The globalist media refers to the ongoing invasion of the West by Muslims as part of a “refugee crisis.” We are told that the only proper response to this crisis is to allow all migrants to settle in the West and offer them full citizenship rights. Many churches have blindly accepted this narrative and are complicit in the deliberate destruction of the lands once known collectively as Christendom.
The first point to grasp is that there is no “refugee crisis.” Citing the current Syrian civil war as the cause of the “refugee crisis” is only a pretext. The globalist elites who wish to transform the demographics of Europe and America have actively enticed Muslims and other migrants by promising them easy living in white countries. This is what has caused the refugee flood, not any actual catastrophe. The migrants come from all over Africa and the Middle East, not just Syria, and even the mainstream media frequently mentions that these “refugees” are fleeing from “war and poverty” in their home countries. There have always been countries in Africa and the Middle East that are poor compared to the West, and there have been wars and other conflicts in these regions for decades. If being in a country that is poorer or more violent than America grants the automatic right of immigration, then the entire Third World would possess this right. When carried to its logical conclusion, this attitude towards immigration can only result in the destruction of all national borders and the very concept of national sovereignty. There is nothing new in the number of non-whites who want to immigrate to the West. The “crisis” is purely the result of the fictional narrative promoted by the lying media and treasonous Western governments.
But even if there really were a refugee crisis, it does not follow that every legitimate refugee should be granted citizenship status and given a full stake in his host country. To support their pro-invasion position, Christians frequently site Bible verses like Leviticus 19:34, “But the stranger that dwelleth with you shall be unto you as one born among you, and thou shalt love him as thyself; for ye were strangers in the land of Egypt.” But this verse and others like it simply cannot mean what the pro-invasion interpreters want it to mean. If the ancient Israelites had understood Leviticus 19:34 in the way that some modern Christians do, then the ancient nation of Israel would have disappeared within a couple generations. The ancient Israelites would have invited every neighboring worshiper of Molech or Beelzebub to live in their country, vote in their assemblies, and be granted landed property, all without making any demands that the newcomers adopt the native religion or culture of Israel. This is not what God commanded His people to do. The Israelites were to choose their political rulers from their own kinsmen, and they were to carefully preserve the tribal allotment of land ownership. The Old Testament is quite clear that Israel was to remain a religiously, culturally and ethnically distinct nation. It is impossible that God’s law could include any commandments that would lead to the destruction of the nation of Israel, or of the nation-state in general. Leviticus 19:34 simply means that strangers must be treated equally before the law, as we can see by reading the verses that immediately follow, “Ye shall do no unrighteousness in judgment, in meteyard, in weight, or in measure. Just balances, just weights, a just ephah, and a just hin, shall ye have”(Leviticus 19:35-36). God told His people that it was unlawful to abuse or defraud non-citizens, but He did not tell them that the distinction between citizen and non-citizen must be completely abolished. Contemporary pro-invasion Christians have adopted the globalist position that the very concepts of national sovereignty and distinct citizenship are sinful. This is a perversion of Biblical teaching and it will bring about the destruction of our independent nations.
If there really were innocent people fleeing from war who needed shelter in our lands, then shelter could be provided on a temporary basis and without allowing potentially dangerous refugees to move freely throughout our society. We could make it clear that refugees that are racially or ideologically incompatible with our nation will not be allowed to become citizens. We could invite them into our own countries and provide safe, segregated accommodations until the situation in their homelands improved. If the refugees found such accommodations insulting and decided to return home rather than put up with such “racism,” then clearly their lives were not in great danger in the first place.
When the globalists talks about the “refugee crisis,” their primary goal is not saving the lives of those threatened by war. Their goal is to facilitate the invasion of the West by a hostile force.