society—the ancient tension between urban and rural will only be exacerbated further.

Of course, the situation can, and most likely will, be reversed in time. The tragic thing is that it will not be reversed easily, or most likely, peacefully. This is why the great military historian Martin van Creveld, when asked if migration caused war or war caused migration, answered: “there is no difference, migration is war.”

And the United States of America has been losing that war since 1965.


Even unto the fifth generation

In which it is observed that immigrants, the children of immigrants, and even the great-great-grandchildren of immigrants cannot be trusted to vote in the interests of their new country. A reader comments at John Wright’s site:

As a Republican who has tentatively decided not to vote for Trump (tentatively because it is foolish to bind yourself with oaths before the vote; who knows where my conscience might lead me come November?), I read the article as per your advice. I sympathize with the author, but I do not agree for the most part. I suppose I am either a fool or a conservative intellectual, because I do not believe Trump is worth trying.

The author admits that Trump is to the left of Hillary on most every issue except immigration, and immigration is quite frankly the issue I care least about. I understand the concerns of my fellow conservatives, but I am not afraid of immigrants. We are a country of immigrants: my great-great grandfather was an immigrant who came from a people and culture that many (perhaps most) Americans at the time thought was too stupid ever become proper citizens. Later they were considered dangerous, and it was said that they had come from a culture that was too radical and subversive to ever assimilate. Yet assimilate they did, and I stand here because of it. I am hesitant to close the door that my ancestors came through, and I have faith enough in assimilation and the melting pot, even if the Left does not.

Even after five generations, this particular US citizen cares less about “his” country than he does about his native identity. Because, by his own admission, he still identifies more with those who are not Americans than those who are, and is still more concerned with the well-being of those who are not Americans than those who are.

I found the statement “I am not afraid of immigrants” to be particularly fatuous. Because, of course, one high-performance immigrant from Germany is the same as 600 million immigrants from Mexico, China, or Nigeria. There is neither quantity nor quality, neither newcomer nor native, because all men are created equal.

Remember this solipsistic virtue-signaling if you’re ever tempted to regret the decline and fall of the United States, or find yourself asking “why”?


Why Trump will win

Not because Hillary is a drug-fortified zombie being literally propped-up by her handlers, but because, given sufficient time, identity always trumps ideology in the end. A woman at Alpha Game recounts her relatives’ initial experience with the White Pill:

Talked to my brother and his wife recently. They live in a very expensive township with lots of Asian and some NAM diversity. They’re blue pill to the core, upper middle class NeverTrumpers who champion H1B visas because they are in pharma, and without Indian people the business would fail due to not enough qualified Americans.

Anyway. Their son just started kindergarten in the overloaded public schools. My (((SIL))) is upset because her son is a minority in his class. None of the NAMs or Asian kids want to play with him.

I said to her, “this is what you want, though, right? Diversity is our strength.”

She blinked for a second and said she wanted diversity, she just doesn’t want her son to be a minority.

Virtually none of the white diversity and equality advocates actually believe what they claim to believe, and quite possibly even think they believe. They can argue about how the Great Society ruined the black family or reference sob stories about the anti-Communist Boat People or declare that Hispanics are naturally conservative family-oriented people all they like, because at the end of the day, experiencing the hard reality that their children are now a despised minority will hit them in the solar plexus and cause them considerable intellectual and emotional distress.

Remember, most people cannot think in the abstract. They cannot make sense of concepts that are outside their range of direct experiences. To them, diversity means an imaginary limit of perhaps 40 percent people with different color skin who are nevertheless ordinary white people just like them on the inside. They have never spent a single day in Tokyo, where there are thousands of Asians in every direction without a single white face as far as the eye can see. They have never sat in a single meeting where everyone is rapidly speaking a language you don’t know well enough to follow.

They simply cannot imagine any situation where those like them are not in complete control of the situation. They think it is safe to indulge themselves in their virtue-signaling in favor of diversity and equality and progress, never realizing that those things not only have consequences, but will have severe consequences that will impact the lives of them and their children.

