When people hate you

I sometimes run across the following in internet articles.  Suppose you have a society composed of a majority group G1 (usually it’s whites or Christians) and a minority group G2 (blacks or Jews).  Two commentators, A and B, both belonging to the majority group, are having a discussion.

  • A claims that members of G2 tend to have hostility towards members of G1.
  • B calls A a racist, and says that G2 are perfectly innocent victims with nothing but love for everyone.
  • A confronts B with evidence that most G2s actively hate G1s.
  • B admits that G2s hate G1s, but says that this doesn’t matter because G1 deserves the hatred it’s getting for its long history of oppressiong G2.  For this reason, members of G1 should take no measures to defend themselves, either verbally or physically.

Now I think it’s pretty clear that Jews as a group (there are, of course, individual exceptions) passionately hate Christians, and American blacks hate white America, although I admit the point is debatable.  I invite those who don’t believe it to treat the following as a thought experiment.  What do you do when some group hates your group?

Traditionally, there have been two responses:  defense or appeasement.  Sometimes, when the enemies goals are modest, appeasement is actually the logical strategy.  The groups in question, though, are implacable.  Jews often claim that the New Testament itself is anti-semitic, and nothing less than a repudiation of Christianity’s sacred texts (and, thus, the abolition of Christianity itself) will appease them.  Similarly, critics of white America claim that oppression of minorities is the very essence of whiteness–a category we arbitrarily created to persecute others and which thoroughly suffuses our national being–and therefore America (and every other Western nation) has no legitimate existence at all.

It would seem, then, that the only reasonable response is defense.  This doens’t mean attacking Jews or blacks.  It doens’t mean we should hate them, or even that hating them is morally acceptable.  It does mean recognizing that many of them mean us harm and taking precautions to deflect their attacks.  For example, Vatican officials are always caught off guard when Jewish leaders attack the Good Friday Mass and say that they fear it will lead to progroms and genocide.  How could a group with an average IQ of 110 believe something so outrageous?  The thing is, of course, that they don’t.  They just see playing the victim card as an effective way to attack their hated enemy.  So, when the Vatican needs to do something Jews aren’t going to like (e.g. reconciling with traditionalist groups), the pope’s men should not be asking themselves “how can we reassure the Jews of our good will?”.  Rather, they should ask, “in making this move, we open up ourselves to an attack by the Jews, and given their feelings towards us, they can be expected to seize on any opportunity to do us harm.  What can we do to weaken the effects of their attack when it comes?”  Also, as Larry Auster never tires of pointing out, white women should be careful about going defenseless into black neighborhoods.

Today, we have a third option:  understanding and, basically, endorsing the hatred directed against us.  “You can’t blame blacks for hating us, given all that we’ve done to them…”  It’s remarkable, because it’s so historically unprecedented.  Imagine someone had gone up to Hector during the siege of Troy and told him that he should not be defending his homeland against the Greeks because, after all, his brother did steal one of their wives and violate hospitality, so really the Greeks are in the right and Troy deserves to fall.  Of course, no one ever imagined making such an argument in the days of healthy paganism, but we can imagine what Hector might have said.  “It’s the gods’ business to decide if Troy deserves to fall.  My duty is to defend the fatherland they’ve given me.  A past act of abduction can hardly be made right by a new act of treason.”

I admit that my sentiments often run in a pagan direction.  When somebody says, “but they have good reason to hate us!”, I reply, “So what?”  The only fact that matters is that they mean us harm, and they can’t be placated.  If my church or my nation deserves to fall, God will take care of that, and I can win my salvation doing my duty toward a doomed people.  I have no hope for reaching “understanding” with Jewish or civil rights leaders.  I know the hatred that drives them, and they can sense my tribalism; we understand each other quite well.  The only thing I care about is how to shield against their attacks.

2 Responses

  1. Well said, Bonald.

    Just one subsidiary point. You said “…I can win my salvation doing my duty toward a doomed people.”

    Perhaps you were referring to another form of salvation, but as a traditional Protestant I must point out that salvation from the wrath of God is through repentance toward God and faith in Jesus Christ (e.g., Acts 20:21). Doing good works is a fruit of salvation, not its basic cause.

    Just doing my duty as a Protestant.

  2. This is true for Catholics as well. I consider myself properly corrected. Thank you.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: