In 1993, an idealistic American graduate student of Stanford University, Amy Biehl, was brutally murdered by four Black males in the township of Gugulethu, near Cape Town South Africa during her visit whose purpose was to end Apartheid. Amy, the only White occupant in a car with South African Blacks, was immediately targeted by a large Black mob shouting anti-White slurs. Amy was quickly pulled from the car, stabbed repeatedly, and stoned to death.

Amy’s four attackers were subsequently arrested and placed on trial. The defendants claimed that their actions were politically motivated. In his 1998 book, One Miracle Is Not Enough, Rex van Schalkwyk painted a less than sobering picture of the court proceedings when he wrote: “Supporters of the three men accused of murdering [her]… burst out laughing in the public gallery of the Supreme Court today when a witness told how the battered woman groaned in pain” (pp. 188–89). Each of the defendants, however, was convicted for their murderous crimes. They were later granted amnesty by the ‘Truth and Reconciliation Commission’ in 1998 after having served only four years in prison.

Amy’s parents, Peter and Linda Biehl, fully supported the release of the murderers and were quite vocal about it too. Peter, in fact, shook their hands and stated: “The most important vehicle of reconciliation is open and honest dialogue. . . . We are here to reconcile a human life [that] was taken without an opportunity for dialogue. When we are finished with this process we must move forward with linked arms” (Wikipedia). Numerous articles were published praising Amy’s parents’ decision to forgive her daughter’s murderers appeared in both American and South African newspapers. One wonders how self-debased a father can get that he would shake the hands of those who stabbed and stoned to death his own daughter?!

A charity foundation was created in 1994, the ‘Amy Biehl Foundation Trust.’ Adding insult to injury, two of the men who had murdered Amy were hired to work for the foundation! Seventeen years after Amy’s death, a bronze plaque mounted on a stone was unveiled by the U.S. Ambassador, Donald Gips and Linda Biehl, at the Cape Town site where she was murdered.

None of this, of course, did a bit of any lasting good. Since Apartheid ended, South Africa has morphed into a cesspool of government corruption, staggering levels of violent crime, and a rabid anti-White ethos has gripped most of the nation. Racially naïve Whites like the Biehls will never attain the racial Utopia they want despite the best of intentions and endless funding they may receive because of the natural proclivities of Blacks and their dysfunctional cultures. Blacks cannot change who they fundamentally are, and neither can Whites. This is why every effort to make them like us and to erase our innate differences has failed repeatedly, wherever Blacks are found around the world.

Former U.S. Ambassador Donald Gips and Linda Biehl

Peter and Linda Biehl, no doubt, thought that in all of this they were doing their ‘Christian duty,’ that it was the ‘right thing’ to do. But was it? Did the men who murdered Amy express any remorse after what they had done? Seems to me that they tried to excuse their actions as merely political. Did the defendants take the initiative and seek forgiveness from the Biehls, or were the Biehls, like so many well-meaning but foolish Christians of our era, ready and eager to forgive them even though it was never asked for?

The Biehls may have thought that Jesus’s words to “love your enemies” and to “forgive others for their transgressions” were intended to exhaustively cover every conceivable occasion of malicious crime, treason, and murder. Yet is this really what he meant? What many Christians fail to understand is Jesus’s use of hyperbole in such sayings as above — that is, exaggeration for the sake of emphasis. It’s a way of overstating a point in order to drive home a lesson or an important concept that we want our listeners to comprehend. The same thing occurs when Jesus spoke of hating one’s parents. Hyperbole, then, is something that we all do when conversing with others. Many of Jesus’s sayings are framed in this manner, and it’s something many Christians miss.

Moreover, Jesus’s teachings were intended as general lessons about God, life, and how we should treat others. They were never intended to cover every possible situation in life with absolutely no exceptions or qualifications. They were never intended to be military strategy or even social policy for democratic societies. We must ask ourselves: Did Jesus really expect his followers to embrace with loving arms and to pronounce forgiveness upon an intruder who just ruthlessly murdered his or her family? Did Jesus expect the same mindset to be carried out onto the battlefield against national enemies in a time of war? What would the Biehls think of King David’s hateful expressions in Psalm 139:22: “Do I not hate those who hate you, O’ Lord? And do I not loathe those who rise up against you? I hate them with the utmost hatred; they have become my enemies”? Or how about the parable of the money usage in Luke 19:27 where Jesus says: “But these enemies of mine, who did not want me to reign over them, bring them here and slay them in my presence”? Sounds a bit hateful, eh?

Hate, then, is not treated in the biblical record as something necessarily bad. It’s treated as a basic human emotion that can be used for good or for bad depending on the circumstances. And yet the failure to understand this most basic premise has caused Christians to engage in some very foolish and harmful things over the years. In this regard. Peter and Linda Biehl are no different and they continue to be the poster children for all that is wrong with a Christianity that has embraced multiculturalism.

In 1993, 12-year-old Polly Klaas was kidnapped at knifepoint from her home in Petaluma, California by long-time felon, Richard Allen Davis. He later strangled the little girl to death and left her in an open field. Davis never asked for forgiveness for his horrific crimes from the family and has remained defiant to this day. In fact, after the verdict was read at his trial in 1996 in which he was sentenced to death row, Davis stood up and gave the middle finger with both hands. Later, at his formal sentencing, he read a statement claiming that Polly had said to him right before she was killed, “Just don’t do me like my dad.”

Should our hearts bleed for a puke like Davis? Is Polly’s father required by Christian duty to ‘forgive’ Davis, even to the point of seeking his release from prison? Hardly. It’s one thing to personally forgive those who genuinely seek forgiveness for their offenses, and who see themselves as justly condemned for their actions, but it’s quite another to offer forgiveness to those who will gladly spit in your face. And why should forgiveness for the most heinous crimes committed against the innocent nullify justice? Forgiven or not, why should any society release those who have willfully taken the life of an innocent victim, especially when the possibility of a repeat crime is always present?

Richard Allen Davis

In this respect, the parents of Amy Biehl, have managed to make a mockery of their daughter’s tragic death, pervert justice, as well as dishonor their own Christian faith. Forgiveness, then, is just one of many areas where modern Christians have grossly misunderstood their own religion.

It staggers the mind when one considers how a very natural emotion such as hate has been so badly misunderstood and vilified. Jewish activist groups such as the Anti-Defamation League and Southern Poverty Law Center have made it their mission in life to stamp out “hate” and “hate groups” throughout America. In their ‘Intelligence Report,’ the SPLC mentions “hate” no less than seven times when describing what they do. One soon discovers that the “hate” they seek to monitor and expose is almost exclusively directed at “hard right extremist groups.” Their goal is to “push white supremacy out of the mainstream.” Jews want Whites as docile and non-threatening as possible so that their goal to deracinate us and ultimately dilute our European bloodline is achieved uninterrupted.

Incidentally, I could find nothing on the SPLC website about the truly violent Antifa — a hate group if ever there was one — that was in any way negative. In fact, one article under their ‘Hate Watch’ category openly condemned designating Antifa as a domestic terrorist group, stating it was both “dangerous” and “threatens civil liberties” (June 6. 2020). It’s apparent, then, that “hate” only goes one direction when it comes to Jewish activist groups claiming to be eradicating it. All forms of White racial identity and interests are vehemently denounced, including organizations that are to the political and social right (e.g., anti-abortion groups).

This is all very typical of the age in which we live where the term “hate” is applied to everything people don’t like or find disagreeable. There is no middle ground. Yet confusion abounds regarding the term and nature of hate itself. The Oxford Dictionary defines “hate” as “to feel intense dislike for” or “to have a strong aversion for.” This definition shows clearly that there’s nothing irrational, bizarre, or uniquely evil about “hate” per se. It is treated as a common and normal human expression. Which one of us hasn’t at one time or another hated something or someone in their lives? And was it really hate as commonly understood or just an intense dislike? How many of us have hated someone and never took any steps to harm them? And what if hate is fully justified in some instances? Is it then still morally wrong?

Dr. Michael Hurd:

You cannot rationalize away the need for justice and proper judgment of others for their actions by saying, ‘Hate is mean, and you become the enemy if you engage in it.’ That’s beyond ridiculous. If what you’re really trying to say is, “Don’t let those who hate you destroy you,” then that’s certainly good advice. But you don’t keep hateful people from destroying you by pretending that you love them, or by giving them back anything other than what they deserve. (“In Defense of Hatred,” January 14, 2014)

It should be obvious by now that when one starts to think deeper about the term ‘hate’ and its application to White racialists who oppose their own racial and cultural displacement by foreign groups, that simply describing them as “haters” is horribly misplaced, especially when they have good reason to express their aversion and dislike for what is occurring to them.

