The Pete Quiñones Show - Reading Ivan Ilyin's 'On Resistance to Evil by Force' w/ Dr. Matthew Raphael Johnson - Episodes 21-30

Episode Date: September 5, 2026

9 Hours and 29 MinutesPG-13Dr. Matthew Raphael Johnson is a researcher, writer, and former professor of history and political science, specializing in Russian history and political ideology.Here are episodes 21-30 of Pete and Dr. Johnson reading and commentary of Ivan Ilyin's 1925 book, "On Resistance to Evil by Force."Tolstoy's "What is a Jew?"The Lies of Leftism: Ivan Ilyin, Atheism and the Death of Reason in the East and West by Dr. Matthew Raphael JohnsonDr Johnson's PatreonDr Johnson's CashApp - $Raphael71RusJournal.orgTHE ORTHODOX NATIONALISTDr. Johnson's Radio Albion PageDr. Johnson's Books on AmazonJohnson's Law in Action: Venezuela and the Foreign Policy of Mass PresumptionDr. Johnson's Pogroms ArticleThe Orthodox Nationalist: Karl Marx “On the Jewish Question” (1844)Article: Karl Marx’s Theses on the Jews and the Necessity of Free Trade: Zur Judenfrage (1844) by Matthew Raphael JohnsonPete and Thomas777 'At the Movies'Support Pete on His WebsitePete's PatreonPete's SubstackPete's SubscribestarPete's GUMROADPete's VenmoPete's Buy Me a CoffeePete on FacebookPete on TwitterBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-pete-quinones-show--6071361/support.

I want to welcome everyone back to our reading of Unresistance to Evil by Force by Ivan Eileen, Dr. Johnson. What's going on today, man? Well, you know, we were just talking just before we hit the record button about how important being a full-timer is. You know, I was the editor of the Barnes Review for several years. And the crazy conspiracies, the theories that I used to get, and not necessarily. like you say, not in a good way, in a stupid way. By the boatload, people don't think in terms of nuance,

which is why, you know, imagine those people reading this book or trying to read this book and what they come up with. It takes educated, full-time people, and therefore the support of listeners and readers, or else nothing happens. especially at this day and age, we're living in an age, you know, criticism of Israel is mainstream for the first time in ages. Stuff that we've been saying for 20 years, 30 years is now pretty normal in the Republican Party. Things can change very, very, very quickly.

And there has to be a group of people to comprehend it and guide it. as it goes down and something new comes up. Well, I think a lot of those people will just, you know, if you apply nuance to anything, they'll just call you a gatekeeper. So. Yeah, they always say that. Because, again, they think in these simple terms,

which is why, you know, books like this are important. People like me and you are important and the support of our readers aren't. I know many of our listeners, you know, they can't do this full time. but they can be a huge part of it by assisting us and doing it full-time. That's bringing down the regime even more. Yeah, I was watching somebody on Twitter,

who he's a statistics guy, and recently he got, he started getting red-pilled on race and on the JQ. and he's and he's going overboard and he's going to get himself kicked off of it and he I mean he's just he just he's not handling it very well and you know my idea was if I can reach out to him and talk to him and I told that to my wife and my wife said you know what people on Twitter are going to say if you do that right you're just a gatekeeper you're trying to de-radicalize him And it's like, no, I'm trying to save his bank account and trying to save, you know, maybe his job or something like that. But, you know, people who, you know, people who have these, you know, who are anonymous on Twitter and all they do is call everyone a Jew who disagrees with them.

You know, they think that by calling everyone a Jew who disagrees with them, that somehow they're helping. Yeah, they think they're somehow they're helping the situation. I had that when I used to have a Facebook account, so I no longer have. You know, there's a lot of great things about having it, a lot of stress about having it. And the stress lay exactly in what we're talking about here. Yeah. All right. Let's get going.

New chapter. All right. Chapter 14 about the object of love. And, oh, I told Dr. Johnson right before we started this, people listening, that I have a physical copy of this book. and it looks like we're about halfway done. So it might only get 50 or so episodes out of this instead of 127. Yeah, only 50 hours. My God.

We're slacking. Chapter 14, about the object of love. Posing and exploring the question of resistance to evil makes sense only from the perspective of living goodness. For to discover evil, to comprehend its quality in nature, and to resist it, accepting the struggle against it but not accepting it. This is precisely the task of goodness, revealed only to it and, in its resolution, accessible only to it. The struggle against evil, waged by an evil being out of the will to evil and for the sake of evil is not resistance to evil, but rather service to

it and its inculcation. Moreover, it is certainly not excluded that the clash of two evil principles will weaken one or even both of them. In Dostoevsky's words, quote, one reptile will devour another reptile, end quote, and in devouring it, will find its own end. However, it is clear that none of these evil principles resist evil as such, but each creates its own evil and only the clash of their evil intentions and evil energies weakens and destroys to the opposing adversaries. Yeah, the enemy of my enemy isn't necessarily my friend. We may be cordial when we see each other, but he is, he is not my friend. I know that, like, the Crowleyites in Britain tried to pass themselves off as, you know, far rightus for a while, because, you know, they love Nietzsche.

and they tried to force that into into his mentality. And, you know, it does, it takes, again, it takes nuance. It takes someone to be able to take that apart, brick by brick. Because superficially, it sounds wonderful. So you do have evil people, evil beings, evil institutions, They're not actually struggling, pretending to struggle against evil. Or if anything, it's two factions of the oligarchy that are at war with one another. Which, you know, I mean, a revolution tends to be a faction of the oligarchy at war with the rest of them.

Not necessarily, but it's very important to understand that. This is when things get very, very, very complicated. And this is also not to be a purist, you know, to be a holier than now, total, you know, fanatical purists about ideology. You know, but we have to be understanding. There's a lot of very sensitive people out there. You never know what they're going to come across in their reading material or anything else. And yeah, it's hard to criticize without sounding like a jerk. I mean, there's a way to do what I think, but I think this is very profound.

And the Soski is actually in reference to the possessed. great novel that he's talking about here. It is also clear that such an outcome while easing the atmosphere of evil in the world, in no way resolves the problem of true resistance to evil, but only removes from the agenda isolated situations and conflicts, the acuteness of which lay precisely in the fact that the good is forced to fight evil on both fronts, without at all confusing its own objective interest with those of both evil adversaries. It's sort of like that it's been Islam that's been at war with Israel.

This is not to support Islam, you know, either faction. I mean, it's not to do that. Islam has a lot of problems. I think the Jews were very much a part of its founding. I have a lecture about that years ago. But, you know, when we support their agenda, we're not supporting a swamp

we're supporting a further end that their that their agenda is bringing about yeah and that's something that a lot of people that's some nuance that a lot of people can't get over it's like I'm not going to criticize Hamas or Hezbollah because they're fighting my enemy and then immediately some faggot on Twitter will be like

oh you just want them all to come here right you want the Muslims to come here it's like I never said that it's a total straw man can you go fuck yourself please? I will go on and we will talk a little bit more about love. Yes, sir. That which can resist evil itself is living goodness. This means that resistance to evil stems from spiritualized love and is realized by it. It manifests, it, serves it, leads to it, implants it, grows it, and strengthens it. Yet this resistance does not stop before either mental coercion or physical coercion and suppression and suppression. How is this possible? It is possible because the principle of the spirit indicates to love its true object, limits it and modifies its appearance and its manifestation.

And above all, it shows her her object, thereby imparting to her fidelity and strength. You know, St. Augustine spoke of this at great length, that what you want to achieve, the goal you want, has to be permanent. and there's only one thing in the world that's permanent. That's God himself. And his manifestations, the justice of Chalcedon, everything else we've spoken of so far. It's God himself.

That's the one thing that won't go away. They can't take it away from them. The liturgy in the camps with a cracker in a grape shows exactly how far that can go. Love without God. And you can't talk about the spirit. Someone who believes in the spirit without believing in God is irrational. You have to say to them where the hell of the spirit come from.

Where's this origin? I understand materialism. We start talking about spirit. Something that isn't, you know, I define it something that's not, affected by you know it's not causing effect it's not something we could grab with our hands even something like a right you talk about rights all the time

you can't you know and many of the utilitarians came out and said you you know said no we don't believe in that stuff we don't believe in rights because that would imply the ultimate creator anything spiritual anything free actually in this world

Wood, this is Frank's great argument. If freedom exists, then God exists. And so we're talking about spiritualized love. We know what the left did with the word love in the late 60s. They didn't give a damn about people loving each other. Now, I don't think some of those activists were aware, say what the North was doing to the South, and what they were planning on doing to the South, and what they were doing to the South at the time,

that didn't even cross their minds. But they only cared about the victory of the North. Love, taken in itself, independent of the spiritual life, its object, its goal, and its tasks, is to be getting a blind passion. It combines the power of attraction with spiritual helplessness, the regularity of instinct with spiritual randomness, a healthy biological infallibility with spiritual promiscuity and perversity.

Love in itself is thirst and hunger, but these do not in themselves presuppose either the quality of drink or the worth of food. Love is a certain openness of the soul, but even that which is unworthy of love can freely enter into a receptive soul. Yeah, this is what I said. You never know. You have one of our, potentially one of our people. you know, we don't know what's coming across his desk. And then as you said, they may take it too far because they don't really know that much about it. And worse, they go up against some, you know, specialists, some leftists, and they get destroyed in a debate because they can't go back and forth. They know the slogans, but they don't know the, you know, they don't know how to follow it up.

And it's very careful. I know it's very exciting to discover this stuff for the first time. time, Platonism, Christianity, the true origin of justice, you know, it's incredible when you discover this for the first time. But immediately jumping to the rooftops and saying, you know, debate me on this is a big mistake. And as you said, you're trying to save the bank accounts.

You've got to be careful with it. There has to be a means of promoting it that isn't immediately self-destructive. but even in terms of love itself I don't think there's a word more misconstrued and manipulated than love because we're called haters every day I don't know why

they hate us probably a lot more than we hate them you know but their concept of love somehow is you know indulgence and and integration and stuff like that. It's whatever they feel like, you know, they fill it up with whatever they want. So it says here, spiritual randomness. And then in terms of romantic love, you know, that aspect of it. Well, that gets to be, that's a disaster.

How many horror movies start off with a couple on the beach? I know what you did last summer. Which is about abortion, by the way. You know, it's a certain openness to the souls he writes here. But when it opens, there's a lot that can go into it. That's why there has to be a master. There has to be someone there to help you along. Love is attraction and strength, but how often attraction deceives and strength is wasted or internally decomposes in the pursuit of a false goal.

Love is acceptance, but not everything pleasant is spiritually acceptable. Love is compassion, but does everyone deserve it? Love is like a kind of tender song from depths, but the depth, but the death. depths of a non-spiritual instinct can be moved by temptation and sing with the delight of sin. Love is the capacity for unification and identification with the beloved, but unity at a base level exhaust and gradually extinguishes this very capacity, while identification with evil can devour and distort the grace of love. Love is a creative labor, but is really a matter of indifference what the creator creates?

you know there's that line feminist use it quite often why is it that men who are who have a lot of women are called studs and are celebrated and women who have had a lot of men are sluts and are denigrated

the answer to this is very simple and it's very apropos what we're talking about here number one they are not necessarily celebrated That's only in the very, very recent, in our recent history, has that been the case. Prior to that, they were condemned. That's extremely important to, that's very important to keep in mind. But men and women don't want the same things.

So it's not so much that the woman has sex with a lot of guys. is that she gives it away. She has one thing of value, and she gives it away immediately. Well, what do women want out of men? Of their time, you know, the relationship itself. And so the male version of the slut is non-sexual. It's the guy that says, I love you on his second date.

The guy that pedestalizes with the woman. That's the male version of a slut. And they're both equally very unattractive. Love without the spiritual life does not see, and therefore it is objectless. It does not fly, but gropes its way, wandering and falling. It does not feel its own rightness, and therefore weakens itself, sometimes with a vague, sometimes with a clear sense of self. It does not serve, but enjoys.

It does not build, but is exhausted. Its life is not a revival, but a dying. It does not flare up, but fades in smokes. This is why love without the spiritual life is blind, partial, selfish, subject to vulgarization and ugly. It is not yet good, but only contains a possibility of good. It is not a real value, but an unrealized force, not an achievement, but a deposit. Even something as rational as ethno-nationalism, which I certainly am a promoter of,

without the spiritual life, without its further, you know, it serves a further purpose, can be perverted very quickly. Without that further purpose, you get to socialism. Any positive thing without its true purpose ends up being destroyed. Your nationalism

outside the church, you know, orthodoxy has done very well in combining ethno nationalism and the church within itself, you know, Romania, Serbia, Bulgaria. I think it's a brilliant idea because they're both very similar. And like in Chalcedon, you can't stress one side or the other side. So love, love, and again, I don't know, specifically, you know, he's using it all over the place here.

I think we kind of get to the context of what he's saying. but even someone who comes across the church for the first time and can't believe how wonderful it is and goes out and is screaming about it to everybody and loses everybody and that's not necessarily a positive thing. Like you said, we were trying to save their bank accounts. We don't want to, you know, someone goes into work the next day

with John Chrysystems on the conglomation of the Jews. says, here, here, boss, I want to care about the truth now. You know, there's love, then there's wisdom. Only the spirit, the spiritual power in man, whatever it may be called, spiritual taste, a flare for perfection, a vision of the divine, a God-loving mind, etc. Only this power reveals to man the true, genuine, worthy object of his love. that object which in itself is higher than the world, but which is hidden in nature, in things, in people, in human relationships, and creations, which is worth living for, worth loving,

and for which, therefore, it is worth dying for. I'm pretty sure he's talking about logos here. I think that people who are steeped in sin, materialists who have no conception that they're even in sin, can see logos in the natural order. They see dead nature, dead matter, I should say, that they could use however they want. They see opportunities for enrichment or power or something.

That's what Christians don't see nature that way. Now, Protestants, of course, are anomalous. They reject this concept. but especially, you know, you're more extreme types. But, you know, a God-loving mind, that's something that has to be cultivated over time. It has to be quiet. It has to be, you know, we said this,

even in the Solst and Ethan book, the whole concept of, I'm so humble. I'm more humble than you are. How contradictory that is to have a competition about that. And it's very important. And that's why a guide is so essential to all this stuff. To have someone there you can call or contact to bring you through difficult passages or a tough day.

Because the guy who finds our stuff and then becomes a fanatic, that's very superficial. you know, they'll dump it if they find something else that's less expensive to have around. The soul that thirst for this object is not doomed to hunger. The soul deserves to be open to this object. Attraction to it will not distract it or waste its strength. Union with it will give it righteousness. Integrity and tireless energy and work and construction.

Identification with it will impart form, flight, and fire to its personality. True human achievement begins when passion cleaves to the divine object, or, in other words, when the ray of the perfect one penetrates the human soul to the very depths of its passionate senses. Then human passion begins to shine from its depths with the divine rays that penetrate it, and man himself becomes a particle of divine fire, but only to this extent can man truly comprehend and fulfill Christ's two fundamental commandments of love and in their mutual connection. in their mutual connection and sequence? Even passion, if it's put in its proper place, is good. There's nothing God has created that isn't good. You know, Plato has three parts of the soul. It's that middle part that confuses a lot of people.

You know, the bottom is kind of the id, if the top is reason. In the middle, it generally gets translated as spirited, maybe willful that becomes a problem for a lot of people that's where passions

that's where desire for power comes from I'll be anything ideologically just so I can get power the same you know that's where it comes and it goes out to do it reason has to it doesn't you know in Plato's mind

reason doesn't destroy the other two parts of the soul. It puts them in their proper order. Of these two commandments, the first directs the whole heart and the whole soul and the whole understanding and the whole strength of the human being to God. The second teaches us to love our neighbor as ourselves. Matthew 22, Mark 12, Luke 10. He who fulfills the first commandment and turns to God with all his senses, all his imagination, all his mind, and all his will, and in such a way that all these powers of the soul become saturated with love is renewed in this spiritual union with his whole being and all his vision and creates within himself a son of God and then

turning to the world and people he inevitably sees them in a new way and enters into new relationships with them. This new vision and attitude are determined by the fact that having learned through the fulfillment of the First Commandment to correctly feel and imagine and think and desire the divine and then for the first time finds in the world and in people that spiritual, that divine composition, which, in God and through God, indicates to him his neighbor and awakens in the soul a genuine spiritual love for him. Fulfilling the First Commandment reveals God to man and thereby generally opens his spiritual eyes, but precisely for this reason, the fulfillment of the Second Commandment is

impossible outside of and apart from the first. and this is where people, you know, fail all the time in coming across this. It's not just, you know, it's not just orthodox. It's orthodox nationalism. Might as well say orthodox justice or orthodox reality. It's not merely checking off, well, I believe this, I believe that, I believe that, I'm fine. but it's putting it into motion and doing it, you know, at least initially, quietly, even though, you know, it's not our fault, and this has been a huge problem for so many,

let's say, converts to Catholicism or to Orthodoxy. By the time we come to convert to this stuff, we've been damaged severely. I wasn't raised in it. My father was an atheist, although respected the church. My mother was a Sunday. Christian, she loves having people watch her in church. That's all she cared about. So I wasn't raised with anything.

I think the fact that I was raised over a funeral home, seeing death all the time also helped focus me. It was important to my personal development. the realization that we are all going to die. And when you hit 50, that becomes even more powerful. But it's not just a spiritual... It has to be a genuine spiritual love. Not just going through the motions.

Not just checking off the list. The whole heart. And by the way, let me get this out of the way. The concept of the heart has... Because Catholicism and orthodoxy differ on this, in this respect. Like, you know, the Immaculate Heart of Mary, that kind of thing in the West. You know, heart is the being of man. It's not that far away from the soul itself.

