The Hatred of the World

If the world hate you, ye know that it hated me before it hated you. If ye were of the world, the world would love his own: but because ye are not of the world, but I have chosen you out of the world, therefore the world hateth you. Remember the word that I said unto you, The servant is not greater than his lord. If they have persecuted me, they will also persecute you; if they have kept my saying, they will keep yours also. But all these things will they do unto you for my name’s sake, because they know not him that sent me. If I had not come and spoken unto them, they had not had sin: but now they have no cloak for their sin. He that hateth me hateth my Father also. If I had not done among them the works which none other man did, they had not had sin: but now have they both seen and hated both me and my Father. But this cometh to pass, that the word might be fulfilled that is written in their law, They hated me without a cause. But when the Comforter is come, whom I will send unto you from the Father, even the Spirit of truth, which proceedeth from the Father, he shall testify of me: And ye also shall bear witness, because ye have been with me from the beginning. – John 15: 18-27

__________

There was nothing unusual about the recent incident in Florida where a group of black youths stood by laughing as a black man drowned, screaming for help. Those black youths were not aberrations, some hideous offshoot of the sacred black race. No, indeed, those blacks were a microcosm of the entire black race. The decent black, the Uncle Remus black, is the aberration. The black youths’ cruelty is indicative of the cruelty of all the colored races. They are devoid of mercy. And those people, the people devoid of mercy, are the people that the liberals bid us worship and pay homage to by handing our nations over to them. The colored problem and the Moslem problem are from the same root. Islam, Hinduism, and the other pagan unfaiths are merely organized, merciless, colored heathenism. When liberals join their hearts with the colored heathens and put their science, their police, their military, their government, their doctors, and their educational institutions at the service of the colored heathen, they join the people who have no mercy. And they have joined the people who have not mercy because they hate Jesus Christ. Let us keep that fact always before our eyes. While there are many varied groups within Liberaldom, many of which are opposed to each other, the one unifying passion of all the contending groups is their hatred of Jesus Christ. If you fail to understand that, you will be forever at the mercy of the liberals who manage to survive and thrive because of the spiritual blindness of the white grazers.

Our Lord said that we would be hated by the world and bid us take comfort in the fact that the world “hated me before it hated you.” What kind of comfort is that? Who wants to be hated by the world? Our European ancestors were not afraid to be hated by the world. If you tell me that it was easy for them to be Christians because they were in the majority I would disagree. Whites have always been a minority vis-à-vis the world. And even within European nations the white Christians were in the minority at first. They, the whites who bent their knees to Christ, held the pagan world at bay because they loved Christ and hated the devil. Our modern intellectual Christians tell us that we must not antagonize the liberals by defending the indefensible, which is the antique Europeans. But why are they indefensible? Because they were racist and sexist? Yes, that is what it usually comes down to. A people who loved their own and protected their own, while evangelizing the lesser breeds who never knew charity or mercy nor never knew that women were anything more than chattel until they came into contact with white Europeans, were condemned for being racist and sexist.

Secular liberals and intellectual, utopian Christians all spoke with one voice against the European people because of their racism and sexism. The secular liberals attack the antique Europeans because they hate Christ, and the intellectual Christians permit and often join in the attacks because they fear the censure of the world. But what good is a faith if it is not a fighting faith? If you claim you stand with Christ and against liberalism how can you stand by and do nothing while the liberals use the negro and the liberated woman as battering rams to destroy His reign of charity?

Every criticism of liberalism by Christians and conservatives is always prefaced with the obligatory worship of the black race: “I’m against abortion because it hurts blacks,” “I’m against Moslem terrorism, but I am not racist.” Well, if you are not racist, if you do not have white pietas, you are either a liberal or a coward who wants the comforts of the Christian faith without the cross. We are told by our Savior that we must love Him with all our heart, mind, and soul. How can we love Him if we flee from the channels of grace that connect us to Him? He comes to us through His divine humanity, hence we can only know Him through our humanity. A religion based on the hatred of Christ and His people, which is the religion of the liberals and the colored heathens, and a religion based on a denial of the natural ties to Him through our kith and kin, which is the religion of the intellectual Christians, are both cold, merciless faiths emanating from the cold, malevolent intellect of the devil.