Not so surprisingly, the people who shout the loudest about “haters” are often the most hateful. Leftists always scream about ‘love’ and ‘tolerance,’ and yet haven’t the slightest qualms about destroying property, disrupting meetings not their own and preventing others from attending, as well as physically attacking their political opponents. Antifa thugs wouldn’t think twice about swiftly applying a boot to the face of anyone who ideologically differs from them. Edward Dutton rightly refers to them as “spiteful mutants.”

The Left, then, is not really against “hate” as they claim. They’re quite satisfied in expressing their hateful rage against those who don’t see life as they do. Their actions really tell us that it’s okay for them to hate, but not for us.

Jews have weaponized the expression ‘hate’ just as they have done with the term’s ‘racism’ and ‘racist’. Anyone who espouses views contrary to liberal Jewish activists is described as a “hater” and “hateful.” They paint their opponents in this way because it conjures up images of people who are backward in their thinking, country bumkins of sorts, and deeply prejudicial. It implies such person are irrational, filled with rage, and even evil at heart. It is ad-hominem in nature because rational discourse is not permitted.

It’s also a way of shutting down discussion or debate. Jews know that to allow an open discussion on mass immigration and its social and economic impact on White Americans would not be beneficial to them — especially when the same arguments that Whites use to defend limiting immigration or setting in place a moratorium (and perhaps expelling illegals [at least]) for fear of becoming a despised minority in one’s own country could just as equally be applied to Jews in Israel. The very things Jews want in terms of preserving their national and ethnic identity, including a secure border free from invasion are exactly what a growing number of White Americans want. And all White Americans would want if they weren’t programmed by the mainstream media and educational system and intent on presenting themselves as virtuous do-gooders.

The concerns that racially conscious Whites express, then, are perfectly reasonable. There’s nothing “hateful” about it in the least. What racial or ethnic group, after all, wants to decrease its influence, standing, and national identity within what was their own nation? What racial group would want to be taken over by foreigners with foreign cultures and foreign values? Most people would view opposition to a foreign invasion as perfectly reasonable regardless of whether it happens legally or illegally. Jews know this too, and this is why it’s easier for them to simply label Whites who care about their race as “white supremacists” and “haters” than to engage them in reasoned discourse which could automatically backfire before a rational audience of White people.

I don’t even think that most Whites who oppose non-White immigration and who follow the advice of “Dilbert” creator Scott Adams to “get the hell away” from Blacks actually hate Black people — at least not in the way many people think. They simply want to be left alone. They don’t want to see their country become the squat house for every Third-World migrant. They don’t enjoy seeing their once grand cities become another version of Detroit or Chicago with their skyrocketing levels of Black crime. They don’t want their clean communities turning into Mexican barrios with all the filth and gang problems that Mexicans bring. This is not a matter of hating other racial groups per se, but in Whites wanting to preserve what they have created for themselves and for future generations. This is perfectly natural and normal, and every racial and ethnic group throughout the world wants the very same things for their own people – including Jews!

Informed Whites don’t deny that there are good and decent people within every racial and ethnic group. I have met Blacks, Hispanics, Asians, and people from every place in the world who were honorable and decent persons. But I wouldn’t want any of them here flooding my country despite all that. Let them be good and decent in their own countries. I’m sure they would feel the same about me and my people so there’s nothing hateful about saying it.

Is there ever a time when hate is wrong? Yes, I think so. It’s not so much that feelings of hate by themselves are wrong, but how we handle or control them. I think it’s wrong, for instance, when it consumes you and prevents you from living a healthy and emotionally balanced life. It’s wrong when a root of bitterness sets in and overtakes you. It’s wrong when you are unable to focus on anything else. It’s wrong when it leads you to think and act irrationally. Hate, then, is an emotion we have been created or evolved with. The issue, then, is not so much shall we hate, but how shall we manage it in a way that does not lead to our self-destruction nor the ruin of our families and loved ones.

Finally, it’s common for well-meaning but naïve people to argue that we should only hate the actions of wicked people and never the people themselves. We are urged to hate only the evil that motivates them. We are told to hate the destructive results of their evil deeds, but never the person who chooses to commit them. But this is a ridiculous distinction when one considers that their evil deeds do not occur independently from the heart and mind of the person doing them. It’s both a conscious and willful choice on their part. Their deeds spring from who and what they are; their choices reflect what they think and feel.