But it's God's presence within you. And the soul takes part of that. Or it doesn't. then of course the whole understanding understanding is part of the soul and our whole strength or a whole will and so we get more specific for each one of these

he lists those commandments of you know the whole heart the whole soul the whole understanding whole strength and then to love our neighbor as ourselves although the way Americans are I don't know if that's really a good thing I don't think I don't think white people are

taught to hate themselves but let's just say you know people want the best for themselves the heart is is the core of something it's something slightly beyond the essence you're not going to get

pure conceptual you know mathematical uh boundaries to this thing um the heart uh contains the soul as St.

Fufan the Reclose would say. And as you see in that list above, you know, the Matthew Mark and Luke, it gets more and more specific. And the whole strength, and by the time you get to the strength, then he says, wait, make sure to love your neighbor as yourself.

Do not go out demanding from people. Do not go out condemning people because they're not like you. They haven't figured the same. out yet. Finding a sensitive person, not ignoramus, in other words. There's a big difference between someone who's ignorant and someone who's stupid. Niggering about physics. We're all ignorant about something. Stupid is a different story. You know, stupid is just someone who just really can't understand physics, even if you try to. Sensitive people tend to be of the former type.

and they are searching, especially today. Especially today. And I know, you know, we're in two different churches, but our role as our world comes to an end is the same. And bringing about the judgment, because we will be judged here. But God will judge us knowing full well that we were born, I was born in 1971. I mean,

the sexual revolution was exploding. When I went through puberty, forget about it. You know, it was, you know, my sex ed came from Zizi Top videos on MTV. And it took me months to realize that you can get with a woman without having someone throw a Zizi key at you and disappear. Apparently that,

that, you know, that was my ex-exed back then. My mother and father certainly weren't going to do that kind of thing. My father came from the old books or the old school mentality, which unfortunately didn't exist anymore. You wish it did, but it didn't.

You call it the old books and the red pill. And so his intentions were good, but his advice was usually terrible in that regard. so you know that's that's what we're talking love love love love you know we end up talking about how we relate to women the family the family manifests in the nation

the nation the monarchy the monarchs relation to God himself these nesting entities forms of love, which quite frankly, the modern man can't comprehend. But there are some who are sensitive enough, and they're searching for a way to think themselves and pray themselves out of this ridiculous regime and how it torments people, especially

by people. That which must be loved in one's neighbor as oneself is not simply the earthly animal composition of man, with all its animal self-awareness, with all its earthly needs and pleasures, with all its pretentious self-satisfaction. But it is a ray of God in another's soul, a particle of divine fire, a spiritual personality, and a son of God. True brotherhood of people is revealed only through God. Men become brothers only insofar as they are children of God, and what is impossible for man due to his animal inanimate instinct to love one another as one itself is not only possible, but necessary and inevitable for man as a spiritual being who has

renewed his vision and his earthly perception in the integral love of God. For he who has learned to see and love the divine, integrally will necessarily love this divine everywhere he sees and finds him. Yeah, he uses the word, or I think I translated it, I think I did it properly, integrally. To have integrity is to have the same personality no matter who you're with.

This is your identity. You know, nationalism without the church ends up being something along the lines of Mussolini's Italy. What's the difference between national socialism and Germany?

and fascism and Muslim. Remember Mussolini had been a communist. He was a materialism. He had just gotten out of that. Someone got in trouble for losing him. Lennel was very upset about that. But he said in his doctrine of fascism, the state creates the nation.

That's something that no nationals can accept. National socialism doesn't accept that. But that was absolutely, the core of Muslim's teaching on on fascism. This is why national socialist Germany was not a fascist society. It was fully based on a struggling nationalism in the sense that the nation, the people create the state, not the other way around, because you have plenty of nations that don't have states.

So Muslimian was dead wrong about. that. And, of course, if I start talking about Mussolini, I'm not going to shut up. There's so much wrong with him. He was successful in a few areas, but still, there was no love there. There was only the state. There was only the entity. The state creates all these things you love, rather than the love coming first. So that's very important. Actually, we're not going to be able to get to this, but Eileen wrote quite a bit about national socialism and Muslim. Moreover, he will always seek him in others, feeling connected first and foremost with him and through him and in him.

Only he who is found and affirmed the son of God within himself can love his neighbor as himself, for only he knows what the divine is and what it means to be in union with him, that is, what it means to be a son of God. only through this can he discern the son of God in his neighbor and having discerned him and him he can no longer help but love him but will love his divine his personal temple and altar and fire just as he loves his spirit and his fire and altar and temple yeah this is something we we hit on this in our um talks on on hagel uh the existential problem of coming up two people meet and the only thought that they have is that we're going to fight

and whoever wins becomes a master of the other than becomes a slave and that much of history is based on it Hegel of course, you know, brings man out of that saying that's a very crude understanding of things but you know the whole political theory of Darwin Darwinism is based on it through Herbert Spencer but nationalism without God isn't anything because I mean even the simple empirical fact

that European nations are Christian ones everything from the people's like you know I think we dealt with with Shultz and Eastern too Russian culture in the Soviet era well there is no Russian culture in the Soviet era everything about Russian culture from the language on down was completely connected to the church. Nothing. Even parts of the language, if you get very technical about. Love comes first than everything else.

All this can be expressed as follows. A genuine relationship with God precedes the establishment of true love for one's neighbor. For it's a love one's neighbor means to love the divine principle in him. the principle of living goodness. Love for God opens up a new dimension of things and people to man. According to this dimension, man is something greater than this singular animal, more than this singular subject. There is something greater within him than his subjectivity,

and this greater super subjective is precisely his spirit, his essential being, the true self. Does the individual actually exist as any kind of... usable construct. Everything about ourselves we get from somewhere else. From the language we use, the clothes we wear, this doesn't mean we're put also, you know,

if you had a nation without God, then you would just be a, I'd just be a cog in a machine. The Darwinist concept. That's all I would be. With God is a different story because then you have spirit. With spirit, you have freedom. but the individual is really to promote it as the central figure rather than the family the individual over the family in brutal thought you know if the libertarians promote that

very heavily is really the creation of industrialization it was great that have a one person going up against a huge corporation well yet legally they're equals but in reality of course they're absolutely aren't

they can sign a contract and again legally they're equals no it's you know in places like Russia which the Marxists destroyed landlords weren't dealing with individuals who were dealing with many families put together within the commune.

It was a case in Germany for a long time too. The first thing that man does, the first rational thing that man does, regardless of how this comes about, is form a community. That community has some kind of hierarchy to it. An aristocracy, an aristocracy is very different from oligarchy. Let's get that straight. aristocracy is the rule of the best the wise is the most experienced an oligarchy is the rule of the

of the few largely based on money it's the same thing as plutocracy so um the true self and and because you know a lin is a hegelian i'm seeing hegel all over this truly important here to see that i'm seeing hegel everywhere in this uh in this particular part of the uh part of the book And notice he did capitalize the yes. I didn't do that. And it's something greater than just the individual

who makes decisions every day. If I'm going to go to the movies, if I'm going to go make coffee, that individual is largely mythical. True love is the connection of spirit with spirit and then, to that extent, everything else. The connection of soul with soul and body with body, but precisely to this extent,

there is no longer simply a connection between souls and bodies, but a spiritual connection among souls inspired and bodies sanctified by the spirit. True love connects the lover not with everything that exists and lives without distinction, but only with the divine in everything that is and lives, namely, it becomes one with the spark, with the ray, with the prototype, and face. This is not a blind passion, but a seeing one, and its moments are not random, not indiscriminate, and not helpless. It enters into unity and identification only with living goodness, but this unity is unconditional for life and for death. It does not unite with the principle of evil, but departs from it and opposes itself to it,

and this opposition is also unconditional for life and for death. The principle of the spirit is the principle of objective choice and decision, that of religious devotion, and this power of religious devotion, which has chosen God and clung to him, spiritual love brings into every relationship to God to the church, to the homeland, to the Tsar, to one's people, to their material and personal altars, to one's family, and to one's neighbor. Yeah, I think that paragraph, it's very difficult to interpret because I just, there's so many ideas in my head, they're all fighting to get out.

I would say this paragraph may be somewhat of a summary of his, of his political theory. of his connection to Hegel as well. Because the minute you talk about spirit, you have to talk about freedom. If spirit is free, it's not subject to the cause and effect as the trees and the, you know, corn stalks that are next to me are.

Are. So a materialist has to deny freedom entirely. You know, it's very, very uncomfortable, but they have no choice. again, if they believe in the spirit and reject the concept of God, then you say, well, what created the spirit? Where did this come from?

And you see this in the development of the nation. No one goes to the front lines and dies for, you know, the right to have a jury trial or, something procedural, something like that. No one's going to die for the right to assemble. No, they're going to die for hearth and home. And that's what they picture. Their hearth, their home, their nation.

The Iranians have been doing. That's their homeland. It's come under attack. Of course they're going to win. And they've won handily. as I predicted. And so, again, and then the individual kind of falls away. Not that the individual doesn't exist, but there's a big difference between the individual ego and a person. And I capitalize the P in person, just like he capitalizes the S. And so, you know, civic nationalism has this notion that it is kind of random.

You throw people into one group, you draw a boundary, and that becomes a nation state. That's exactly how the Soviets did it with their collectivization. They destroyed an actual functional communal system. You would think they would support and put in its place a collective of random people thrown together. No moral code whatsoever. no tradition, no, you know, brought them all together sometimes from different parts of the empire, and expected that to work just as well. Now that, you know, the commune, that's what people die for.

You know, people die for protecting your homeland, not the idea of a state. Big difference. Such love restructures the soul's entire worldview and its entire attitude towards world. worldly values. All its facets appear new and different. Everything is determined by divinity in God's sanctifying presence. Thus, the ordinary, religiously blind views hold that the useful is superior to the sacred, the man is superior to his surroundings, and that many people are superior to one. It is convinced that all people are equal, that every person has the right to life, and that the final word always belongs to humanity. It believes that hunger and suffering are the most

terrible things and that life on earth is all the better for it, the more contented and happy people there are. It has no doubt that health is better than illness, that power is better than subjugation, that wealth is better than poverty, and that life is always better than death. I'm sorry about that. I know I kind of put a fragment in there. This was a very, very difficult paragraph, actually section, the translate. Google Translate was of zero help, you know, because we're not using words

in the sense that we normally use them. You know, I got into this field. My first issue was abortion when I was 16. When I found out what it really was, that's what brought me into conservatism and then eventually national socialism people like Hitler

were rewarding families for having more of them it's shocking to see that many they're always white couples women are not having children and I think this is wonderful it's being promoted as a lifestyle

And the Hispanic world, of course, is not the case. But we're also talking about here, you know, the basic utilitarian calculus. You could come to the right wing from many different angles. You know, you can see the state, the civic nationalist mentality has to be looked out for. The idea that the state is the creator of the nation. rather than the other way around. That's extremely important. And it's something I'm, you know, the Muslim was very honest.

And he was a journalist for so long. And that was the center of his, what is fascism. And he says it over and over and over and over again. You know, the right to life is, you know, not just obviously the right to exist. It's right to live and be able to thrive. But we all know that people are not equal. In other words, they're not all the same. And humanity is one of these words like love that gets thrown around.

It doesn't mean a heck of a lot. Life is better than death. I like how he mentions that. In other words, there's nothing worth dying for. if you're a fan of House MD he says that he says that you always pick life life is the you know matter what you have

how sick you are life is always better than death no it's not a support for suicide at all we do have a concept of martyrdom in many cases we are going to go to work right who knows what might happen in our own society So it's extremely important to keep this distinction in mind. It's talking about nuance.

This is as nuance as it gets. Spiritual love sees and evaluates all this quite differently. For it, the sacred is always higher than the useful. Earthly harm is not absolutely terrifying, and our benefit is unattractive. It knows things that are higher than man, and at one great moment in human history, the rope of this love banished the vulgarity of commerce from the material temple.

In its eyes, a multitude of people as such can neither equal nor replace the true worth of one person so that one man is worth 10,000 if he be the best. Yeah, it's, you know, there's a problem with utilitarianism. If everyone is equal, then a thousand people is better than, than one. But that's not necessarily the case. The truth is, we know that for a fact. You read the Old Testament for two seconds,

and you see that, you know, Moses was commanded to destroy entire civilizations. It's very, you know, now he hasn't commanded anyone else to do that, thank God. but you know suffering isn't a terrible thing suffering is something that could bring you to a new stage in life we talked about this many time stuff on haggle too we talked about

it's the cult of comfort and and essentially what he's talking about here is mass society based on nothing except the fact that they exist and, you know, utilitarianism because it rejects the concept of any sense of right, also rejects the very concept of the nation, too. Spiritual love knows that people are not equal and that they differ from one another as one star differs from another,

1st Corinthians 12 and 1st Corinthians 15. This love also knows that every person must earn and justify his right to life, that there are people for whom it is better not to be born, and there are others for whom it is better to be killed and to commit evil. Matthew 18, Mark 10, Luke 17. Spiritual love, possessing the source of true, God-loving philanthropy, knows the price and temptations of sentimental humanism and is not deceived by it.

It understands the religious meaning of suffering and the spiritually purifying power of abstinence and always foresees something far more terrible than suffering and hunger. It does not measure the perfection of human life by the contentment of individuals or the happiness of the mass. It knows all the spiritual dangers associated with the presence of earthly pleasures and the full spiritual significance of their loss. Its visions long ago revealed to it why illness can be better than health, submission better than power, poverty, better than wealth. And it was precisely that power of this vision that strengthened this conviction that a valiant in death is always better than a shameful life, and that each person defines themselves before God precisely by the moment that

makes them prefer death. Thus, the principle of the spirit, by indicating to love its true object, changes its fundamental direction in all its content. Previous names and all its content. Previous names and guises now imply new, different objects and states, and these demand a new attitude from the soul. They demand it and receive it, and as a result, The act of love itself is inevitably reborn in its fundamental mental and spiritual structure. It acquires new boundaries, new forms, and manifestations. Prior to Christianity coming into the world, you still see it in pagan societies like the isolated tribes of Latin American. you know, killing off babies that they thought were sick

or that would be sick that appear to them to be sick. That was a norm. Christianity completely rejected that idea on a whole lot of bases. I mean, you don't have to go further for pagan society than India. No one wants to live there, not even Indians. Look, look, here's the issue, okay? When you have a pagan society, what a pagan society presupposes is gods. And what do we know historically about the lore of the gods?

They are always warring against each other. How can you have an orderly society if your gods are warring against each other? That presupposes that you will be warring against each other. Only a monotheistic society can have, can even demand order. because there's one that you point to, not that any. If you haven't seen Apocalyptic yet, please, please, please, please, please go see it. The, not, you know, it's, I think it's for free on YouTube. I could be wrong about that.

I believe it is free on YouTube, yeah. Yeah. Oh, it's worth it. And the wonderful thing about that movie is that zero is in English. and you know exactly what they're talking about. And it's almost an exciting aspect to it. And it shows you how communication is mostly nonverbal. It's not free.

I apologize for interrupting, but it's not free on YouTube. But there are other places where you can find it if you don't want to pay for it. Yeah. But I wouldn't mind supporting him whenever you could. But a lot of that, what we're talking about, about here is manifest exactly in that movie. What was the apocalypse for them? They were being judged by the coming of Christianity, and soon their own destruction.

It didn't take much to push that whole civilization over. Where the Spanish have plenty of allies. So, and you certainly can't blame Europeans for outbreaks of illnesses. that the locals didn't have. That certainly is no fault of theirs. But, you know, the point I was making before was that, you know, in banning infanticine, in banning usury, or trying to, anyway, it was revolutionary.

It was absolutely revolutionary, and that's why a monarchy was, still is required. And, you know, they're always going to be imperfect. They're always going to be sinful just like me and you are. So, you know, I think this chapter was absolutely almost essential to the book. You have to read this chapter before you understand, you know, this chapter is the center of it, I think. Illness can be better than hell. Submission better than power.

Poverty better than wealth. You know, wealth corrupts. We know that. Anything to, and thinking, anything of the opposite, if you're like, yeah, I'm sorry, I just can't, I can't get down with what he's saying here. I have to go in the opposite direction. You're basically a Talmudist. You've adopted everything that the Jews have been teaching for, as opposed to Christianity for 1400 years, now 1500 years. Yeah. You're basically a Talmudist. If you go, if you're in the. the opposite direction.

I mean, if you're for, like, if you're for, if you think the only way to defeat your enemies is to absolutely just, just destroy whole populations, you're a Jew. I mean, you, we're watching this in real time. You know, you're, you've basically reduced yourself to what they are. And terrorism has become the norm. what the U.S. does in foreign policy, for example, military policy in Ukraine, you know, destroying, using precision weaponry

to destroy civilian centers, whether it be schools or desalinization plants, whatever it might be. This is now normal, and the regime says nothing about it. New cons love it. It's, it's, it's, and it didn't take very long for that to happen.

I noticed that in the, in the Ukraine war, uh no that's not true i noticed it in that war in chichita because they were using poison gas um and no one said anything it was pretty it was totally blatant um you have those that faction financed by the west uh god there's been no jihad that has been financed by western powers in a very very long time uh but i agree with you completely here yeah i mean you just can't you you you have you have to get out of the mindset that the only way to defeat your enemy is to become them. Because the reason they're your enemy is because they're not like you. Why are you going to become them?

I mean, because they're antithetical to everything that you are. I mean, I just, I don't get it. In the Old Testament, Moses was given specific instructions. Right? It wasn't, you know, this wasn't a policy that they adopt. he would have given specific instructions that can't be taken out of that context. So you can't use that. Yes, Moses was given that command.

There was something wrong with these people physically. But in no way does that mean that Christian society should do the same. All righty. That was an intense one. I'm glad that we knocked out that chapter. I'm glad we knocked out that chapter in one sitting because it deserved its own its own standalone episode. Oh, I need a nap.

I'm telling you. This is very, very, this is, I do this every day in my life. This is normal for me. You know, and I love that. I have the opportunity with you and your, your listeners, I could talk about this, you know, and have it actually matter. I truly appreciate it. I appreciate you very much.

I appreciate you too, Dr. Johnson. And please go over and donate to Dr. Johnson's work. Go to the show notes and go to the descriptions and the videos and throw them some money. And show them some love, please. Please do. Yeah, that's it. We'll be back. Yep.

We'll be back for another episode in a couple days. Thank you, Dr. Johnson. You welcome, my friend. I want to welcome everyone back to our reading. of unresistance to evil by force by Ivan Eileen, Dr. Johnson. How are you doing today? You know, when I was a kid, the word math didn't have an S at the end of it. What is that? What is maths? Is that a technical term? I'm not sure what that refers to. I didn't start hearing the plural math until I was in my 40s. I don't get it. Are you sure it's not somebody

just using like more guttural talk like slangish or like a slangish kind of thing oh we got I'm not doing too good in the maths yeah I'm I'm not sure of anything I'm not sure of anything but it is odd and you hear it quite often and I have no idea what it means and it's irritating all righty well let's get in to this. Chapter 15 about the boundaries of love. Further, the beginning of the spiritual life limits the beginning of love, indicating the spiritual limit to its immediate, naive outpouring to everyone. Spiritual love is not merely religious devotion, but at its core, it is a clear, living, objective choice. If we understand love not in the sense of a sentimental,

objectless tenderness, but in its objective definition and functional fullness, in the totality of living sympathy, sympathy, assistance, and communication, even to the point of artistic identification with the beloved object. Then it is clear that it is impossible to truly love everything, for example, both the perceived and the unperceived, or everything equally, for example, both the near and the distant, both the divine and the ungodly. In any case, This is inaccessible to man while he is still a man. Yeah, love is by definition limited. There used to be bumper stickers a while ago.

God bless all. It was right after 9-11. And they were, God bless all nations. I remember thinking how empty that is, how empty it is in general. You do have people who claim this. I love everyone, and that's how it is. Until they talk to me for, you know, 10 minutes. But I don't think anyone actually does that.

You know, we're considered hate figures. So it's okay to hate us. So, and again, he uses the word sentimental. And there's no object to it. And if there's no object, there's no object. There's no obligation. There's not a list of things you have to do if there's no object. So it's just a, you know, usually a female trying to sound profound without having to do anything.

If there is no object, there is no obligation. Anyone who says he loves everyone is either mistaken in self-knowledge or, in reality, loves nothing and nobody. Love as a psychic force is completely incapable of such an objectless expansion, and love as a spiritual state is not called to it. If by love we understand only benevolence, and by this benevolence we understand spiritual perfection, for example, the victory of good over evil, then a person with religious insight desires the good of all and, to that extent, loves all. For the mere presence of evil already evokes suffering and disgust in him and compels him to sincerely wish everyone well. If we understand love and its fullness as an integral union and creative acceptance, then such a person cannot love everyone, nor everyone equally, nor could he set himself such a task.

Yeah, they sound good when they say it, though. But it's kind of like saying everyone's special. Everyone's special, therefore no one's special. It's an empty phrase that makes people sound good, make people feel good, but it has absolutely no meaning to it. Well, sometimes nowadays, it seems like everyone is special, but in a retarded way. Yeah, any other way, in the other sense. Yeah. Hey, hey, there's nothing wrong with the word retarded.

I grew up with a few, you know, I understand them very well. The Down syndrome kids are the most hilarious kids on the planet. I'm telling you now. They're very cool. They are cool. They have. There's something that I've always had a soft spot for them. So, yeah, when I was working with the Barnes Review, I commuted with a Down syndrome guy on the train, because I lived in Virginia, I tried to take the Metro to D.C.

And I always wonder, what does he do? Politicians. He was so very serious. Yeah, he had a, he had a briefcase and everything. He had mustache. I wanted to talk to him, but I never got a chance. Yeah, so, yeah, I think, I think that's a thing. fitting explanation to this paragraph.

Thus, no one is called to love evil as such, and if we think of the devil as the true and pure center of evil, then love for the devil in his evil must be recognized as completely unnatural. There is a sense in wishing the devil's transformation, and there is deep meaning in praying for the devil, but there is no sense in turning to him with creative acceptance, that is, accepting his goals and. interests as one's own, sympathizing with him or helping him, and there is no reason to enter into an alliance with him and unite his work with such evil. Yeah, Rolling Stones fans

do not like this paragraph at all. But I remember every exorcist have ever read, whether Orthodox or Catholic, says the last thing you ever want to do, any kind of an exorcism, is to try to parlay with the demon. You're going to be totally destroyed. And I don't know what you think about Malachi Martin, but I used to read him many, many years ago. And he has many stories of priests being totally, I mean, physically destroyed because they're,

well, for two things. They say that they're the ones casting them out, not God. And just meeting on this debating field is equal. and that can't be the case. Now, that brings it to something else where you have the notion that was accepted by St. Gregory of Nyssa of eventually everything will be saved.

Everything will eventually, after a long time of purgation, will be cleansed and including demons, including the evil ones and everything else and be brought before God. That's not the majority of the church fathers. But St. Gregory did accept some version of that.

Like God's love is all transforming. I'm not sure. I don't accept that at all. Because it would require us to love evil. Unless you were to say, evil's not a thing. It was a perversion of a thing. But even in scriptures, you know, every and all are not terms that you find very often.

And they don't mean the same things that they mean today. There is no obligation to love everyone because we're not equal to each other. And that goes not just as individuals, but as groups as well. A person strong in spirit can decide to. to perceive the devil in all his disguises, to admit his pure evil into his soul for testing, understanding and wisdom. He can even bring these trials to a certain artistic identification, devoting the fabric of his soul and the forces of his personality to this painful and repulsive experience.

But this admission will never transform him into loving acceptance, and this realization will never involve or capture his spiritual center or lead him to sympathetic acts. and cooperation. Well, there are those out there who, Alexander Dugan being one of them, that really promote the idea of creating the work, you know, when you're developing, spiritually speaking, to seek out the worst possible circumstances. It's only in the worst pit of your own hell that you're ever going to. be cleansed and understand what what the spiritual life is.

That's eccentric. I don't know the whole lot of other people who claim that. And in 2026, we don't need to seek it out. You know, one of the reasons that I don't accept purgatory is that we're living in it. And we've already talked about why angels don't get another chance. because human beings see things in a, you know, empirically, step by step, because we have a body. Well, they don't have a body. They see things in terms, in formal ways, like a platonic form.

So there is no question that they've made their choice forever. Well, we are always, you know, learning new things. They're not learning new things. But this is also why demons need to show themselves in disguises. but let's be clear evil is not a thing in and of itself

evil is a perversion of something that God is created and the essence of demonism is inversion to turn things upside down so rather have the spiritual life on the bottom and the material life on the top

of social sympathy is just one example. They symbolize that all the time. Every time I come across someone, once in a while I come across demonstrations of a pagan with an upside down cross. I always say, you know, I really appreciate your devotion to St. Peter. And I don't think they get it.

I've done it a few times. One had earrings. One had, or even if I see someone who's trying to just be edgy, you go up to him and say, I appreciate your devotion to St. Peter. and they you have to go through the whole but by the time you're by the time it's over you know they don't want to wear this thing anymore um because they're afraid they're going to be confusion between the two things that's just a small hobby of mine the torments of these trials will consist not only in the perception of the repulsive but also in the voluntary bifurcation of his spiritual fabric it will express itself in a continuous disgusted shudder of his entire spirit, both in its evil-feeling parts and in its evil-free center. Moreover, this trial, which sears the soul like coal and quickly suffers in agony, while the

spirit hardens and grows wiser, has a single justification and purpose, the resistance to evil. The recipient perceives only in order not to accept. The one who identified himself only allowed this to happen in order to resist evil with the full force of one who has measured, seen, and the one. and understood the enemy. In this trial, he gained insight and armed himself. And having armed himself, he was then called to the inexorable defeat of the devil, tested in all his destructive and diabolical evil.

If you, um, you added something there. I'll let you go. Yeah, I wrote, uh, in 2026, we don't need to go find it. It finds us quite easily. But I think, uh, men especially, have, by the time they're roughly our age,

I'm 54, whatever hell you are, we've been through a couple. Periods of time where you don't see a light at the end of the tunnel. I had at the beginning of my divorce in 2014. I did eventually, of course, but my faith throughout

didn't change. God is not this, cafeteria, God is not this vending machine where I could just go and get whatever I want and he gives me whatever I please. He's not going to create utopia for me. My faith didn't change in the slightest as I suffered terribly.

And especially when you suffer alone. And the spirit hardens, as he says here, and grows wiser. unfortunately it does affect other people's spirit and maybe they will reject God they will reject the faith because God's supposed to create utopia for him I suppose

which is really what they're saying and again I know I said this before but a very common stupid argument from Atheus is that all the evil in the world the innocent suffering how can there be God and then you answer well why stop there unless we remove anything that we don't like.

Why is it just that? And then in Utopia, of course, you have no freedom. And as Dostoevsky said, you would be bored out of your mind and you would destroy it. Free will means suffering. The existence of free will is one of the great things. When you read Dostoevsky and his brother Karamazov in his Grand Inquisitor section, You get a very, very different point of view. Something even that public honesty of didn't like.

And Christ's response was not to, you know, not to argue with him. He kissed him and walked away. But I know in my personal case, these times of suffering, which I could recall at an instant, did not affect my faith. and they made me much stronger. And I wouldn't be the man I am without them. You go through something awful. I mean, not just terrible.

Like, you know, your mom dies. That's going to happen. It's something existentially awful. You lose everything overnight. And you come out of that. You'll come out of it more sane than you were going in. If you have the strength. I don't think my faith could ever be remotely touched anymore because it's been through that

and it reminds you of Christ ascending into the into a Hades, not hell but Hades and preaching to those who are trapped there. And, you know, unfortunately suffering is not necessarily something to be avoided. I'm not saying you go into a doctor's office and I want to be operated on without anesthesia. I'm not saying that. But, you know, suffering is, you know, the utilitarian mentality fails because suffering is something that creates who we are. We become calloused and tough. I guarantee you right now, I am not the same man in 2014 than I am in 2026.

I could guarantee you that I become harder. become maybe a little bit more difficult. I've become more suspicious, but the faith hasn't changed even a little bit because that's not what God is for. Orthodoxy and An Catholicism, I guess, talks about trials all the time. Even if they're of your own making, it doesn't matter. That just makes it worse. So that's a, you know, that's a victory for God. That's It's a victory for your guardian angel. It's a victory for everything. And it just goes to show, remember, in the book of Job,

Satan shows that Satan kind of does what God wants him to do and doesn't realize it. Satan goes to God and ask him. You know, Job is, it just does what he does and he's so happy. And he praises you all the time just because he has all this stuff. How about I go down there and take everything away? We'll see what he is then. and his faith survived. That's why it's in the Bible.

You know, every time Satan thinks he's won a victory, it's actually a failure. Because demons would love you to believe that they're autonomous. They do what they want. No, they do what God wants. They exist because God's created them, of course. They made their choice on their own. but they create suffering circumstances for us, thinking that they've won something,

and in fact they haven't. We just become tougher as a result of it. It is clear that for a weak man, such trials can turn into temptation, and that can lead him to submit to evil. And this temptation and fall can occur not only through the usual blind or naive infection of evil, but also as a result of a misunderstanding of the limits of love. It is enough for a soft-hearted person to lose sight of the fact that love ends where evil begins, that one can and should love only a spark, a ray, and the countenance,

provided they have not yet been completely dimmed by the violence of the present evil, that in turning to evil, all that remains of love is spiritual benevolence, and that the spiritual benevolence directed at the devil can always acquire a unique form, that of a cleaving sword. If one loses sight of this, the victory of evil is assured. Yeah, that's why humility is so absolutely essentially important in our salvation. It's something that I stumble with in quite a bit. I have the attitude that, you know, I'm too smart to be fooled. And when I say that, I'm usually being played like a violin. but if you've gone through any of the, and this also works on the ideological level.

You know, I had no choice in grad school, but to read the works of all of our enemies. And I'm very happy that I did. It was rough in certain areas. It was very good in some other areas. But it means that I have a full understanding of where they're coming from.

But they don't have an idea where we're coming from. The typical academic, is especially younger academic is very soft intellectually. I keep saying that. They're very soft intellectually, partially because they're surrounded by censorship. And they're in a bubble. Same thing for media people. Everything is censored and sanitized.

They don't even know where to get our point to view if they use Google, you know, as their search engine. They couldn't begin to tell you where to go to get this. you know, our political theory. When they come across it, that's a different story. What happens to them is very strange. I'm not sure really,

I can't describe it here because it's too complicated, but it's sort of like the person who will eventually sell, my God, these guys are making sense, but it's too expensive for me to accept it, so I go back to the old ways.

But I have, you know, I've forced to read the most demonic works when I came out of it as a Russian Orthodox nationalist. No question. I know the atheist arguments. Dostoevsky always said, you need to know your opponent's arguments better than they do. You know, if you're fighting atheism and you don't know Foyerbach,

you're in trouble. If I were an atheist, Foyerbach would be my guy. Brilliant man, phenomenologist, roughly around the time of post-Hagel. And that was really the real inspiration for a lot of Karl Marx's atheism. And I read him in great detail. And he was easy to read. Well, either read for me. If you don't bother with that stuff, and you just read stuff from our friends,

and you come across a scholar, if you're Foyerbach or Nietzsche or anything else, you're going to be destroyed. You don't even know what they're going to say. You've never heard these arguments before. It's very important. So it goes on the ideological side too. And my work is on the ideological side.

And you don't necessarily love it. But it's something that I'm very glad I had to do. There is a wise Christian legend about a hermit who long triumphed over the devil in all his guises and in every temptation he unleashed. Until at last the enemy knocked at his retreat in the form of a wounded suffering raven. Then a blind, sentimental compassion prevailed in the hermit's soul. The raven was let in and the monk fell into the devil's power. It is precisely this sentimental love born of weakness in acting as a snare, that spiritual discernment and spiritual will sets limits upon.

They compel a person to draw proper boundary for their indiscriminate and unprincipled sentimentality and turn their awakening gaze toward the guiding figures of Archangel Michael and St. George the Victorious. I do not like this paragraph wrong. I think we're all animal lovers. If that were to happen to me, we would let the animal in. unless it was poisonous or something like that. I've not come across a story like this before. I don't know what he's referring to.

Maybe in the other English translations, there's a footnote. But I also don't know how helping a raven or anything like that leads you to fall into the devil's power. That doesn't make any sense. You're not being sentimental in the sense that you love everything all of a sudden. So he helps a poor-ass-suffering animal, and he is then, you know, in the demon's power. I have a big problem with this paragraph.

It would be futile to cite by way of objection the commandments of Christ who taught us to love our enemies and forgive offenses. Such a citation would merely demonstrate a lack of careful reflex. on the part of the person invoking it. In calling upon us to love our enemies, Christ was referring to a person's own personal enemies, those who hate and persecute him, whom the aggrieved party is naturally free to forgive or not to forgive. Christ never called us to love the enemies of God, to bless those who hate and trample upon all that is divine, to aid blasphemous corruptors, to show amiable sympathy towards

those possessed by a drive to corrupt souls, to look upon them with tender emotion or to take pains to ensure that no one stands in the way of their wickedness. On the contrary, regarding such people, and indeed, even those far less culpable, he wielded the fiery word of condemnation. And there's just a load of scriptures right here.

The threat of retribution, again. many scriptures cited, the scourge of expulsion, many scriptures cited, and the warning of eternal torments to come, Matthew 25 and John 5. That's what it amounts to. It is impossible for anyone to love, you know, to be a Christian man and to love everyone, and therefore, essentially not resist evil. Personal enemies? You know, that's a different story.

Our job is to, especially if they're a member of the church, is to figure out what is wrong and go and fix it. You don't leave your gift at the altar until you fix whatever's wrong with you and your brother. That's the Bible says. I guarantee it's in here. But enemies of God, that's a completely different story. And I'm very happy that Elyne only uses new things. Testament sources that have the feeling if he's really going after the

Stoians they probably don't accept the Old Testament at all but even with the New Testament you know how many examples do you need of Christ acting like you know Christ was not a you know he was a very difficult tough man he used foul language I mean in his day in foul language you know, this pacifism and every once in a while I come across it

in all churches some churches worse than others but to condemn if you know what's happening right in front of you and you have to condemn

you have no choice your own personal enemies your job is a fix what's wrong what's the problem between the two of us and fix it not to hate them

and hate them, meaning doing harm to them. But, you know, someone doing all these things, the corrupt souls, look upon them with tender emotion, is simply to join their cause. There's no getting out of it. And I mentioned in, I forget which one now, Toys works where he claims to be refuting his enemies. And he really doesn't. he avoids most of these arguments. There's something else going on with him.