Let me place Arnold Lunn, the author of Flight from Reason, and Francis Schaeffer, the author of The God Who Is There, against St. Paul, Shakespeare, and Dostoyevsky in order to understand the white man’s failure to fight back against negro-worshipping Liberalism. Lunn, in his book Flight from Reason, laments the fact that Christians allowed the secular liberals to claim that they were the rationalists. Lunn asserts that it is the Christians who are the true rationalists, and then he makes the rational case for Christianity based on St. Thomas Aquinas’s writings. Schaeffer makes a similar point in his book The God Who Is There. He doesn’t base his rational apologetics on St. Thomas Aquinas, but he does make the case for the rationality of Christianity over the irrationality of the secular philosophers. Schaeffer places Kierkegaard with the secular existentialists, because Kierkegaard asserts the irrationality of Christianity, but then makes his famous leap of faith into the hands of the Christian God. While granting that Kierkegaard’s leap exaggerates the gap between faith and reason, I still would assert that Lunn and Schaeffer have missed something. Where they go wrong, in my opinion, is that they equate analytical reason with thought. Is thought just in the mind or does it come from the visionary organ of the heart? Schaeffer claims to believe in the inerrancy of scripture, yet he fails to take into account St. Paul’s insistence that it is through the heart that we come to know God. And if we look at the history of the European people, we see that St. Paul was right. When we merely comprehend God through the mind’s eye instead of seeing Him in and through the heart’s eye, we lose God and gain a heresy. The Lunn and Schaeffer apologetics cut the Europeans off from their racial hearth fire and as a result the Christian God becomes an airy nothing, who has to make way for the natural savage, the negro. (1)

Shakespeare’s Theseus in A Midsummer Night’s Dream is unsettled by the lovers’ midsummer night vision, which lies somewhere between reason and unreason:

I never may believe
These antique fables, nor these fairy toys.
Lovers and madmen have such seething brains,
Such shaping fantasies, that apprehend
More than cool reason ever comprehends.
The lunatic, the lover, and the poet
Are of imagination all compact:
One sees more devils than vast hell can hold;
That is the madman: the lover, all as frantic,
Sees Helen’s beauty in a brow of Egypt:
The poet’s eye, in a fine frenzy rolling,
Doth glance from heaven to earth, from earth to heaven;
And as imagination bodies forth
The forms of things unknown, the poet’s pen
Turns them to shapes, and gives to airy nothing
A local habitation and a name.
Such tricks hath strong imagination,
That, if it would but apprehend some joy,
It comprehends some bringer of that joy;
Or in the night, imagining some fear,
How easy is a bush supposed a bear?

But Hippolyta observes that the lovers have seen something profound in their midsummer night’s vision:

But all the story of the night told over,
And all their minds transfigur’d so together,
More witnesseth than fancy’s images,
And grows to something of great constancy;
But, howsoever, strange and admirable.

And then Dostoyevsky tells us in his novel The Possessed that Stavrogin was rational to the end:

The citizen of the canton of Uri was hanging there behind the door. On the table lay a piece of paper with the words in pencil: “No one is to blame, I did it myself.” Beside it on the table lay a hammer, a piece of soap, and a large nail—obviously an extra one in case of need. The strong silk cord upon which Nikolay Vsyevolodovitch had hanged himself had evidently been chosen and prepared beforehand and was thickly smeared with soap. Everything proved that there had been premeditation and consciousness up to the last moment.

At the inquest our doctors absolutely and emphatically rejected all idea of insanity.

And later in The Brothers Karamazov, Dostoyevsky tells us how his hero, Alyosha, the third dumb brother, rejects the rationalism of Stavrogin and Ivan. He rejects it because his heart is circumcised as St. Paul’s heart was circumcised:

All this made Alyosha’s heart bleed and obviously, as I mentioned before, what hurt him most was that the one he had loved more than anybody in the world now stood “dishonored” and “disgraced.” Even if this rebellion on the part of this young man was callow and unreasonable, I repeat for the third time (and I admit that I, too, am perhaps being unreasonable) that I am very pleased to find that the young man did not turn out to be too reasonable at this juncture, for everyone, unless he is very stupid, acquires sufficient reason in time, but if a young heart shows a lack of love at such a critical moment, when will it know love?

Leaving aside the question of the liberals’ missing link, which they have never found and never will find, what is the missing link between Kierkegaard’s leap of faith and the Lunn-Schaeffer Christian rationalism? St. Paul, the man with the circumcised heart, provides the missing link in Corinthians 1: 13. Without charity, which is beyond reason, we are lost. One could place more credence in Schaeffer’s rational Christianity if the end result of his philosophizing wasn’t the denial of the European hearth fire. If we don’t have a racial home, how will we learn to give and receive the charity which begins at home and perishes without one?

