Driving out the Moneychangers Again

Regimevangelicalism needs to be thoroughly purged from modern society

So one of the big news stories from the past week, as I’m sure all of you are aware, has been the reports that came to us out of Springfield, Ohio. Saying that this story “broke” is very accurate - after years of building pressure being exerted on the citizens of the town, news about what’s really going on there finally broke out of the media/politician imposed holding pen (hat tip to Xer @captivedreamer7 for bringing this story into the mainstream). For several years, tens of thousands of Haitian “migrants” have been resettled into Springfield via various federal immigration programs facilitated by the loosening of standards and restrictions on such movements into the country. Springfield is certainly not the only place where this is happening. Just within the last month, stories have come out of Charleroi and Tunkhannock, Pennsylvania, northern Alabama, Aurora, Colorado, and elsewhere of mass numbers of "immigrants” from Haiti, Venezuela, and elsewhere being bussed into these towns. Indeed, this is something that has been happening in ruralish areas all across the country.

As you may have guessed, the results of such mass movements have been almost wholly negative for the native populations.

Of course, what really grabbed the nation’s attention was the whole “Haitians eat pets” thing. It featured prominently in the initial social media hullabaloo and Trump then agreed and amplified it at the debate. The thing about the claim is that it is, in fact, true. Further, it’s hilariously true simply because of how bent out of shape the Left got over trying to “well AKSHUALLY!!” their way out of having to admit it. But frankly, anyone who has ever done, or knows someone who has ever done, missions work in Haiti knows that dogs and cats are a foodstuff down there. And there’s nothing “racist” about saying so. In point of fact, there are a lot of places in this world where the people do not have the same snuggle-fed attachment to dogs and cats as pets that Americans and other westerners do. There’s nothing wrong with that. That’s their cultures, that’s how they do things, and that’s perfectly fine for them.

I’m talking about this “eating pets” thing not so much because it, in and of itself, is that important. Rather, there are a couple of much more salient points that can be made that derive from it.

The first is that it’s an easily understood meme that highlights the deeper fact that the mass numbers of Haitians (and others) being moved into towns all across this country are creating huge - and unnecessary - distortions in all of these communities due to their cultural incompatibility. Crime goes up. HIV cases go up. Americans working for $18/hr lose their jobs to subsidised Haitians working for $9/hr, and then lose their homes and apartments because landlords can make twice as much renting to those same Haitians (whose housing costs are also subsidised by federal/NGO monies). And yes, people see their pets stolen and eaten (they’ve now moved on to horses in Florida), which occurs because you have a mass of people from a different culture who are under no pressure to conform to local standards of behaviour and thus don’t do so.

Haitians and other global South immigrants really, actually, truly do cause problems wherever they settle in large numbers. In Aurora, Colorado and in Chicago (and elsewhere), Venezuelan gangs have literally taken over chunks of territory. Haitians in Springfield have been trying to kidnap peoples’ grandkids (presumably for trafficking purposes). In general, immigrants (especially illegals) tend to be less scrupulous about obeying simple, everyday rules of American life such as getting auto insurance, obeying traffic laws, and the like, and tend to cause more accidents and then be unassessable for those costs. In short, they tend to turn the areas where they settle into portions of the third world countries from which they came. Indeed, I tend to think that the media and other immigration supporters wanted the focus to remain on “they’re eating the pets!!” because that draws attention away from the many, and much worse, problems that the Haitians and other third world immigrants seem to cause wherever they go in large numbers.

The other point I’d draw from the whole “eating pets” kerfluffle is that it really revealed the basic dishonesty of many of the commenters involved. And by that, I mean those on the Left who spent the better part of a week accusing Trump, Vance, random right wingers on social media, and many people in Springfield itself of being “dishonest,” lying about those poor, defenceless Haitians in their never-ending quest to advance the cause of White Supremacy across the country.

As it turns out, people weren’t lying. There were, in fact, police reports about the missing pets and city officials knew about the problem. The powers that be just didn’t care, in much the same way that they didn’t care about any of the other numerous problems that were being caused by thousands of inassimilable, often hostile foreigners being dropped into Springfield. Really, common sense should have been the guide here. Who is more believable? Residents who actually live there and actually see it happening who have been saying this stuff for months, even before it became national news, or local officials who have definite financial interests in keeping the gravy train running smoothly? I mean, who are you going to trust, an actual resident or some pencilneck “immigration expert” from the New York Times?

The thing is, all of these people out there throwing shade at our side knew all of this. They knew the allegations about the Haitians were true. They knew they were falsely accusing people of lying. And it wasn’t just confined to the left-wing politicians and their squishy-con Republican stooges. A goodly number of these people are professing Christians, the type of Regimevangelical “leader” who always seems to turn up on the wrong side of any issue involving the Bible, morality, or basic truth. They never fail to have some out-of-context, kindergarten-level "hermeneutic” that they break out to support whatever destructive and damaging thing the Regime wants to do to the American people.

Why does it seem like this is always the case, especially with immigration-related issues such as have been recently at the forefront of the national discussion?

Well, frankly, it’s because there is a strong financial interest at stake. There are billions of dollars of federal government monies that flow freely to bring in, subsidise, and settle “refugees” and other migrants across this country. There are billions more that are essentially laundered through NGOs and other “charities” to do the same. How the system works is that these monies are used to pay for rent, benefit cards, etc. for refugees and migrants, which essentially gives them free housing, etc. while landlords can jack up rents, drive out American renters, and see the government pay for the inflated rents. A good portion of these monies end up in the pockets of local and state politicians who then promote this resettlement. A good example is Springfield’s mayor, who is making a killing off of rentals in his city.