But I would just go to the Old Testament right away. The Old Testament's a very violent set of books. What's the Psalm 121? I think may your mother's, burn in hell, may your mother's family get roasted. I forget now. Most harsh words, I think it's 121. the harshest terms for an enemy of God,

who also just happens to be your enemy. Or, in other words, you make the enemies of God your personal enemy. If someone were to blaspheme in public, you know, I would, it would take a lot to keep me from acting very harshly towards it, regardless of the consequence. Therefore, the Christian striving to be faithful to the word and spirit of his teacher is by no means called upon to force in a manner contrary to nature. Feelings of tenderness and tender emotion from his soul toward an unrepentantant evildoer as such, nor can he find in his, nor can he find in this commandment any grounds or pretext for a refraining from resisting evildoers. He need only understand that genuine, religiously faiths.

resistance to evildoers involves contending with them not as personal enemies, but as enemies of God's cause on earth. Thus, the less personal enmity there is in the soul of the one resisting, and the more he has inwardly forgiven his personal enemies, all of them in general, and especially those against whom he is contending, the more spiritually sound worthy and practically effective that struggle against evil will be for all its necessary severity. There have been times where there have been, you know, personal enemies. Now it's not 121, damn it. I'm trying to find that, uh, that psalm that's very, very harsh. Everyone loves the Psalms, right, except they forget this one. Um, I should know it by now, but, you know, one of the, one of the worst things about social media is that we, you know, we're coming into confrontation with a lot of different sorts of people for a lot of different sorts of reasons, usually stupid ones. And I tend to apologize right away.

I'm sorry, you know, unless it's a blasphemy. You know, I'm sorry I was wrong. I should have put my blinker on, whatever it is. That's what a Christian should do, even if I did put it on, even if it's not my fault. but that has nothing to do with what Christ was talking about. Absolutely nothing to do with what Christ was talking about. Would there be Christianity at all in the world without the great Christian empires, east and west?

And the answer is no. The answer is absolutely no. It's these empires. And the fact that the emperor saw himself as a man who was to convert those out outside of the empire and to protect the church within, would there be a church at all? Or would it be so tiny as no one would have heard of it? Yeah, it's true that people were corrupted. Sorry, people were inspired and converted by the feats of the early martyrs.

Oh, my God, look at these guys. They go to their grave for this stuff. It must be true. But that was in a situation where they had no choice. There was no fighting in that case. New Martyrs of the Soviet Union, for example, there's simply no option. You could join different rebellions, and if they failed and they all failed at one point or another. You go to the camp and you suffer.

But once you're in the camp, those within it you treat like your brothers in the sense that you're you forgive them. And that's a real struggle here. That's tough enough, let alone with what Tolstoy wants us to do. And as I said before, Tolstoy lived in a very healthy society, a very healthy era.

He never had to deal with the crap. You know, we, you know, I'm the big Chris Hansen fan. You never had to deal with anything like that. That was not an issue back then. but we consider almost normal he never had to he never had to deal with

how easy it is to talk like this when you're being protected by the most professional army in Europe did he believe that the army shouldn't be fighting his enemies should be fighting the you know that Russia's enemies in which case he wouldn't be a landowner anymore and God knows you he would be God knows what happened to him

I mean, he did have a message to soldiers that they should abandon their posts and stuff like that, even though he was one for a while. But the only reason he's able to talk the way he talked is that he was so protected. It was as easy to do what he did at the time. And this is a problem that he never dealt with fully. And his followers never dealt with fully. The only thing I would argue with is that you didn't need a Chris Hansen back then. when you read the accounts of Freud's patients and what they were doing with their children,

it's pretty frigging horrifying. Well, in that case, you know, I read some of that. I know Freud fairly well. You own a bit more so. A lot of that stuff was done privately. A lot of people think that there was no punishment for stuff like that. that there were no laws on the books, that there were no, like domestic violence cases, for example.

And actually, you go back to say 100 years ago in America and you realize how brutally those guys were treated. They even had their own courts in a couple of states. But who knows if Freud's even telling the truth. He's promoting this agenda. He's all drugged out. This could be wishful thinking on his part. and then he's, you know, he doesn't reveal names, obviously, but, you know, this is a, this is his Jewish, uh, a wish list, so to speak. I'll send you an article after this.

Well, that will be wonderful. Okay. All right. This applies equally to the commandment regarding the forgiveness of offenses. According to this commandment, a person is called to forgive those who personally wronged him. At the same time, the extent of one's forgiving kindness and patience must be. must be truly infinite, Matthew 1822. Yet even when dealing with a personal offense,

the gospel establishes conditions under which your brother who has sinned against you may come to be regarded by you as a Gentile and a tax collector, Matthew 18, 15 through 17. Acknowledging the power of personal hardened obstinacy that yields to no persuasion, Luke 173. The gospel points to the judgment of the church as the ultimate authority, disobedience to this authority entails the compulsory corrective isolation of the hardened offender. Clearly, appealing to this authority and excluding the offender from fellowship in no way hinders the act of inner forgiveness.

Conversely, the act of personal forgiveness, while resolving the issue of one's own resentment, does not at all resolve the problem of the offender in his hardened state. Yet beyond all this, Christ foresaw an identified certain heinous acts, which, in his judgment, make the death penalty as the best outcome for the wrongdoer. Quote, but that, but that he, but, but he that shall scandalize one of this little, one of these little ones that believe in me, it would be better for him that a millstone should be hanged around his neck and that he should be drowned in the depth of the sea. Matthew 186, Mark 942, and Luke 171.2.

That's one of the most brutal parts of the entire New Testament. Why would Christ even mention that? A young believer being whatever, bullied, hit, even, you know, attacked for it, who can't defend himself, he uses this kind of imagery? This isn't imagery Tolstoy would even vaguely recognize. And he did foresee this.

You know, every generation seems to get worse, pretty much after the fall of the third Rome, things seemed to get worse and worse and worse and worse. And yeah, we talked about this many times, both in Solzhenits and in this book, that these societies didn't have prison systems. Sometimes they'd be isolated in monasteries, both Ethan West too.

And even if that didn't work, then they needed to be exiled. Or they were simply had their hedge dropped off. But other than that, and payment of fines, your family had to pay fines, there were the capital punishment

for many acts in Christian Europe and scandalizing little ones who believe in me, you know, in other words, you know, young Christians, should be punished so harshly that they wish they were never born again. They were never born.

But these are, especially for the time period, extremely harsh words he's using, very difficult, tough language. But, you know, we live in, surrounded by constant violence, even a lot of it's artificial, but it doesn't hit us as much. sometimes the Bible gets blunted by repetition but this phrase Matthew 17

is extremely harsh and I still can't find that damn psalm I'll find it later they are acts of internal forgiveness but act of personal forgiveness while resolving the problem of resentment does not at all resolve the problem the problem of the offender and his bitterness.

However, beyond all this, Christ foresaw and pointed out such crimes. Generally speaking, it takes sheer spiritual blindness to reduce the entire problem of resisting evil to the forgiveness of personal grievances, to my enemies, my haters, and to my mental and spiritual overcoming of this resentment. It would be utterly in vain to attribute such spiritual blindness to the gospel. naturally a naive person with their purely personal and meager worldview fails to see good and evil in their extra-personal dimensions, their social, universal, and religious ones. This is precisely why they believe that personal forgiveness extinguishes evil and resolves the problem of combating it, but in reality that is not the case. Forgiving an offense extinguishes its malignant power within oneself and prevents the flood of hatred and evil from enter.

but this does not at all mean defeating the power of malice and evil in the offender. Yeah, sometimes people use the word forgiveness and it really just comes down to them letting it go so they feel better. I guess that's one definition. I've always saw it as a two-way street. The person who's wrong due has come and says, I'm very, very sorry. And then you absolutely have to forgive the gospel examples of, you know, forgiving, forgiving a huge debt.

Someone comes with a small debt and you lose your mind. That these examples show that it's a two-way street. This is not just about your own feelings, which is important. it's not important, but forgiveness is a two-way street. Forgiveness and repentance go together. Sometimes there's people who just simply can't be reached by any means. I had their problem on a family level. Well, I used to.

They're so atrophied that they can't see what they've done. But for my own sanity's sake, I have to just let it go. make excuses for them, you know. But that doesn't change the fact that they're all atrophied. You know, it's the, someone breaks a car window. Yeah, you have to be, you have to replace the car window, but you also have to be punished for the act of breaking the car window. There's two separate things.

And so personal forgiveness, of course, does not extinguish the evil unless there is an act of repentance. our sins aren't forgiven unless we go and we recognize them and we go and we confess them. It's a two-way street. So maybe another word should be used rather than forgiveness. I'm not 100% sure. I don't know if you notice I use my haters here, which, of course, you probably wouldn't use back many years ago, 100 years ago. But I think we'll get his point across.

But spiritual overcoming of the resentment, yes. don't want to have a heart attack over these people. But I think true forgiveness comes with repentance. After forgiveness, the question remains open and unsolved. What to do with the offender? Not as someone who has wronged me and who is owed revenge or retribution from me, but as an unrepentance and incorrigible perpetrator. For being a villain is not a problem for the victim alone and not just to the extent of

their failure to forgive. It is a problem for everyone, including the victim, not as the victim and the unforgiving one, but as a member of that social community called to mutual education and the organized struggle against evil. The offended can and should forgive their offense and extinguish their resentment in their heart, but is precisely their personal heart and their harm that limit their competence and forgiving. Anything further exceeds their rights and their calling. Yeah, again, using the example of the smash window. You know, you don't just go to, you don't just get arrested.

for smashing the window, you also have to replace it. In the Middle Ages, for the most part, and I was talking in the Freudian case, I'm talking mostly about the Middle Ages in early modern period. Freud's the 20th century figure. That's why fines were so important.

The first law code of old Russia under Yaroslav was almost just this list of fines. And because you had not just the family, but the very extended family, that did have the money to pay it, it was workable. And it's almost odd for us to read that today,

you know, because it's not just an individual. The individual didn't exist. They were part of a very extended family who, of course, are embarrassed by all of this, and they have to come up with the money. You know, the individual came into existence, and all of a sudden they're debtors' prisons. which are, of course, are illegal in the U.S.

except when it comes to child support. Although I tend to accept that. I agree with that. It hardly needs proof that a person has neither the ability nor the rights of forgiven offense inflicted on another or a crime that violates divine and human laws, unless, of course, they are a priest with the authority to absolve the sins of the penitent,

or the highest state body with the authority to grant amnesty. In every injustice, every violence, crime, besides the personal aspect of insult and damage, there is also a super personal aspect that brings the criminal to the judgment of society, the law and God. And it is clear that the personal forgiveness of an individual cannot extinguish this jurisdiction and these possible sentences. This is one of the central reasons that society exists. This is part of natural law. You can't get away from it. Natural law refers to those. aspects of our nature.

You can't get rid of. Yeah, you're going to have sinners. You're going to have people doing the wrong thing. Therefore, you need some forum that the community can express itself. How are they going to make it up to you? And hopefully, I mean, you know, it's not this, you know, two kids fight and they say they're sorry because, you know, they have to. Hopefully it's not like that.

Hopefully it's genuine. there are people that just don't like fighting, and so they just wanted to go away, and they're very happy to say, I'm sorry, it's my fault, even when it's not. But, you know, again, this is starting to come into the idea that forgiveness is truly a two-way street. It is not just, you know, you forgive when there is an act of repentance.

And if it's genuine, you have, absolutely no choice but to reply in kind to say yes I accept it it may be difficult depending on the nature of the offense but you know again

these things were attached to society very different than our own I think we live in one of the most savage ridiculous societies that ever existed I don't know how I you know especially in the race issue and all this, the total lack of trust,

the contempt for each other. But in a place, you know, a more monoracial place, a place with one religion that was taken seriously, it was a different story. They realized that they really had to do this. They didn't want, they were believers. And so, yes, when they said, I repent, they meant it. And that God was watching, as you said,

yes, I accept your repentance. and it's gone now, it's wiped away, and we're back like we normally were. You still have to replace what you did, though. But that's up to the extended family to do. Indeed, who gave me the right to forgive on my behalf, the criminals who commit the desecration of sacred objects, the villainous seduction of minors,

or the destruction of the homeland? And what could be the meaning of this imaginary forgiveness? What does it mean, that I do not condemn or, accuse them, but who appointed me such a merciful judge, or that I condone their atrocities and pledge not to interfere with them? But where could I get such an imaginary right to betray, to betray the sacred, the homeland, and the defenseless? Or perhaps this faux forgiveness means that I refrain from any judgment, wash my hands of the matter, and leave events to their inevitable course. However, such a position of indifference, weakness, and permissiveness

has nothing in common with Christian forgiveness and cannot be justified by any reference to the gospel. You keep going. He who resists evil must forgive personal offenses, and the more sincere and complete this forgiveness, the more capable the forgiver is of waging an impersonal, objective struggle against criminality, and the more he is called to be a source of living goodness, not avenging, but compelling and suppressing. But there should be no room in his soul for naive and sentimental ill. illusions that evil and the villain is defeated the moment he personally forgives him. Forgiveness is the first condition of the struggle against evil, or even its beginning,

but not its end or its victory. For this great struggle against evil requires truly no less than, quote, 12 legions of angels, end quote, Matthews 2653, and a real villain, until he sees these legions will always see in forgiveness direct encouragement and perhaps even secret sympathy. Well, you know, maybe he's talking about the Bolivic takeover. You know, he is in exile with millions of other Russians, shoot numbers of family members dead, the rest in prisons, because they created prisons, and your personal forgiveness, it really means very little. That's not really what he means here because, well, you know, Mike Kimfield,

better. You still have to destroy them. You know, you still have to, you still have to figure out a way to get rid of them. They're certainly not going to repent. Forgiveness is the first condition of the struggle against evil. That's true. Yeah, what did Christ saying on the cross? Because they don't know what they're doing. Now, they really think that they're, that they're doing the right thing. This is a, this is a end of history. here. They really believe that. Somehow, someone brainwashed them into believing it. So in that sense, you have to be as charitable as humanly possible. That doesn't mean it ends there. That's just step one. It's only step one. Step two is forcing them to see the error of their ways.

And that requires force. Of course, in when dealing with the Bolshevik of conclusion, very different story, a very different situation. First of all, these weren't Russians. They have no conception of either forgiveness or repentance, and they absolutely despise Russians and Ukrainians and those who they rule over. And that was common knowledge at the time, not today, but it's common knowledge at the time. But naive and sentimental allusions, as he says, that the evil and the villain is defeated the moment he personally forgives him. but that doesn't mean that forgiveness isn't the first condition of the struggle against evil

if you want to define it that way that you can forgive someone without repentance I always wondered about that I don't know if I have a problem with that or not but that doesn't mean there needs to be punishment meted out for for what they've done

you know I'm good with it but you still have broken the law somehow. So this is a complicated passage here. But he is mocking, of course, Tolstoy. And the last few words, perhaps even secret sympathy. Oh, we shouldn't raise arms against this Bolshevik movement. Well, why would you say that? Maybe because you support them.

Now, of course, those guys ended up going to the gulag anyway, but I think he said a mouthful there, and I think he meant it. It is in this context that the gospel words, resist not evil, Matthew 539, should be understood. The rule contained therein is clearly clarified by the words that follow in the sense of meekly enduring personal insults, as well as generously giving personal property and personal services. To interpret this call to meekness and generosity and personal mass, matters is a call to weak-willed contemplation of violence and injustice or to submission to evildoers in matters of the good and spiritual matters, in matters which would be contradictory and unnatural. Is abandoning the weak to evildoers really an act of meekness? Or is one free to

turn the other cheek to an attacker? Doesn't generosity extend only to one's own personal possessions? or has someone who squandered public wealth and delivered his brother into slavery also demonstrated generosity? Or does granting evildoers the freedom to desecrate churches spread atheism and destroy one's own homeland mean being meek and generous? And Christ called for such meekness and generosity tantamount to hypocritical righteousness and complicity with evildoers? Well, obviously now he is talking about the Bolshevik Revolution. and, you know, the concept of a revolution is a modern idea. The idea of revolution, let's be clear here, among many other things, is that the revolutionary party believes that it has, it understands history,

and that history is culminating in them, and therefore to cleanse the society of everything that was old, is something that's ideologically mandated. It's a big difference between right-wing and left-wing violence in terms of the state. Right-wing violence is incidental. It's just, you know, we're getting rid of a criminal class. Left-wing violence is within their theory. It's actually within their philosophy.

You have to cleanse a huge junction, a proportion of the society. of those who may want to go back to the old ways, which means camps, re-education centers, mass graves. That's a part of the theory. You can't get out of that. The Marxist theory of revolution implies it. Now, this has nothing to do with what Christ was talking about. Resist not evil. And to say that, especially in Matthew 539,

to refer to something like the revolution is dishonest because it's immediately removed by what he says afterward. This is not about you personally. The minute it affects someone else, you know, everything changes. The minute it affects someone else, you now are complicit if you don't do anything,

if you have the power to do something. To interpret this call to meekness and generosity, in personal matters as a call to weak-willed contemplation of violence and injustice or to submission to evildoers and matters of the good and spiritual matter would be contradictory and unnatural and he's right that would be abandoning as he says the weak to evildoers it's like being chased by by some animal and you trip someone the animal gets them instead of you it's essentially you know that's not a Christian thing that's not a meek thing um but it's and and you know personal it happens. But the minute someone else is involved, or if God's involved, or the state's involved,

or the society's involved, or the economy's involved, then everything changes. And, um, um, um, you know, that last line, you know, one of the last lines that's granting evil doers of freedom to desecrate churches, spread atheism and destroy one's homeland, and be meek and generous. I suppose if Tolstoy, you know, understood that, live to see it, he would say yes. And, you know, Christ never called for this kind of meekness. And he certainly never called for complicity with evil doers. So the argument against Tolstoy here is very simple, and he lays it up very well.