The Europeans won’t fight for their survival as a people, because they have been left homeless by their Christian leaders. You can’t march against the liberals and the colored heathens under the banner of intellectual Christianity. You can’t ‘Socratic dialogue’ the devil and his minions to death, unless you plan on boring them to death. But even then you won’t have any followers to take advantage of the drowsiness of your enemies, because they will all be sleeping the sleep of the walking dead – “He did not die, but nothing of life remained.”

Lunn and Schaeffer believed themselves to be fighting against the liberals by criticizing the irrationality of the liberals, but isn’t that a trick of the devil? By entering into the world of the Socratic dialogue, haven’t you chosen to defeat the devil with the devil’s own weapon – detached, analytical reason? So much of Kierkegaard’s work is inaccessible to me; I don’t understand what he is saying. If he means, when he says that we must make a leap of faith, that there is a better way to know God than through abstract reason, I would agree with him. But if he means we cannot know God at all, because of the limitations of reason, then I disagree with him. We can know God. We do make a leap of faith, but that leap of faith is grounded in His promise that He will not allow us to fall. Schaeffer and the rational Christians fail to allow a place for the human heart in their equations. Philosophy, even if it is called Christian theology, will always leave us in the dark and homeless. Why is Lear left homeless? Because he banishes the daughter closest to his heart when she cannot “heave her heart” into an abstract expression of filial devotion that will please Lear, who sees with his abstract mind and not with his heart. The tragic events that result from Lear’s philosophic abstraction of his heart from his head mirrors the tragedy of Christian Europe. In the name of a mind-forged abstract God, the European intelligentsia issued divorce papers to the living God and His people. And the result of that divorce is all around us. Moslems rule Europe, the negroes rule America through their liberal devotees; and feminist harpies, the most completely demonic creatures on the face of the earth, hover over the corpse of Christian Europe like vultures.

The Socratic dialogue of the Christian theologians is the bridge between Christian Europe and hell. So long as the Europeans clung to their God in and through the people of their own racial hearth fire, they held their own against the hatred of the world. But as soon as that bridge went up, as soon as the great minds of Christendom dialogued with the devil instead of combating the devil, what was once Christian Europe became the devil’s Europe, and the people of God, the Christ-bearing people, became, in the case of the liberals, one with Satan, and in the case of the grazers, they became helpless in the face of the liberal and colored barbarian onslaught. The end of all this is that the liberals and the non-white races hate the white race with all their heart, mind, and soul. And the white man has no defense against the malevolent hatred of the liberals and the lesser breeds that have no mercy, because he has lost that intimacy with God that gives a man the faith and fortitude to face the terror by night and the arrow that flieth by day. How could it be otherwise when we have abandoned our racial hearth fire, our connecting link to the Man of Sorrows? Like a coward on the battlefield the modern Europeans have fled from God and man. Everyone wants the casual friend who will go to dinner and sporting events with them and give them financial support. But who seeks a friend who is ‘the heart of my heart?’ That type of intimacy only comes to those who live within His reign of charity. Depth speaks to depth, but if the Europeans accept the liberals’ reign of superficiality, they will never find intimacy with God or with any of their own people. That is a tragedy that surpasses Oedipus’s tragic blight – To live in the superficial slime of hell without any knowledge of His world, a world in which the one true God loves His own with a love that passeth the understanding of reason, and a world in which the God-Man inspires His people to love with a passion and a depth that passeth the understanding of reason. The world will continue to hate the European people whether they believe in Christ or not. They can’t escape their destiny as the Christ-bearing people. But is it really so terrible to be hated for His name’s sake? Those who love and hate with all their hearts will endure to the end and be saved. The rest will wallow in the slime of liberalism until they are consumed by it. +

___________________

(1) Every time I see a T.V. evangelist doing ‘good works’ he is ‘helping’ black children in Africa. Every time I see a preacher on television the cameras focus on the blacks in the congregation. And every organized church competes with the other organized churches to make their congregations more ‘diverse.’ The end result of intellectual Christianity, which lacks the poetic depth of European Christianity, is the paganization of the Christian faith. That paganization leads to the worship of the natural black savage, which is the religion of the modern, faithless, homeless Europeans.