And once goodthinking white people start experiencing those consequences in sufficient numbers, they will become badthinkers, in fact, they will become far more vociferous badthinkers than we thought criminals who rejected goodthink all along.


Correcting the Churchians

One of Jerry Pournelle’s readers points out that there are considerably more lessons from the Bible that can be applied to the question of immigration than are generally applied by Churchians who carefully cherry-pick a single element from a verse they otherwise ignore:

“There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for you are all one in Christ Jesus.”

“St. Paul may have been an optimist.” – Jerry Pournelle

Or Galatians 3:28 is being grotesquely and disingenuously wrenched out of context to attempt to justify secular social and political goals and ideas it never had the slightest connection with.  Coincidentally enough this verse and a few others before and after were the Epistle reading a few Sundays ago at our church.  Since you appear to be using the Berean Literal Bible I’ll continue with it:

Galatians 3:26 teaches, “For you are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus.”

Galatians 3:27 continues, “For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ.”

And Galatians 3:29 followed up with, “Now if you are of Christ, then you are Abraham’s seed, heirs according to the promise.”

Taken together this very clearly refers to a fellowship of all Christian believers.   It certainly can never be used under any circumstances to justify an unlimited influx of non-Christians into any Christian land.  And it can’t even be used at all unless a theocracy is set up.

Alternately we could go ahead and add numerical references to each word in the Bible, or even each letter.  This will make it still easier for people to indulge that favorite pass time of using the Bible to justify their personal positions.  As the late Sam Francis observed on the occasion of the Southern Baptist Convention’s apology for slavery, the Bible endorses human slavery and does not prohibit it.  Even John the Baptist and the Apostle Paul advised slaves to be content in their situations.

But this being Sunday, I’ll quote one another applicable Bible teaching, this one on the question of the extremely wealthy welcoming strangers while imposing all the costs of their hospitality involuntarily on their poor neighbors:

2 Samuel 12:1-6

The Lord sent Nathan to David. When he came to him, he said, “There were two men in a certain town, one rich and the other poor. The rich man had a very large number of sheep and cattle, but the poor man had nothing except one little ewe lamb he had bought. He raised it, and it grew up with him and his children. It shared his food, drank from his cup and even slept in his arms. It was like a daughter to him. 


“Now a traveler came to the rich man, but the rich man refrained from taking one of his own sheep or cattle to prepare a meal for the traveler who had come to him. Instead, he took the ewe lamb that belonged to the poor man and prepared it for the one who had come to him.”


David burned with anger against the man and said to Nathan, “As surely as the Lord lives, the man who did this must die!  He must pay for that lamb four times over, because he did such a thing and had no pity.”

This seems appropriate for the many persons who enjoy the large profits of low cost immigrant labor – frequently illegals – while involuntarily imposing all the social costs onto the broader community.  Mark Zuckerberg and his H1B programmers come to mind here.

As is ALWAYS the case every time the Churchian case is examined, it turns out to not only have destructive and diabolical consequences, but it is obviously theologically incorrect, and all too often, directly anti-Biblical. In fact, as far as immigration goes, this is merely scratching the surface of the total historical falsity of the Churchian pro-immigration case.

Churchianity is a series of lies stacked upon other lies. I will not go so far as to say it is the religion of the Antichrist, although it carries a distinctly deceitful odor that is in line with various prophecies of that abomination. But there is no doubt whatsoever that it is anti-Biblical and anti-Christian.

UPDATE: I forgot to answer a question posed by Jerry:

We’ll assume it is possible for the sake of discussion, but can we all agree that it will be very difficult and expensive to deport them all, and the benefits of deporting all 11 million are likely to be lower than the costs?

No. It may be difficult and expensive, but it will definitely be worth the cost. And then we can start on however many are necessary to restore the promised pre-1965 demographic levels.