The teaching of the apostles and church fathers, of course, developed a completely different understanding. God's servants need the sword and do not bear it in vain. Romans 13.4. They are a threat to evildoers, and it was precisely in the spirit of this understanding that St. Theodosius of the Kiev caves taught saying, quote, live peacefully not only with friends but also with enemies, however, only with your enemies and not with the enemies of God, end quote. Thus, the principle of the spirit limits the action.

of benevolence in its immediate naive outpouring. Clearly this limitation inevitably leads to a modification of its spiritual structure and appearance. This was a brutal five chapters. I haven't even started translating yet for the next time for Saturday, but I got plenty of time. Of course, I have two ups there. That's odd.

St. Theodosius took the rules from Montathos for monasticism and brought them to the Kiev monasteries. And that became huge for the development of the Russian church. Russian culture revolves around the church. But how can Tolstoy deal with this when he, you know, the rulers do not bear the sword in vain. Did you reject that part of it? It's like he accepts, you know, like five lines in the New Testament, and that's his religion. Well, I think that really means that he's not a Christian at all.

That he has rejected it long ago. He is an atheist. He is a phylo-sad by him. A weirdo-nostic of some kind. And he uses that just so he can appeal to your typical Russian. it's like the Jones Town people you know if you read his

letters to North Korea in China when he was going to get kicked out of Guyana he says blatantly Jim Jones he says all this religious stuff it's just a scam it's just so you know these people

support me his letter to North Korea if he wanted to move there you imagine He says, oh, the religious stuff doesn't mean anything. Now, when they shot the congressman on the, on the, their, as you came in, that was a, you know, okay, no, all of a sudden, we don't want you, we don't want to even talk to you. But he comes right up and says it.

We don't, we, we don't accept this stuff. And, and so much of, of this, this has been very, very difficult, I think, mentally, and very heavy five chapters where he's building this extraordinary argument that there is no logical or ethical or Christian understanding

of resisting evil by anything but force when it affects everybody else but you. Someone else but you. You personally that's kind of a different story. But even there sometimes that that line is blurred.

You know, it always has been interpreted. The Stristic area on down. You live peacefully with your friends. You, you know, personal injuries are very different from injuries to the family, to the church, whatever. They're not the same thing. Usually not done by the same sort of people. They're completely, they're ontologically different entities.

Now, the concept of the individual didn't exist, really, at the time of, at any of these periods of time, it's really referred to communities more than anything else and extended families, because they're the ones who have to pay for you when you do something wrong. But Tolstoy, again, his development, and he still has some followers out there, but they're simply not Christians and I think he's demonstrated in here that they're not believers they can't be

he has cited how many Bible verses now Tolstoy has cited maybe five or six Jim Jones did the exact same thing he very much limited his citations and to manipulate people

and he said it right in his letters and for some reason when I'm reading, you know, in translating this stuff, I'm reminded of Jim Jones. It's dishonesty. It's hypocrisy. And I think this was just one of the most extraordinary five chapters of a book people are going to read in a long time. All righty.

I encourage everyone to go over to the show notes and to the descriptions on the video and donate to Dr. Johnson's work. Sign up there is Patreon by his book. by a lot of his books. That's right. And yeah, we will be back in a few days to continue this. Thank you, Dr. Johnson. Hey, no problem, my friend.

I appreciate you. I want to welcome everyone back to our reading of Unresistance to Evil by Force by Ivan Eileen. Dr. Johnson, are you doing today? You know, when I got during my divorce hearings, because I took them, I didn't take them seriously. I didn't even have a lawyer. This was not in front of a judge, but my ex-wife's lawyer asked me, big mistake on her part, how I would like to be addressed.

And I said, well, please refer to the list of titles that the present dictator of North Korea has. They're like 200 of them. And pick one. She's, well, I'm, is it my favorite, my personal favorite, ruler of Dominica? She said, okay. And so it wasn't the final decree, but the early paperwork says Matthew R. Johnson, aka ruler of Dominica, my divorce papers, early divorce paper. That's how seriously I took it.

Did you get divorced during COVID? Me? No, no, uh, 2014. Oh, okay. Okay. It was a long time ago. I got divorced during COVID and there was like no, nothing. It was all paperwork, no, no meeting, no nothing.

Oh, no, we met. And this was not in front of a judge. I'm not stupid. I wouldn't say that in front of the judge, but it was in front of one of these. In Pennsylvania, we have these master's, divorce masters, where the hell they're called. And I got a smile from her. So, and the paperwork says, aka ruling. of Dominica.

I'm telling you. Oh, and also, there's a law in Nebraska that says that whale hunting is not permitted. And since there are no whales

within a huge, you know, thousand miles from Nebraska, I'm assuming it refers to fat girls. I'm not 100% sure. Say how weird that state is. I'm telling you,

it's the weirdest state on the planet, especially Lincoln. I think it's episode 61 of 200, years together where at the beginning Dr. Johnson goes over his experiences in Nebraska. People want to go check for that.

I'm not sure. It's definitely in the 60s. Yes, I miss it sometimes. I do, but it was the weirdest place. I was there for five years. The weirdest place I've ever lived. And every state has these weird

laws, but Nebraska has the weirdest. and just, you know, almost every day I saw something bizarre coming up or down the street. So, yeah, yeah, I could go on and on for hours about that. All right. Let's go on with the text. Yeah, all right. Chapter 16, on the modifications of love. The beginning of the spiritual life modifies the,

internal structure of love in the form it takes. Usually or often, only one of its varieties is called love. And the last spiritual one at that. The lower form of love is structured according to the formula, one is good because one is attractive and is sometimes reduced to instinctive enjoyment of another's presence or sometimes exhausted by pity for another's physical and mental suffering. In contrast, the spiritual principle, limiting the senseless outpouring of sensitivity and pointing out to love its true, worthy object, constantly trains it to not idealize what one pleases. It is good because it is attractive, but to delight in what is perfect, it is attractive because it is good. Furthermore, it imparts to love the inner flexibility and the diversity of outward

expressions essential for a spiritual life? Those two phrases are extremely important. And it almost marks the difference, just in those, you know, few words between medieval and modern, or medieval and utilitarianism. You know, what he's really talking about here is eros, to be attracted to something, the least of all, the lowest of all the levels of love. So, and it takes the form either of just, you know, lusting after somebody,

or this endless pity for the world suffering or something like that. And so this is how he's introducing all the limitations of the concept of love and the forms that it takes, because it has to be limited, because we're human beings. and we have very limited capacities for this. In a spiritually undeveloped and helpless person, love begins where they like something or where they enjoy something. It flows on the plane of a soulless connection and strives for maximum inner and outer pleasure. The soulless love is most often diverted from will and reason and turn to imagination and sensation.

Yeah, this is based on fantasy. you know this is how demons get to us they create an image for it they can't create but they can invent images and the fantasy we may have the fantasy never even if we get what we want it's never never comes true but he has love here in quotes he has quotes in the original um and it is a soulless connection this is how americans seem to function these days um it's not it's not the say it doesn't have a place, but it is still the lowest place, you know, and diverted from will and reason to the lower levels of imagination and sensation. And we all know how the regime can use imagination to make money, especially from men. And so he's still talking about the lower

forms of love, which, again, it's a necessity. but it has to know its place. Just like passion. It's a necessity, but it has to be controlled by reason. On the contrary, spiritual love has the power to turn away from the pleasant. It has the power to establish itself at the level of a persistent rejection. It is capable of taking the form of a difficult and joyless service. The only constant function of spiritual love is benevolence.

This means that it always and sincerely wishes for everyone, not pleasure, not enjoyment, not success, not happiness, and not even the absence of suffering, but spiritual perfection, even when it can only be acquired at the cost of suffering and unhappiness. If that's truly your goal, and that's truly the goal you have for people, then it is a loving benevolence. It is a spiritual love. People may not like you because of it. They may not understand why you're rejecting certain things because it's harmful

essentially you're in raising of children for example just realizing how irrational people can be and how powerful the passions are and who controls the passion this imagination what he's talking about so spiritual love however comes from a certain level of suffering

and if that's your true goal then yeah, the path to that goal is often extremely difficult, and the person in the middle of it may not understand and may not like you as a result. The next function of spiritual love, the experiential and intuitive perception of another's personality brought in its fullness to the point of artistic identification is far from always realized.

At the lower levels of spiritual self-education, it is realized primarily in relation to ideal, perfect human models, saints and heroes. At the middle levels, it can only be in relation to God, meditation and solitude, and at the highest levels, only in God and through God, and among people, only in relation to those who themselves ask for help. I think this is a specifically orthodox point of view, where man can be, the greatest saint can be deafer, find, so to speak. And again, there's nothing wrong with having your favorite saints. I certainly do.

Trying to approach logos through meditation and solitude, absolutely, which is always a struggle. You're always being diverted. You're always being distracted. And I'm certainly no teacher of that. I need assistance myself, though I've been asked. but if someone knows what they want and if they want the right things you know they'll understand that it's not going to be easy any a master of anything i don't care if it's a musical instrument or

anything at a very high level it's not going to be easy greatness never comes through indulgence and love certainly doesn't refer to indulgence love at this level always wishes well but does not always identify and when identified he does not always accept approved or pity. When he approves, it is not at all out of kindness, but when he pities another, it is not with a weak-willed softening, either of themselves or of the sufferer. Their love is for the perfection of the beloved, and this love for the perfection of the beloved always remains stronger than the fear of their possible suffering. It's almost a definition of being weak-willed, right? That you can't handle pain, so you just won't do it. And that goes for anything.

worthwhile. Anything worthwhile in the world comes through pain, a discomfort of some kind or another. But using words like identify and identification, this could have been written again the other day. This stood the test of time. Wishing well is almost like saying goodbye to somebody, saying, I wish you well, but I certainly don't accept what you're doing. And the approval, as he says here, is not just because, oh, I love you so much, but because it's leading you to the right direction. And it's hard to do that. You see there's raising children sometimes, the abbot of a monastery.

There's a million situations like that where you have to bring people through the crucible so they come out extraordinary people on the other end. And this is, you know, and so the weak will don't want to do any of that. They want to give them. They want to cheat. They, you know, they want to take shortcuts. And that happens all the time. And, but, you know, true love.

And, of course, the final end, of course, is God himself, you know, St. Augustine would say that one end that never changes, because placing your love on something on this earth, you can lose it tomorrow. So that's only a very conditional love. But even there, that's just one step to the proper worship and love of God. And bringing someone to that can be very difficult. Ordinary love comes to love the earthly composition of an individual person and knows nothing greater. Hence, its results is a sensual and sugary morality, which places above all else, objectless affection and unprincipled kindness.

No one in the universe has ever fallen, has ever lusted after the concept of a woman. It's always a very specific woman. The earthly composition, it's never the form, you know, the love for the form of a woman or man has, no relationship to the love for the erotic love for just an individual and this is all nominalism understands

and when it comes down to morality it's a very you know I love everyone kind of thing objectless affection which of course is never real and you know kindness he says unprincipled kindness and he's right

ultimately it's about what you want and so there are no principles there because what you want is not a principle, it's a given. On the contrary, spiritual love knows that this higher reality and in the face of it is able to control both its tenderness and its kindness. It knows that between the two fundamental commandments of Christ, love for God and love for one's neighbor,

apparent conflicts are possible, in which service to God's work may require merciless severity toward man, while pity for man can be tantamount to the betrayal of God's work. Knowing this, it also can navigate these apparent conflicts, but its relationship with God always remains the standards to which its relationships with others are subordinated. You know, he's, we have to deal with this quite often.

We have to cut people off. We have to cut people out of our lives because they are not interested in what we do. They have no real conception of what love is. many people are not capable of love, very much like, in my opinion, many people are not capable of being free. Love of God and love for one's neighbor, they should be one and the same. But because we're human and we live in a society and we meet many, many different people over the course of a day or a month or we, you know, it's very hard to keep that as, as a one thing. And pity could lead us astray, just like lust can lead us astray. Therefore, there can be

no circumstances under which it would be appropriate to betray God's work out of pity for another. But situations are always possible in which, out of love for God, one can and should restrain love for man and reduce it to the strictness of spiritual benevolence, so that the Second Commandment remains unbroken. For, generally speaking, love is not at all reducible to animal pity, which weakens both the one who pities and the one who is pitied. A person who has distinguished the image of God within himself needs not a weak and sympathetic acceptance, but is sternly condemning rejection.

This rejection, which stops and soberes him, can and should have its true source and love for God in heaven and for the divine and the fallen and spiritually extinguished soul. This is an extremely powerful paragraph, and for those who are reading along, they should probably read it a few times. You know, we may go way back with somebody, old friends, whatever. But if they're absolutely doing the wrong thing, if they become an evil part, we can't go along with it.

We can't even pretend to accept it. They have to be cut off. Now, sometimes, a sternly condemning rejection is just what they need. It says here, maybe it stops and sober something. and because, you know, they respect us. We go way back, for example. Let's use an example. We go way back and maybe he's right.

But all of that should have the true source and love for God in heaven and, as he says, for the divine and the fallen, spiritually extinguished soul. Again, it comes back to the question whether or not Logos can be completely extinguished in an individual because of its total saturation in the regime's morality. It's conceivable.

I suppose there's some people who simply can't be rehabilitated. And the last thing his friends, if he has any left, should do is accept it even just to get along. Going along to get along is evil. It's a terrible thing. But when someone in their respect says, no, I don't like this,

and you're doing the wrong thing, it may be exactly what they need to hear. And if that doesn't work, you may have to simply cut them off. Thus is born and formulated that negative face of love, which has always led and will continue to tempt short-sighted and sentimental people. Judging everything by its outward appearance and seeing neither sweet sympathy nor tender pity in the manifestations of such love, they begin to speak indignantly of hatred or malice, expressing horror and calling for an anti-spiritual and cowardly compassion.

Well, most people know I have a very, very good selling book on nominalism, and specifically it's condemnation by the church father. And to some extent, this very concept can be found there. Nomalism leads someone to judge things by their outward appearance, because there is nothing else. any universal truths. There are no such things. What's left?

Someone's material presence, and that's about it, anything. And it does take a tremendous amount of strength. This is why, you know, I mean, when I first read Plato's Republic when I was 17, I was actually, I was 18, I'm sorry. It absolutely blew my mind.

I never heard any argument for a form or the spiritual life at all. But such a thing has, you know, there's no faith here, it's logic. You know, faith is fine, but it has to be based on a logical foundation. And Plato was extremely important in your early church fathers. They always used his language, although you can accept Plato 100%. We all know that. Plato went about as far as naked reason could go.

But coming across that for the first time, I began to realize, and my career almost has been expanding on that idea consistently. When you reject nominalism, you realize there's a lot more than outward appearances. And people will not like you for this. People won't understand. And it was the first step for me personally in breaking out of this epistemological dependence on the system. the empirical locking an idea you know the positivist idea that we're all raised with

that's very hard to do and reading Plato at such a young age and he was an excellent writer so he was graspable by me and that was my foundation and it absolutely blew my mind that there was an actual logical argument for the spiritual life

in his case we're talking about the forms and the forms later being collected into logos or the second person of the Trinity later on with someone like St. Justin Martyr. St. Justin Martyr was a full-scale platonous. Of course he could reject certain aspects

of Plato. Plato didn't know the fullness of revelation, but the fullness of revelation is too based on a logical foundation. That's what apologetics is all about. But talking about this, to your typical normie out there, it's either not going to understand you or they're going to simply reject you and you're going to, and you'll be punished for it. The fact that you stay with it and you stick with it, that's what love is.

Meanwhile, in reality, the spiritual formulation of love so necessary for a man and so difficult to acquire imparts to love a whole series of. of precious modifications and in no way extinguishes or distorts its fundamental loving nature. In saying no to someone on this basis, man loves his real, genuine object, no less than his spiritual yes, and much more than in the typical non-spiritual approval. Moreover, love, capable of taking on a spiritually negative face, is always deeper, more intense, more faithfully devoted than the love which in a cowardly way turns to the love which in a cowardly way it turns away from evil in order to avoid seeing or even to compassionately accept it. Yeah, or simply denying it exists.

You know, if you are truly convinced of God and Logos and his truth, even if you're put in that, the example I always use about being forced to work in a bar, et cetera, et cetera, you will still say no every single day. That's almost a found out. that's almost a heroic no because you know what the truth is and these people are idiots and when you're sober and I don't drink but when you're sober and and you watch people who are drunk you realize how stupid they look and that goes for any fashion not just not just alcohol or drugs goes for anything um so uh and and you can't have allies who will either just turn away from

it or even pretend it's not real because such a person will eventually come to accept it as true, and they will drag you down because of it. In order to understand this negative sort of love, it is necessary to keep in mind that spiritually objectified and formed love, while always remaining benevolent, desire is nothing but the spiritual enlightenment and transformation for every person. It cannot love anything evil in man.

Therefore, wherever it perceives evil in a person, not weakness, not error, not a fall, not sin, but self-affirming anti-spiritual malice, it finds itself forced to modify its individual attitude toward the person in accordance with the evil present in his soul. While always desiring his conversion and purification and perhaps joyfully trembling at the mere thought of the possibility of such a transformation of an evil soul, a spiritually loving person necessarily experiences a whole series of modifications in all the other functions of his life, in sympathy, approval, assistance, creative acceptance, and the desire

to identify with him, in the willingness to communicate, and finally, even in the ability to treat him with elementary pity. This is a dangerous thing. Let me break this down from the most simple element. We see someone who we like for what we've liked for a long time who is living. an evil lifestyle. We attempt to talk them out of it.