It works the same way with the job market in these places. Immigrants don’t get all the jobs because they work harder, etc. They get the jobs because they can work more cheaply, undercutting the local prevailing wage because many of their other costs (things like rent and groceries that Americans have to pay for out of pocket) are subsidised. If you’re hooked in along any stage in the refugee resettlement business, it’s a win-win all the way around. Employers get cheap labour, landlords get to charge governments inflated rental prices that they know bureaucrats will simply rubber stamp, local governments get tons of “grant monies” and so forth, and the immigrants themselves get to rake in all kinds of benefits that are unavailable to native born Americans. As the saying goes, it’s a great gig if you can swing it.

And let’s not forget that a lot of this goes through various “Christian” organisations dedicated to refugee resettlement and allied functions. Included in this are many churches, denominations, and parachurch organisations. What makes these groups worse than the secular/governmental groups involved is that they try to dress up their cupidity and betrayal of their own people in pious sounding language about “loving your neighbour.”

The thing that we need to understand is that things that we see in Scripture have objective, definite meanings, even if they are metaphorical, etc. - the metaphors still point to a particular meaning. Progressive “Christians” who do things like trying to wield “love thy neighbour” as a rhetorical bludgeon typically have the hermeneutical sophistication of a 5-year-old who just learned how to handle snakes. And we should understand that Christians are not, in fact, beholden to obey or follow wrong interpretations of Scripture. These three facts are foundational to assessing the progressive “Christian” arguments for refugees.

Now, on its face Christians should certainly love their neighbours. Of course. But we should also understand that there is a lot of context to this that is being glossed over by the people who simply quote three words and leave the rest unsaid. The entire world is not your neighbour. Neither are people who were just brought in en masse into your community to replace you. Simple physical proximity doesn’t make someone your neighbour. Indeed, there is a whole, complex cultural set of hospitality rules that existed in the ancient Near East (including in Jesus’ day) and which would have informed both what Jesus meant and how His hearers would have understood what he was saying. The “love thy neighbour” passages simply cannot be rightly interpreted without reference to this cultural context and trying to do so is to employ a childish and illegitimate hermeneutic. In short, whatever assertions progressive “Christians” might make from these verses, real Christians do not need to pay them any attention.

But you know who are your neighbours, in every sense of the word including the Scriptural? The people who are in your community who don’t invade you in large numbers, who don’t game the system to impoverish or dispossess you. In other words, to be neighbours, they themselves also have to act neighbourly. Neighbourliness is a two-way street. “Love thy neighbour” is not, actually, this one easy trick to force people to accept infinity third worlders into their communities without complaint. Per the hospitality rules that existed in scriptural times, incomers into a community were to completely leave their people behind, were to completely assimilate themselves. The actual examples of “immigrants” into Israel such as Ruth, Rahab, etc. did exactly that. Someone who refuses to adopt American culture, who won’t speak our language in our own schools, who waves around the flag of whatever place they came from - these people are not acting “neighbourly” and therefore are not “neighbours.”

Look at the often-misused parable of the Good Samaritan and understand the context behind it. Israelites and Samaritans lived in close proximity to each other, but while they tended to be mutually antagonistic, the divide was not as stark or as venomous as you likely heard when you were a kid in Sunday school. Samaritans did, however, tend to be looked down upon by “orthodox” Israelites who worshipped in the Temple. And that is what’s at issue in the parable. It’s not that the “Samaritan was an immigrant who showed love.” He wasn’t even an immigrant. In a non-parabolic setting, he might have lived a few miles from the man he helped, and both their families might have lived a few miles from each other for hundreds of years. Rather, it was to make a point that the priest and the Levite - both of whom knew the law and should have helped the robbed man - were religious hypocrites for not doing so. They were acting unneighbourly, while the Samaritan - a heterodox man outside the Law, at least in Israelite eyes - acted neighbourly. “Immigration” has absolutely nothing to do with the parable at all - it’s more making a point about personal enmity versus personal magnanimity. The man who should have historically shown enmity toward the robbed man, and who would have had a good case for saying he had a right to do so, did not while those who should have helped didn’t.

Indeed, understand that the folks involved in religious organisations that are doing this are actually hating their neighbours. Because of their greed and love of money disguised as altruism, they are inflicting miseries onto their own people next door in their own communities. And they most often use their own political predilections to justify it. Ministry is replaced with “ministry” as part of the False Religion-Industrial Complex. You have to “love everybody” except for white working-class people in flyover country. It’s ok to hate them and do them harm. And this whole migration scheme is, in fact, specifically designed to harm and replace Heritage Americans under the guise of charity and benevolence. The whole idea is to do hurt to people you don’t like politically and make money while doing it.

Needless to say, these people are very much like the money changers in the Temple whom Jesus drove out. They exploit their own people for gain and associate themselves with the aura of religion while doing so. Unsurprisingly, just as the money changers probably didn’t like the real Jesus, so also these progressive Christians prefer a Jesus of their own making. Regardless, they need to be “driven out of the Temple again.” Americans - Christian or otherwise - need to exercise a zero-tolerance approach toward these people. It’s time to start attaching some names and faces to the harm being done to communities all across this country. People need to be held to account for the damage that has been done. Expose them, name them, shame them, remove them from polite company - both those involved with these groups themselves and the Regimevangelicals who support them.