The “theonomic” cultural Marxist Bojidar Marinov has managed to abuse the horrific suffering that my own people are undergoing to launch yet another attack on Christianity and the West. In this two-part series I will proceed to cover Marinov’s lies, misrepresentations, and theological errors made in a recent podcast themed around his so-called “covenantal approach to history”, where Marinov refers to the South African government’s recent decision to proceed by taking white-owned land without compensation.

Marinov’s start seems somewhat promising. He admits: “It looks like the white farmers of South Africa have little hope to keep their land. And without compensation, the prospect before their families is certainly not bright.” As a white South African farmer, I appreciate Marinov’s recognition of the dire reality, but this only makes the attack on white Christendom he subsequently launches even worse.

Marinov continues to argue that open borders – in particular open borders for America – would have been an easy solution to the plight of the Boer people. Well, as nice as that sounds right now, it really wouldn’t be any solution at all, and Marinov’s suggestion is incredibly short-sighted. Closed borders are the only reason there are any free Christian nations where any white man would be free from the kind of persecution the Boers currently face. If America had had open borders, it would have looked a lot like South Africa by now. In fact, the reason white South Africans are in this position is precisely because they allowed millions of non-white pagans to settle their land. Furthermore, there are many hellholes where Boers can freely go to, which have very lenient or no immigration restrictions.

Marinov goes on to call immigration restrictions ‘occultic’ and ‘socialistic’ and open borders a legacy of Christendom. Marinov tries to present medieval Christendom as a civilization with open borders for persecuted groups, but he simultaneously uses examples of persecution from within Western Christendom itself. Marinov mentions that for Gnostics persecuted in France, there would be some local rulers in the Balkans who accepted them as refugees. Is Marinov arguing that the French rulers were in the wrong not to practice religious pluralism and liberty with these deniers of the Old Testament God? The preservation of true religion by the state is a central tenet of theonomy. As outlined in article 36 of the Belgic Confession, it is the duty of Christian rulers, in accordance with the Scriptures, to purge their lands of false religions. Therefore it was the Balkan rulers who were in the wrong, not the French. Perhaps unsurprisingly, his second example involves Jews, who, if persecuted in one part of Europe, would find refuge in another – in particular the Netherlands. However, this Dutch tolerance of Jews and Judaism was the exception in Christian Europe, not the rule. To use this example for a claim that open borders is a legacy of Christendom is absurd.

In fact, it was standard practice for medieval cities and towns to be walled. Building a wall to keep people out is the true Christian legacy. Although travel between different principalities and domains within Christendom was fairly easy if one had the means, this was not common and mass immigration like we see today was not a scenario European Christians would have even considered possible. Paying men to continually patrol the border of every county, principality, and duchy makes no sense if hardly anyone ever comes by. Medieval societies were extremely geographically rooted. Accepting large groups of refugees from another race and religion from outside of Europe never occurred to anyone. Marinov deceptively equivocates those examples of migration of white Christians within the realm of Christendom with an open-borders policy to all “persecuted groups”. When it concerned the borders of Christendom itself, the Byzantine empire had military units known as Akritai who guarded the border with Muslim countries to the east. They weren’t commanded to check if the people on the other side were oppressed or not. Their orders were to secure the border.

In exceptional circumstances when Muslim travelers were allowed to visit Christian lands, they would also be subject to “a terribly humiliating and degrading process” at customs, as the twelfth-century Islamic traveler Ibn Jaybr described it. Muslims would be thoroughly searched before they could pass through a border.

Marinov goes on to push the Statue of Liberty as representative of America’s Christian roots: “’Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,’ today say no such thing”. Ironically, the quote Marinov ascribes to American Christians is from a non-Christian nineteenth-century Zionist poet, who, through her denial of Jesus as Messiah, is literally an enemy of God, a description Marinov maliciously employs for those who oppose open borders.

Marinov falsely presents his radically leftist position as a biblical covenantal position. He argues that allowing people like white South Africans to come over should “not be a matter of government permission anymore than homeschooling or changing your job or renovating your house. All those are economic decisions, and no economic decision of a family or an individual should be the business of any government to permit or prohibit.” Though veiled as anti-socialism, this has all the materialism we would expect from a Marxist. Describing the homeschooling of one’s children as an economic decision is rather disturbing, and reveals Marinov’s Marxist worldview which interprets all of human reality in terms of economics.

Marinov continues by attacking white American Christians who opposed Obama’s attempted use of his executive power to grant amnesty to Middle Eastern Muslims and Central American mestizos, while now urging Trump to take in white South Africans. With Marinov, I grant that most of these people act inconsistently in public, but their instincts are not inconsistent. It is due only to the idol of political correctness that people are afraid to explicitly express their desire to accept white Christian brothers as refugees in their land and keep out non-Christian foreigners.

In the second (and concluding) part of this series, I will continue debunking Marinov’s radically inconsistent and deceptive line of reasoning in order to expose his abuse of the tragic circumstances of Christians in South Africa for his own Marxist agenda.