Well, sometimes that's like awakening a sleepwalker. You better be prepared for an extreme reaction. I mean, it's possible that they may be transformed, but not always. But then again, he's not talking about weakness nor error. He's talking about

anti-spiritual malice, self-conscious malice. You know, And you better be careful. You better know what you're doing. You can't just go to someone and start preaching to them. I have long experience in this. You have to know how to approach them.

You have to know them to begin with, on an individual level. You have to know how to talk about it, how to bring it up. And even then, the chances of you succeeding, especially today, are minimal. But that's still your obligation. you don't run away from it if you actually, you know, love anything. That's part of our commission here on earth. But going off without fully knowing that,

you can get yourself hurt doing this, depending on what we're talking about here. You know, a criminal drug dealer or something like this. You better watch what you say. But, you know, it's still your obligation to maybe bring them out of this some way. And, you know, the chances of you doing it are probably extremely low.

But, you know, if you don't try, then no one will. And God knows what will happen as a result. Again, that's what love is. That's what true love is. In his case, negative love. It's a rejection, but not doing anything or pretending it doesn't exist is the opposite of love. Each of us must know this from our own experience.

There are evil deeds to which we give neither sympathy nor approval. There are evil goals to which we cannot contribute so that the mere idea that I was used to commit evil acts overwhelms the soul with mortal anguish. There are evil situations in life which the imagination finds repugnant to enter and the will find unbearable. There are evil people from a simple conversation with whom the soul, soul begins to groan as if wounded. There are villains towards whom the last flash of extinguished pity can only express itself in hastening their death sentence. Big image I have when I translated this was Tony Sopranos therapist.

Initially, she thinks she can do good by them. Later on in the series, she finds out, yeah, I was used to commit evil acts. or at the very least her colleagues knowing who she was treating explained to her that for that kind of mind what you're doing is giving him

ways to overcome the good in the future. They're just using you pointing out weaknesses that's great for them, not good for you. And I couldn't, if you haven't seen the sopranos was probably something wrong with you. But I couldn't help but thinking of Dr. Melfy, this whole paragraph, especially that phrase, I was used to commit evil acts,

because that's really the zenith of their relationship when she realizes that's in fact true. Sociopaths use therapy. I'm not a big fan of therapy. I don't think it works, but sociopath use it to get someone on their side. to plead their case and get someone sympathetic to them that will eventually accept what they do

but that's not the case here she always maintained her distance and as any therapist can do in therapy comes down to what comes down to comes down the logic

your mind is confused you know your ends are wrong and the means that you're even if you have good ends the means that you're a usually to go about them are wrong and you know

therapy is pretty much what it comes down to there's kinks like a kink and a hose and you're trying to uncink it but for a criminal that's good you're making them a better criminal and um and yeah i feel dr milphy was was just immediately rush into my mind when I saw this

uh because this is exactly a huge part of the plot of the sopranos in their relationship all these states in their fundamental essence and the element that saturates them remain a modification of spirituality and love and therefore they can and therefore they do not become evil states and do not lead to evil deeds only short-sightedness and superficiality can characterize them as manifestations of evil and malice however within the limits of love accessible to man and possible moral perfection these states are of course incomplete and flawed only love for god can be absolutely whole and complete love for an absolutely whole and complete perfection such an attitude toward man as such i told a friend of mine um that he was in prelist which in russian the orthodox means that they're in a state of delusion um prelis is a russian word for charm or charming and it's it's not heresy but it's you know they think they think they think things that you simply aren't true. They believe themselves greater than they are. And he told me,

if you were a friend, you would never, you would never accuse me of pre-lest. And I said, no, that's what friends are supposed to do. You know, that's exactly the, the obligation of a friend. It's to tell you when you're, when you're going off the path. In fact, he was an old believer. And he had just, you know, so many converts to that, you know, I have a book out. on the old believers. I respect them very much. And sometimes it go a little bonkers. And I started to get the impression that he was trying to find a church worthy of him. And that's when I said, okay, there's something wrong here. And I told him that. And I haven't spoken to him since. I don't know if anyone else has said the same thing, but he's not the only guy I've come across

who thinks that. They come to the strictest true Orthodox Church, all calendars, not because they want to seek the truth, but because or serve God properly, because it makes them appear extraordinary and of great principle, trying to find a church worthy of them. Sometimes that could be hard to detect. And I've detected it a few times in my life, and when you see it, you've got to mention it. And among other things, that's what prelitz means in Russian. It's a state of mind that you shouldn't be in. And it could go as far as actually having total delusions about things,

but doesn't have to go that far. But when he said, friends don't make those accusations, I said, that's exactly what friends do. If they give a damn about the person, that's exactly what friends do. What is wrong with you? And, well, that was the end of that. To love a person, taken in isolation from God, would always be incorrect based on blindness and idealization.

In love for a person who reveals the true source of evil, the necessity of curtailment and incompleteness becomes self-evident. Here, there is a substantively just measure, a necessary and subjectively irremovable boundary. Of course, this measure of love does not lend itself to precise quantitatively. state of determination and the mental dissection of a semi-evil person into beloved virtue or unloved vice remain unrealizable. It is precisely for this reason the complexity of an incompletely loved object requires a corresponding complexity in the structure of an incompletely loving act. It demands self-control and adaptability from love. Of course, there's nothing purely evil that we come across on earth.

There's always some good in something. You know, what's the word perversion mean? You know, in its root, it means to turn away. Or inversion. Turn something completely upside down. Something that already exists. It's good in and of itself, but you use it for evil reasons. And he says something like, you know, semi-evil, meaning there's a chance here.

Maybe he's just going along. maybe there's some good in him maybe he's starting to be upset by what he does maybe you notice that he is you know getting upset by by what he does in the group that he's with

or whatever ah that's a person and especially if you know him that's a person you may approach you have to watch yourself again I speak from experience you must be very careful with this kind of thing and usually you can't just come, you know, blaring, you can't come straight out with it.

Sometimes, depending on circumstances, but, you know, he says that this is very, very fuzzy. There's no, you know, clear boundaries here. It just comes from experience. You have to know. You have to have a certain intuition about this stuff. And it's difficult, which is why when you go on this path, you're going to lose a lot of a lot of friends, you know, whether you're converting to orthodoxy and course, the nationalism that it implies, royalism, the anti-Jewish question, you're going to lose a lot of

friends. But we do this because we love the truth, and God said, I am the truth. Truth, way, light, in the life. And that's why we do it. There's no hate involved there whatsoever. But this is, this is why we, this is why we do it. And that's what love. ultimately is and we know we're going to suffer. It is not in our interest to do any of the things that we do, you know, interest in a sense of socially or financially or professionally. It's not in our interest to do what we do. But we come to a certain realization and now we have no choice. We couldn't possibly lie about it. I couldn't possibly go in front of a group of students to start talking about the Holocaust is the most evil thing that ever happened. You know,

and I didn't. But you simply can't, you simply can't go along with them. So, you know, this gets very complicated over time. But when you approach, he's really talking about teaching somebody. And any relationship that might exist, could be friends, it could be in a monastery, it could be in a university, it doesn't matter. Approaching them is a dangerous game, and you have to be very, very, very careful in what you say.

and the better you know the person, maybe the better the chance you have. But the fact that he uses this semi-evil concept, he's referring to somebody who has shown signs that they don't like where their life is going. And now you really have an obligation. All these modifications of love brought about by the encounter between genuine spirituality and genuine evil boil down to the loving acceptance becoming impoverished in its functions. curtailed in its fullness, and, as the object deteriorates, increasingly approaching a well-wishing rejection. Negative love gradually finds its fulfillment in the earthly removal of the rejected evildoer,

but even during this removal and after its spiritual love does not turn into malice or become evil, man has given the power to pray for the executed evildoer, and the church knows this prayer. It's usually Psalm 23, the Lord is my shepherd I shall not want. Yeah, it took me a little while. There is several prayers, both in Russia and in Greek, for inmates. There are special prayers for inmates who were there unjustly. There's prayers for them who are there justly. But for executions, usually it's Psalm 23.

Now, whether that's something that someone like that's going to ever accept, You know, you never know. But as I've said before, you know, the old medieval concept still works here. He says negative love gradually finds a fulfillment in the earth removal of the rejected evil doer. Someone who has declared war on society. It's like a cancer. And we are the chemotherapy. Or, you know, as many others, an example many others have used, a limb,

that's become saturated with gangrene. It has to be removed. Because if you don't remove it, it's going to kill you. It's going to take over your entire body. So you've got to chop it off. This is what capital punishment means to me. In the way, of course, Americans do capital punishment is absurd. Since it's very rarely death penalty is ever, you know, rarely, even for first-degree murder,

rarely given. And when it is given, it takes what? what's the average 25 years before the before the execution so you can't talk about whether or honest

deterrent or it's not a deterrent I've known many people who reject the reject capital punishment and they talk about that I said well you don't talk about

its deterrent value if it's always for first three murder let's say or or child molestation um it was passed that law in Florida a couple of other places

but it has to be every single person. It can't just be a handful of people. First-degree murder is usually life without parole. So you can't talk about, but if it was automatic, first-degree murder, death penalty, carried out in a relatively short span of time, after your appeals and all that stuff, then we could talk about its value,

but right now it's rarely used. and the gangrene has saturated so much of this country, as we will know. But that's also an act of love. Getting rid of it for the sake of others, becoming the chemotherapy of a cancerous element in society. That absolutely comes from love. Now, it's others who might be on our side who will do that just because they love the you know,

they love the, you know, being, uh, being a, you know, violence or whatever it is. That's not the person you're dealing with here. That is not, that's not what we're talking about. It's done strictly for the love of God. I love of man, love of God, love of neighbor as being one and the same thing. And, um, so, you know, Russia didn't have a death penalty for quite a while. it went back and forth on it.

And that was unfortunate, especially near the end. But yes, Psalm 23 is that prayer that the church uses for the condemned. And usually at the act of execution, you know, just before it happens. In this objectively forced functional impoverishment and the gradual strengthening of the element of rejection within the bosom of acceptance, Spiritual love passes through a whole series of classical states, spiritually necessary, objectively justified, and religiously true. These states express the gradual separation and removal of the one who loves from the one who loses the right to the fullness of love. They begin with the fullest possible love for a person and end with prayer for the executed criminal. These are in gradually increasing sequence.

Start over again. These are, in gradually increasing sequence, disapproval, lack of sympathy, grief, reprimand, condemnation, refusal to cooperate, protest, denunciation, demand, persistence, mental coercion, the infliction of mental suffering, severity, indignation, anger, refusing to communicate, boycott, physical coercion, disgust, disrespect, inability to understand their situation, suppression, ruthlessness, and execution. That's, you know, this is one of the more interesting passages, I think. I really hope to God I got this right. You know, sometimes I use Google Translate, but, you know, as just a starting point. And it usually is pretty useless on stuff like this. So I have to use my own knowledge to go in and correct it. And this is something I had to go in and correct.

this seems to be, you know, from the most basic, you know, start off with disapproval. So that you have, and of course, grief, you know, you're very upset by this. And it's not, you know, this goes for individuals. This goes for, you know, states. It goes for anything. Then, you know, it goes to denunciation, which is a bunch of louder concept. Persistence of mental coercion. Actually, I shouldn't have a, um, um, um,

comma there. Now you start getting into the affliction of mental suffering and the severity of the indignation. You know, not because you enjoy causing pain, but you're trying to get someone to see their light. And then if that's all that doesn't work, you go to disgust and disrespect because they don't understand their situation whatsoever. And then even after you do this on a ruthless level, maybe all you have left, if they're totally incapable of freedom or love, and there are, you know, maybe execution is all you have left for an evil person in society. This is a semi-evil at this point. By the time you get to disrespect here, you're starting to wonder maybe this person is incapable of loving whatsoever.

This person is incapable of doing anything but being at war with society. it is something that's absolutely you don't like it but it's an absolute necessity if nothing else works and he's been saying that from the very beginning the confrontation of evil by force it's only justified

as St. Augustine said many times over when all other aspects and these are all the other aspects fail so if you get in by execution it could be execution by the state or it can also simply be in our personal life just cutting this person off realizing that that logic doesn't mean anything and you can't really talk to them anymore

because they're just gone down this path they're so deep into it but nothing you can do that would be that version of execution because if you maintained any kind of if you maintain this any kind of connection with them even that even at the level of disgust and disrespect it might infect you. And as we said also from the beginning here, you can't allow this stuff to affect you as a person. You know,

soldiers in warfare never come back the same way if they've been able to kill somebody. I don't know if I said this before, but I think I have. My father used to say, he's in the Marine Corps in Korea, he said, you know, you could spot a phony war story

and they just talk about it to just anybody then you know it's not true so but it gets to the point really where even in a social level there's nothing more you can do than death than the personal level

no matter what you say it has to be they have to be cut off by you and that may affect you terribly you may not be the same again even after that. That takes a lot to do that personally. I think all of us, I think everyone listening here,

has had to do that at least once in their life, including my people who are very close to us. And I'm always very suspicious of someone who, you know, my first thought when I'm in a conflict with someone individually is to, is to, what I first, I usually write them. You know, here's my point of view. Please tell me yours. And if they refuse to answer, I'm suspicious now.

If they cut me off, then I don't think I have an answer, that I am right about it. And they just don't want to be reminded of it. So, yeah, I mean, there is a possibility that there's people out there who are, well, in this case, I know that there are people who are incapable of love. It doesn't necessarily mean that they're evil and all they're doing. But there are people who simply cannot think this way. they're incapable of looking to the heavens. They are, they're animals where logic is just a way to get to their next passion, next desire. That's all that logic is to them.

But if we know people like this, ultimately we have to cut them off, depending on where we're from. Some of us have come to the church. You know, I converted in my 20s. So what do I do? I'm already, you know, saturated with an evil society before then. I have to cut a lot of people off. They don't understand. So this is a very, very heavy paragraph here.

This works at the social level as well as in the individual level. But execution only when everything else has failed. And even then, you know, if you're at a social level, a member of the firing, I was just listening to one of the members of the firing squad that killed Chalcchescu. And he was never quite the same again. He was never in combat before, but

that didn't, he was never the same again because he killed two people. And whether they deserved or not, it's not the point. He was not the same man again. And he did have nightmares and stuff like that. And so, this kind of a life, when you truly have principles, and God is your ultimate end. You know, it's not going to be. easy. You know, it's funny, we know the Gospels are true, at least in part, because Christ didn't

offer us. Christ offered us what? Social rejection. We're probably going to get killed. We're going to be rejected by the world. You know, if you're trying to start a religion, is that how you talk? It's going to be miserable for you for a while? Yes, you have heaven if you stick to it. but Christ offered zero earthly goods by following him what kind of religious cult leader does that that's how you know the gospels are true because no one would

actually advocate that unless he was truly from God and that when people are so saturated in sin you know why did why was Moses commanded to just to slaughter entire groups of people it was the same thing. They had been so saturated all the way down to everybody with evil that they simply couldn't exist anymore.

Same reason why God flooded the earth. Society had gotten that bad that their death was probably the best thing for them. And people don't like talking like that. People don't like even thinking about that stuff. But we have to. And this list of things may not be the exact sequence for all of us.

But that's basically what it is. And it's a lot of work and it's a lot of pain. But that's the life that, you know, if we choose this life, we have to expect this kind of thing. And we're never going to be the same again. All right. We should stop it there and complete the other half of the chapter on the next one. Jeez, my lord.

Heavy stuff. Heavy stuff. That a lot of people don't want to consider it. Most people don't want to consider it. All right. It's a day-to-day struggle, and everyone knows that. And you can't go to a person and say, you're going to have a great life following this kind of thing,

because you know they won't. I mean, it's the truth and only the truth, and that's what provokes love, true love, and that's what this chapter has been about so far. All right. everyone go over to the show notes go over to the descriptions and the videos donate to dr johnson's work and we will be back in a few days with uh to finish up this chapter dr johnson thank you i appreciate it my friend thank you bye bye i want to welcome everyone back to our reading of

unresistance to evil by force by ibn elene his episode number 24 dr johnson how are you doing today you know, I've been translating up to chapter 20. I don't get headaches anymore, which is a very good thing. But my God, it's hard. But I had something else to say. I was watching, I know you're a fan, you've watched it before, Breaking Bad. I watched the series for like the fourth time. And I came to the scene where Nacho led in the mercenaries to kill Lalo.

I'm saying to myself, what the hell is wrong with these guys? Six guys? This is a fortress, an unknown fortress, with heavily armed guards there. Could be even worse, as far as they. And he sends six guys. How intelligent can this guy be? This is the most idiotic thing I could imagine. And it really bugged me.

I don't know why I didn't notice it before. Six guys for a heavily armed fortress. Of course they're all going to be killed. Awful. I wasn't thought through. Yeah, I haven't watched that. I got that out. I needed to get that out.

I know there's a lot of fans out there. I need to get it out, which is a stupid thing. I don't mind plot holes. I mean, my life has plot holes. But that's something that just, that's how you know he didn't work for Chilean intelligence or anything like that.

He would never, no one would ever make that kind of mistake. All righty. Here we go. I'm going to finish up, finish up this chapter today. And we're off to the races. Each of these states in the presence of genuine evil and true vision can be and is a spiritually

healthy and vitally expedient reaction to villainous manifestations and actions. So the task of a person striving for a spiritually faithful life will not consist in unconditionally avoiding these states, but in not allowing them within oneself without sufficient grounds. and spiritually mastering them and not allowing them to cloud the clarity of spiritual vision and always keeping them within the ancestral bosom of fundamental benevolence and always preserving within oneself the capacity to restore the fullness of love. The highest and purest dispassion is freedom from evil and personal passions, from the passions of a spiritually not objectified godless self.

What he's getting at to here, first of all, the states he's making reference to or in the previous paragraph. And the states are how to deal with a villain or a criminal. You start off with disapproval over minor things. Lack of sympathy, grief, reprimand, and then condemnation, protest, enunciation, mental coercion, the infliction of mental suffering, indignation. and then physical coercion,

disgust, disrespect, suppression, ruthlessness, and finally, if everything else fails, the capital punishment. And he kind of has a timeline there, sort of. I don't think it's a perfect, you know, one, two, three, four, but you definitely get the picture of what you go through

when you're dealing with, that's not really talking about external enemy, talking about, say, a criminal domestically. But what he's getting at here is very important, and it's going to be an ongoing theme, that in the legitimate fight against evil, the fight itself can bring out the worst in people. You may have evil people on your side that might use the fight against evil solely as a way to justify their own sociopathy. You might even be affected by that.

You know, we've said this before. You can't go through this without being affected, whether they're police or soldiers. You can't go through this without being affected. How much, you know, that depends, but, and keeping your cool, keeping your spiritual vision, even in the thick of it of the battle. That's asking a lot.

That's asking a lot. And even the best of us can fall, you know, using the fact that we're combating evil as a way to just bring out the worse than ourselves. You know, inflicting pain because we enjoy being in charge, rather doing it for the sake of fighting evil and bringing out the good. So that's what he's getting at, and he'll get at it quite often. And it's a very important point to make. It is not indifference nor a lack of will, nor inaction. The highest and purest dispassion knows its ups and downs, its storms, thunder, and eruptions. But their source is not the animal in man, but the spirit's vision and its presence.

These storms and thunders then reveal not evil nor malice, nor the weakness of man, but it strengthened goodness, and it is not their presence that damages the essence of the spirit, while their absence would be spiritually unnatural. If a Christian ever doubted this, they would only need to recall the thunders that divinely thundered over the Pharisees and scribes, over the merchants in the temple, over Jerusalem slaughtering its prophets, and over those who seduce minors. It is enough to perceive in these thunders just once the very power of love that teaches us to do good to our enemies, forgive offenses and joyfully give away our possessions for the idealization of sentimental weakness to begin to fade in the soul

this this tends to be this could be used in either case either you know fighting external enemies external enemies within our borders as well as domestic enemies um trying to remain I mean you know hatred makes a lot of sense if it's under reasons control and if it has a legitimate object. Now, I'm not sure it's slaughtering its prophets.

Well, that was done by an evil sect. That was done by the worst in the Old Testament. He's not justifying that. It's just an example. The rest of it, though, what Christ did to the money changers in the temple. What he said to the Pharisees and scribes, and crimes, at the time, you know, would be like us, you know, using very foul language.

And, you know, seducing minors. I would seduce is probably not the right word, but that is the Russian here. These are examples of the fact that, with the exception of the prophets, that physical and verbal violence, violence with quotes is certainly justified because Christ didn't it and it makes sense and it's according to reason and it's the last one

pedophilia rightfully brings out just such utter hatred in normal people that would be tough to keep under control we all know what happens to them in prison we all know that sometimes

guards let certain guys know, guess who's coming in. Maybe they'll leave their cell door open, something like that, when everyone else is locked, as these guys are coming back. You know, they do things like that. But at least outwardly, they have to show a certain level of this passion. They're professionals. You know, there's no way a policeman could ever remain the same man through 30 years dealing with the lowest in humanity.

But you really only know someone, and I think this is kind of what he's getting at here, only when they've been through the lowest of the low. That's what reveals, as he says here, his strength in goodness. If they refuse to do any, if they refuse to act, that would be unnatural, is what he's saying. There's nothing in Christianity that would,

that would suggest what Tolstoy is talking about. Tolstoy is kind of going to slowly drop out here. I think he's made his point with Tolstoy many times. And the only problem that we have, there's differences between dealing with evil within ourselves, dealing with evil in a public arena, internally, domestically, dealing with evil that's coming over our borders,

Those are at least three very different ways of fighting evil. Now, within ourselves, you wouldn't use force. You would use, you know, trying to coerce yourself. They have a lot in common. But sometimes, and it's my only problem so far with the book, sometimes I'm not sure which one of those he's referring to. Now, why he includes, these are all justified things. You know, slaughter of the prophets, obviously that's bad.

cursing out the Pharisees and scribes, that's good. Beating the merchants in the temple, that was good. And then, of course, as long as far as prophets was bad, Seroosian miners was bad. So now, what makes it make sense is that Christ specifically mentioned those things. We know the Old Testament is always going,

should be a part of the Bible, even though I think there's a movement to get rid of it. he did mention to these Pharisees, your fathers killed the prophet that God sent to you. And of course, he also mentioned, you know, and to my little ones, and then you get better, better you never be born. So even Christ was almost losing it when it came to his human side when it came to hurting children.

So that's what makes. it all, a unified sentence there. So, you know, but none of these, of course, are our personal enemies. None of them are. These are all insults against God, insults and crimes that I know, as Catholics say, cry out to heaven for vengeance. At one great and terrible moment in history, an act of divine love in the guise of wrath and scourge drove the blasphemous mob from the temple.

This act was and will be the greatest prototype in justification for all spiritually and objectively grounded manifestations of love in the form of rejection. With it before their mind's eye, all prophets, rulers, judges, educators, and warriors can calmly face the possible judgment coming from them from weak-willed sentimentality and the possible classification of them as God-sacrificing haters. Their task is to affirm the strength of spiritual benevolence, and the clarity of spiritual vision, as well as to remember the joyless difficulty of the struggle they wage. My favorite part about the, when he whips, he really hurt them. I could only assume when he made that whip, the Bible tells us he was very careful about it.

He knew what he was doing, and I probably had done it before. You know, he put his weapon together very well. and and you know I've been in debates with Tolstoyan types and they say well it was only the one time I say what difference is that made the Bible is a fairly short you know so the new testament's only I'm sorry gospel is only four books um you know how many times there has to be repeated for it to be justified it's something that he did um that was a popular measure. You know, John the best, John the Baptist kind of stuff.

And it certainly justifies the use of physical violence. No doubt that there were discussions before that, that went nowhere, as Christ already knew. And in fashioning his weapon and beating the crap out of him, you imagine us walking into, you know,

church, you know, these evil people there, you have a whip, and you just start whipping them. But people would turn around and, you know, Um, it would be great. I've never done it personally. Um, but this was something, so they were usurers. There were, uh, lone sharks more or less.

And you're doing this in the temple? And I think at that point it had become so normal that no one thought anything of it. And when he, you know, brought in his weapon and just beat them. I'm hoping, I'm hoping that they never, you know, before it was destroyed, they never came back. they may have. I mean, he was educated there at the temple. I remember, this was a humongous, very large set of institutions. It wasn't just like our parishes. But that's the so former, and it's love. It was a love for his father, why he did that, as well as an example to us. And of course, because he's God and man, he had a purely clear spiritual vision.

Of course, if we were to do that, I think we would be so angry that maybe our vision wouldn't be so clear. I've confronted people in a parish in the vestibule before. even that got a lot of attention. I didn't beat anybody. But that's a common argument. The Los Angeles say, it's only one time. You know, he clearly had done it before. He knew exactly what he was doing when he was making this,

essentially cut nine tails. And it's, yeah, it's going to be one of my favorite parts of the four gospels. For negative love, is joyless and tormenting for me. man. It demands of him a feat and a severe feat at that. It demands strength, endurance, and steadfastness. It demands enormous exertions of will, fidelity to the onerous responsibilities one is assumed, selflessness and constant spiritual activity and self-purification. Since this rejection or negative love rests not on personal calculations and passions, but on the genuine experience of evil and the spiritual necessity responding to it, it does not yield to

arbitrary extinguishing or transformation into positive love, no matter how much a weary or exhausted soul may plead for it. Misunderstanding of this struggle and its burden and the morally crooked judgment of lazy, timid, sensitive, and hypocritical people complete the joylessness of this feat, under whose burden noble and refined souls have always found courage and in so doing, have never doubted the righteousness of their cause. Thus the beginning of the spirit modifies the appearance of love in the form of its manifestation. So negative love is something along the lines of tough love. When I confronted, it was a priest, actually.

I confronted in vestibule, I won't say where. He was not the pastor. He was a guest. And the pastor was very upset with me. And I had it out with him. Ten minutes later, in front of him, he apologized to me. saying I overreacted. In other words, yeah, you were right to confront this guy.

He's saying absolutely heretical things in front of people as a clergyman. So, but I could say to some extent I had the love of the truth in my, that was the primary reason I was doing. I didn't want to do it. Who wants to make a scene like that, you know? I had never done anything like that before. I knew what I was talking about. He was, some people know this story who are listening right now,

but, but it's, you know, using negative, negative love in the sense that it's, it's love that's not shown in the way it's normally shown. And the opposite of that would be what he says, you know,

lazy, timid, sensitive, and hypocritical people. Now, sensitive is, is, I probably, I want to,

I should go back and look at that term. I think I probably should have been, if I remember right, it may have been weak. His sensitive is not bad in and of itself. But hypocritical, lazy, timid. And these are the people who have, you know, who would never love the truth so much that they would do something like that in its service, looking at me like I was crazy. even though I was justified in the end. These are the same people who would never, who don't, you know, really care. If I was in the, if I saw someone doing that and I knew the reason why, I probably would join in, but I fully, I would fully understand where this is coming from.

You know, I didn't do it during liturgy or anything. You know, I did it afterward. So, and yes, but when you're doing this full time, I guess, I guess I just, I guess I just, I just, I just, do this full-time. You know, strength, endurance, steadfastness, without it affecting you in such a way that you become like them. I'm not even talking about that your beliefs change, but you, you know, sometimes you forget that that sort of thing is the very last resort.

And we're talking about now more abstractly, you know, physical violence being the absolute last resort after everything else has been has been done. This is why I'm certain that in the temple, Christ didn't just show up and start whipping these guys. I have the feeling he had confronted them many times and nothing changed. And so he just, that was, you know, finally, you know, he couldn't do it anymore. Couldn't, he whipped them out. no question he was condemned by these lazy, timid, you know, hypocritical people. You know, it is a burden, as he says here.

It is difficult. No one wants to do this. But for those of us who are dedicated to the truth, and I think I am, although we always make mistakes and we always allow external internal forces to affect us, hopefully not for long. and we're all sinful people and sometimes we screw up and all that. But that there is a certain joy in it. Those of us who've never doubted

the righteousness of my cause, I've never down the righteousness of my cause. I've read the other side. In depth, I know the other side extremely well. Some of these writers are better than others. So I always thought that debating somebody when you keep your cool, that is an act of love.

It's absolutely an act of love. And I wouldn't even say negative. It's just another manifestation of what love truly is. It is precisely through this influence of the spirit on the primitive, naive, direct, and blind power of love that it acquires higher abilities and higher tasks. And as a result of this, its entire attitude towards evil is affirmed on the following grounds.

for love to be able to effectively resist evil it must be spiritually understood limited and modified but once understood and modified it is the initial and supreme basis of the entire struggle waged by man against evil the whole problem of resistance to evil is resolved by this basic principle the struggle is waged precisely by love but by spiritualized love Now, if you remember, he's been through this. This is a very informal list on the following ground. He doesn't, you know, one, two, three. This is actually in the original here.

He's done this before. But now he's using this as far more detailed and summarizes a lot of what he said up into that point, up to this point. This means that the rule Resist Evil not out of love is fundamentally rejected in all its possible interpretations and implementations. Any act that grows from another source either does not combat evil but multiplies it

or fights not evil but its individual superficial symptoms. Consequently, one must condemn both non-loving, non-resistance. When someone tries to sober up evildoers with generosity and compliance, driven, however, not by love, but, for example, by rational calculation or cowardness or cowardly weakness of will. One must also condemn non-loving coercion when someone fights evil-doers out of malice, revenge, hunger, greed, or the lesser power. Both can be psychologically understood.

Both can be relatively harmful and relatively useful in terms of overall energy conservation. But there will be no real resistance to evil in either case. Yeah, I forgot about that. I should have gone back and looked at that again, energy conservation, but it is true that, you know, fanatics really are the only ones who get anything done. People on your side who are driven by revenge, you know, hunger, breed, less for power. That's okay. so long as they're going to be kept under control. Because let's say during the Russian Civil War,

you need guys like that. You want a few lunatics on your side, just when you're fighting the Red Army. But they can't be allowed to just run wild. They have to be brought under control. That's why he says they're relatively harmful and can also be psychologically understood. Consequently, there remains only one universal rule,

resists evil out of love, giving all that is yours where it is needed, out of love, coercing and suppressing where necessary, out of love, persuading, and out of love, punishing, and out of love, giving nothing of yours if this property, if it isn't yours, for example, if it is also gods, a shrine, a church, a homeland, or their material embodiment, and all their manifestations, giving and not giving, pleading, and punishing. This love will be neither indifference nor self-sufficient sensitivity, nor timid indulgence, nor weak-willed pity, nor complicity. When I was in college, University of Hartford,

I distinctly remember the day. I knew I was going to go to grad school. I said to myself, and it was such a, you know, I was watching people just repeat slogans. Usually left the slogans, of course, it's university. Not necessarily because they even agreed with them, because this is what the smart people are saying. even if you were on our side, just, you know, spouting,

they don't really understand. Of course, I was just a young guy myself, but I made a decision. I made a promise to myself that I was simply going to follow the truth wherever it takes me, even if it's inconvenient, and God knows it's been very inconvenient. Even if it hurts,

not just about outside, but about myself, too. that's a rough life. I'm starting to realize very few people can do it. You know, I left grad school obsessed with, you know, going over these texts day after day after day for, God knows how many years, then going out into the world and realizing that the truth is not really a motivating force for most people. I was kind of naive, but that was an extremely, it was almost a crucial. it was almost a crushing realization that the truth wasn't the issue.

It was more self-interest, what makes me look smart, what makes me conform, virtual signaling, that kind of thing. But I remember that day. I remember where I was. And I said to myself, I'm not going to be like them.

I'm not going to be like them. I'm going to follow the truth wherever it goes. And that's how I, ended up, you know, everything from the Holocaust, the Third Reich, everything, you know, that's certainly not in our interest to believe that. We only believe that because it's absolutely true our views on those things. And it came from that, you know, if I, and sometimes I say to myself, let's say you had a tenured position at a university. What would I have done? Well, I'd be in cognitive dissonance because I couldn't talk like this there, even with tenure. I'd have to,

I'd have to go along to get along. It would be completely and utterly hypocritical. Or I would simply, you know, like the handful of right-wingers in academia, you know, they give the right-wing reason to despise the third right because they were homosexual or that they were a cultist or some non-their. Or financed by Western capital, which is absolutely garbage, all that stuff. you know, creating reasons like that to reject all the inconvenient stuff. That's probably what I would have done. But that's also, you know, I would have lived, I would have been living a lie.

And this is not sour grapes. A little bit of sour grids. But I know that I am simply freer than most people. And the question is how many of these academics really do believe the stuff that they spout? I've said it to a few of them, you know, friends of mine later on, and I said, you know, if you were a plumber rather than an academic, you wouldn't be saying this stuff. So the concept of love would have been completely squashed. I would have been an utter hypocrite. I would have been frightened that one day I'm going to slip.

That's no way to live. So I realized that there was no way I can do it. And I'm very pleased with that today. thanks to you and your listeners and everybody else. I know I've made an impact, but I couldn't have done that in the academy. Now there's a big difference between an academic and a scholar. I am a scholar, not an academic.

Academics almost like journalists. It's a terrible term anymore. But, of course, I simply couldn't have been devoted to the, truth. Love would have been completely squashed the entire time. And beyond that, he's also saying here, when it comes to defending something belonging to God, shrine, church, your own nation, that those attacking and destroying those are not your personal enemies. Therefore, violence is going to be used against them. And so the rule is,

you resist evil. You resist evil out of love for the good, out of love for all the people that it perverts, out of love for all the people that it destroys. What it can do when it's adopted by a population, we know what it can do. Falsehoods. I mean, the typical educated American lives in an utter bubble,

although I think that may be changing very recently, but generally speaking, they live in a bubble. Everything they believe is wrong. You're a typical normie American. But I don't do this because, you know, it's like, you know, you don't do this because you despise them. You do it because maybe one day some of those people will come to the truth. And we'll just take the consequences.

You know, it's a lot to ask, but it's still very possible. resistance to evil is created by love, but not towards the animality of man and not towards his Philistine's soulfulness, but to its spirit, that is, a love that can love both the soul of man and his entire earthly being, but only to the extent of their spiritual satisfaction, for a consciously and unconsciously perceived man and measures him by the sacredly spiritual standards of conscience, dignity, honor, sincerity, patriotism, and righteousness before God, and therefore invariably turns its negative face

towards everything shameless, humiliating, dishonest, false, treacherous, and abominable. In the struggle against evil, such a state is love with a clear-sighted spirit and a world-accepting will, and therefore it sees God's work in the world and actively and creatively sends it forth with its power. And you don't want to turn your struggle against evil into sin.

You know, we're Christian men. I'm a Christian because I think it's true because it stands to reason. There is no blind faith here. Anyone who believes that anyone's expected to believe blindly is absurd. You know, our theologians coming back to the very beginning. I love getting into a debate with an atheist who makes an argument that was dealt with in the third century AD you know

it's been over and over and over and over again it's such nonsense nonsense um here what do we love you know dignity honor sincerity nationalism righteousness it's opposite of course shameless humiliating dishonest false treacherous it's the latter people

that need to be converted by varying means and some of us are in the business of doing just that and you do it. And then, you know, physical violence, of course, actually for governments, always straight up to execution, is the final very last thing. That's how you know that there's a certain legitimacy to it.

Those of us who've been forced to use physical violence in the past, when everything else fails, then you have to take out physical action. but that would only be the case if it was out of love. If it was out of anything else, you'd use physical violence right away. And we've come across this before. States do this. Individuals do this. So, you know, that's what he's bringing. That's what he's really bringing out here.

That's the standard. And today, these standards are extremely difficult, especially when it's done the same time as righteousness before God. We're not allowed to turn our backs to evil. We simply aren't allowed to. Therefore, what it loves its object is, above all, the one work of God on earth, and in relation to it, love is whole. Furthermore, its object is the divine, embodied in an earthly shrine, and in relation to it, love takes on the appearance of protective reverence. Further, it is the divine spiritual principle in an oppressed neighbor, and in relation to him, love takes on the appearance of benevolent competence.

passion. And finally, it is the spiritual principle perishing in the wicked. And in relation to him, love reveals the appearance of pure but stern benevolence. Stern benevolence. That's an excellent way to put it. And I went back and forth on how to state that, but that's precisely it. And, you know, somebody, let's say your neighbor, let's say literally your neighbor, comes to your door saying, you know, my wife, my husband has got, has a lot, lost it. I need to come in here for a while. And if this person then follows her or him into your house, well, you may have to then take that next step. That would be stern benevolence. It would be fully justified. Now, he uses a phrase, oppressed neighbor.

for the oppressed, you know, so long as they're, you know, being oppressed for the proper reason, it's not their own fault. It's benevolent compassion. But stern benevolence for those, let's say, in our personal life, who are causing that, who are causing that evil. The person were to follow you, you know, come over, you know, let me add them. you know, you have to take action right there at that point. So it's a very important paragraph.

This is why the entire doctrine that active, offensive resistance to evil against the evil-doer is contrary to love falls short as a harmful moral prejudice. Like every other true form of resistance to evil, coercion or suppression, this is the work of love itself. If love rejects anything, it is not coercion as such, nor physical coercion nor suppression, but malevolence in the struggle against evil. That is, malevolent coercion and malevolent suppression, but active, offensive resistance to evil against the evil-doer desires not evil for others,

but good for the evil-doer himself, and therefore it can and must be the work of conquering love. That's another great phrase, conquering love. Usually those two words aren't used together. there is still, I think there's still the prejudice that love refers to, outside of its sexual connotation, that it refers to indulgence. I love somebody, so I'm never going to criticize them. Certainly physical violence is absolutely the very opposite of love, and that's simply not true. Physical violence under very specific conditions can be a manifestation of love, can be a necessary

manifestation of love. And there are those that say, and Ely, in this very book has gone back and forth on the issue, you know, this physical violence, can physical violence bring out the best in the person who is being hit, you know, being suppressed, so to speak. And it's very possible. We say sometimes, we say to people, that guy needs his ass kick. What do we mean by that? we mean that maybe if that were to happen,

he would be shocked into realizing that he's doing the wrong thing and make changes in his life. That would be an example of conquering love. There's plenty of pacifists out there who say, well, that would be impossible. No one's ever been made better by violence. Yes, yes, they have. You know, when you're much younger,

and had professors and others just reammy out for doing the wrong thing, And many times they were right. And it's one of the reasons I'd never want to be young again. But it was necessary. It's done so that, and it was done. And I was shocked by this. And I go back and then I had to realize that I was wrong and I had to refigure things. But they didn't punch me out.

But in some cases, we have plenty of people, especially in this dying society, where violence is the only thing that they understand. They understand that in El Salvador. door. Which is why that policy is working there. This is why the Biden administration condemned it to the point that put sanctions on the country. States of emergency remove basic, some, some habeas, corpus principles and stuff like that. But that's, it is a state of emergency. It was.

So in the sentence, if love rejects anything, It's not core. It's not violence. There's nothing, you know, there's nothing anti-love about violence in and of itself. Nor suppression. The only thing it rejects, of course, is its opposite. Malveillance, especially in the struggle against evil. Sometimes we could use those people. Sometimes we can't. And I love how he makes use of the word twice offensive. We're not reactionaries. We go, you know, these are, these are, um, uh, we are, um, uh, we are not in the sense that we're taking offense

of something, but offensive in the sense that we are preempting something. We're on the offense, not on the defense. That's what he means by that. But it is a moral prejudice that people still have. And I think, legally speaking, it's quantitatively, physical violence gets privileged above everything else.

You could torture somebody. You know, wife could torture her husband for 30 years and nothing could ever happen to the wine. That same poor man slaps for once and he's in handcuffs. And she goes around crying, oh my God, I can't believe he hit me. The concept of torturing that guy, that's so abstract,

would probably take him hours to explain it all. But all she has to do is say, I was hit once. Things like bruises and broken bones, those are easier to show. But the effects of daily humiliation, that kind of thing. That's far more difficult to show. And so physical violence gets singled out. And I think the legal system, you know, we think we have this, even the stand

your ground doctrine, I know I'm going off track here, but I don't care. You'll be in court for years. I was just reading about Bernie Gett. Do you remember Bernie Gets in 84? Of course. I remember Bernie goes. We were just a bunch of us were just talking about him the other day. Yeah, we just talked about him. I was reading more about him recently. And the reactions to him, he had very few allies, despite the obviousness. Some of those guys actually went out to rob some more after they, after they, you know, the guy that he didn't kill him all court. And, you know, he was just, he was in, he lives in, he's still alive. He was in utter poverty today. Legitimate self-defense will land you in court for probably maybe for decades. So even

there, you know, and I know that policemen, white policemen in black areas are being, are not pulling out their weapons. They'd rather be hit and beaten up instead. And I'm seeing more and more examples of that coming, coming through. Because they're terrified of being on the nightly news. They're being protests. and everything else, because then everything will be rigged after that. So, but there has to be this kind of stoic mentality.

God is in charge. In this case, I got to do what is right, and it doesn't matter what happens. So even basic self-defense in this country, even if it's obvious, you will be in court for decades. And there's still the chance that you're going to be convicted of murder.

Even with the stand-your-ground law, and depending on who, depending on the race, depending on how the media is depicting this, whatever it is, it's a terrifying concept. And I guarantee you that there are people who would rather be robbed

than shoot someone officially a non-white who's invaded their home. I know that there are people like that. And maybe for good reason. Because, you know, even though it would be the right thing to shoot them, they know how that's going to look in the regime's eyes. And they're going to be considered evil just as Bernie Gets was considered evil.

Bernie Gets today lives in voluntary poverty. I don't know if you know this, but one of them was paralyzed. Wait a minute. The families of those who were killed. Yeah, that's it. sued him in civil court. And one of them, I don't think he killed them all. I think he did wound one.

Really, really wound him. And he got a judgment for $40 million against him. So no matter how justified you might be, even though he was very popular in New York City at the time, they could just go to civil court. And yeah, it failed in criminal court. But they just went to civil court, and he could never make any money again.

He lives in squalor today, as I read. So it's very hard to get anything from... That's the cost of doing the right thing in a dying society. So what Elin is talking about here almost assumes a relatively healthy society. Germany was falling fast, you know, at the time. The Soviet Union was at work trying to destroy what had been a more or less healthy society. We're dealing with something very different here.

I'll never forget James Fields. I remember this I could hardly see I'd been hurt so badly at Charlottesville. I was watching TV and I was holding my eyes open like this because I couldn't see otherwise. And I saw the initial news reports about James Fields. I was watching them trying to tear his car apart, trying to tear his windshield out and everything else. They didn't get the message as to, I don't even think they knew

that she died. She was not killed. And the guy pointed a pistol at him and he found out later on. It didn't matter. And if I threatened to burn the town down unless this guy got, what, three life sentences or whatever the hell it was,

a huge amount of time. Even though everything was on video. So even video isn't going to save you in a dying society. Those people shouldn't even been out. There was a total ban on protest at that point. They're the ones who removed the street blocking, you know, all the gates blocking the street. He hit him in such a slow speed that his airbags didn't even go on. He didn't, he wasn't trying to hurt anybody.

It was very obvious. and yet Charlottesville they were well aware what would happen if they came out with the wrong verdict and if you guys could help him in any way if there's anyone who needs help it's him

because the man has done nothing wrong as far as I'm concerned and he was just a normal guy is a normal kid trying to get home and now he's going to spend the rest of his life from prison and that could be any one of us at any time depending on on who's the so-called victim

and that's very relevant here we were the ones we were there for the truth loving our people the people who built this country these communists these anarchists they were there for destruction it's very clear who the signs were

and it was when I first saw the news report, you know, barely could watch it. They didn't get the memo yet. It was fairly objective at that point. They didn't even see any kind of violence. They never said he smashed into them. He never did no such thing.

Only later on when they built the story, did they come up with that? And then he was arrested that day. And the poor kiddy was in tears and everything. And you could help him there in Virginia. In any way you can. would be a very good idea because the last I've heard he's not doing well. Obviously, none of us would be doing well in his position. So even in this dying society, self-defense, basic self-debt,

not necessarily the fight against evil, an offensive fight against evil, as he says. But basic self-defense, that's not going to, that's not going to help. Even if that guy did use his car as a weapon, he was a rifle, was pointed at him. You know, he didn't, but it's clear. I write down video they were trying to get into the car. But none of that, all that was squashed. You could even have stuff on video and have it not work. But, you know, compared to today, Ilin is talking about a relatively healthy society.

The virtue you have to have now, even do the basic right thing, is so extraordinary that it's, you're, You almost understand why people, you know, for people who are just ignorant and don't know the truth and don't care, there are days where I envy them. Because knowing the truth and acting on it is, is, is, um, leads to a very, very, very difficult life. I'm sorry, I know I went off this topic, but you, but you know how I got there. All right. let's wrap this up, start a new chapter next episode. As I do at the end of every episode, I will remind everybody to go over to the show notes and go over to the descriptions on the video, donate to Dr. Johnson's work, and yeah,

that's it. We'll be back in a few days. I appreciate it. Thank you, Dr. Johnson. Appreciate you. All right, ma'am. I want to welcome everyone back to our reading. of on resistance to evil by force by Ivan Eileen.

Dr. Johnson, how are you? I'm more or less okay. I do want to make an announcement to our listeners. My book on the murder of the Russian royal family, when I read the hard copy, there were things in there, there were errors in there, not a fact, there were things, you know, there were formatting errors,

there were so many problems with it that I didn't even realize. that I am doing a full second edition. And I'm almost finished with it. I'm going to release it fairly soon. You know, they were just, pages like, you know, were printed twice. You know, weird things like that. That wasn't in the original.

So, and plus, you know, I'm adding more things and a few issues. And so I just want to let everyone know that book, which is fairly popular. is going to have a second edition within the month. Awesome. When you release that, we'll record from my regular show to talk about it. Oh, excellent.

Very good idea. All righty. Let's get going here. Chapter 17 on the connection of people with good and evil. evil must be resisted firstly by internal dissolution transformation and reorganization of the evil presence secondly by internal and external coercion and disciplining of the will and third by external coercion and the suppression of the evil deed both of these latter methods of resistance must serve the first just as lower levels serve the higher not replacing it but elevating it and making it accessible

This is not an easy paragraph here. Internal dissolution, transformation, reorganization of evil presence. That's more or less something like rehabilitation. But the second one has to do with the person who's eventually going to use coercion has to do with us, making sure that our soul is okay before we do anything. and of course to eliminate the evil deed. But regardless of what method you use, you start, as we said in the last chapter, you start with the weakest method possible,

and if nothing works, then you go to the more, and then you end up with the most intensely physical methods to get rid of it. And he's mentioned this many times. but you know transformation of the evil presence reorganization as far as I can see he's really talking about someone coming to their senses someone being confronted verbally or something like that and you know it's sort of like when people say that

that Al Capone would have been a brilliant businessman most people agree with that. Now, if he were capable of reformation and he would go into business afterwards, that would be a transformation and reorganization. But I like the fact in this book that he always makes reference to our, or not our, but whoever is doing the work of suppression,

that their soul is in the best shape possible. Only then can you. can you use any kind of coercion or suppression, as he says? The recognition of this rule is not only a correct understanding of evil and love, but also a correct understanding of human communication and life together, regardless of whether they know it or not, whether they want it or not, are connected with each other by universal natural connection and good and evil, and this connection imposes on them certain irrevocable mutual obligations

and subjects them to certain spiritual rules. In order to be convinced to this universal connectedness, it is necessary to see it as if one's own eyes in one's own mental and spiritual experience. Yeah, I could have done better there. But I think that's actually pretty close to the original. He's really talking about the nation. You know, because in order to do any of it, you have to speak the same language. and have the same, you know, basic background has to be the same. So, you know, the connection of people with good, well, it's of a specific group of people,

you know, Russians or, you know, Bulgarians or whatever it might be. I didn't make that explicit, but I should make that explicit here. In fact, man is designed by nature in such a way that his mental and spiritual life is hidden from all other people and is directly accessible only to his own consciousness and, to some extent, to self-observation. My soul is inaccessible to others, and others' people's souls are inaccessible to me. Knowing this and greatly overestimating their hiddenness and inaccessibility, most people base their lives and behavior on the resulting possibility of self-division,

what I keep to myself and what I reveal to others. At the same time, they often imagine that they know themselves completely and that others know only what they have deemed necessary to conceal about themselves. This double self-deception is often supported and reinforced by a sense of decency, which forbids people from concealing from each other the true extent of their mutual knowledge. In fact, every person knows himself poorly and always finds himself different in all his basic qualities and inclinations in his entirety. Now, he shifted to psychology.

I think that last line is extremely important. Knowing yourself takes a huge amount of work. You might not like what you see. People create myths about themselves, stories about themselves, just like any other group would. But there's so much going on against, the concept of mode, one good thing about psychology is that they've really smashed the pieces, the liberal connection, the liberal idea of just rational choice,

because the free market and liberal democracy are based on the population being rational. And psychology, for better a force, has destroyed that idea. He'll explain why in just a minute. So believe it or not, psychology has done something positive. and you have, you know, psychology on the one hand, you have classical economics, well, classical, I hate when they say that, classical refers to Greece and Rome, economics coming from Adam Smith on the other side, and coming to totally different conclusions. Or I should say Adam Smith starts with the conclusion of, you know, that people know what their interests are, they know who they are, they know what they want, they know why they want it, they know how to get it efficiently. And that's simply not the case. Man knows himself poorly, firstly, because every human soul consists to a large extent of unconscious contents, abilities, drives, inclinations, and habits,

as well as semi-conscious sensations, moods, associations, and nuances. Only someone who has systematically explored their unconscious and their character can understand and measure the extent to which people actually have a limited and inaccurate understanding of themselves. Secondly, man knows himself poorly because he very readily, easily, and imperceptibly forgets much that is unpleasant and bad about himself. He reinterprets it all in a positive light and therefore idealizes himself, likes himself, and becomes angry when he is supposedly unfairly criticized. Or those with low self-esteem do the exact opposite. He forgets everything good about himself and reinterpreted everything. everything in a negative life.

You know, mental illness is essentially, all mental illnesses come down to delusion. Believing something is there when it's not. Or vice versa. And this is what I mentioned before. Exploring the unconscious. That's not easy to do. Usually it comes from a traumatic event. You know, when I went through various periods of my life where I suffered,

I literally had to sit myself down and say, okay, what do I want from this? Who am I? What do I want? And why do I want it? I'm lucky in the sense that I've never deviated. I know what my purpose in the world is. I know why I'm here. That's a wonderful thing. Most people never reach, they don't even know the right questions to ask to reach that. I've never had a problem with it, but only because there were various traumatic events over the years. And he doesn't say that explicitly, but we talk about systematically, not bit by bit, but as a unit exploring the subconscious. I think, at least today anyway, that comes from trauma.

I'm not a big fan of therapy. I know it doesn't help people. Therapy doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me. It's simply logic. but and people who sociopaths just use therapy to get an ally

I'm not a fan of it necessarily but that's what I mean by this last part here is what I meant by creating a myth about themselves either positive or negative and it's unfortunate that the regime has taken psychology and used it and weaponized it. Like, for example, giving the most ridiculous

an unearned high self-esteem of young black males and low self-esteem to what? Do you think just even the music, the music that we remember, you know, songs like loser and creep and all that, I hate myself and I want to die, which comes from Nirvana. You're not going to find that in quite the other. opposite in black music. But there are plenty of people that we know who idealize themselves. I like to say romanticize themselves. And it's really hard to get to that person.

And you think, you know, this person doesn't really know himself very well. If they don't understand what they're doing, it's wrong and why it's wrong. They know nothing about themselves. They live in this myth about themselves. We know that Jews are in this boat more than anybody. The eternal victims that could never do anything wrong. It's a lie. And they get angry, all right, when they're unfairly criticized.

All criticism is unfair as far as that group is concerned. So this is extremely important. With such a naive self-perception, a person usually doesn't even suspect that their physical appearance accurately expresses and faithfully conveys their soul in all its unconscious and conscious components. In reality, a person is constructed in such a way that their body, eyes, face, facial expression, head structure, arms, legs, gait, mannerisms, gestures, laughter, voice, voice intonation, and all other external actions

not only conceals their soul, but also reveals it and with the precision of a good mirror. I could hardly hear you. I don't know what happened. This is going to become a very important idea in this chapter. It's not to say that you immediately judge a book by its cover, but evil people tend to have an evil countenance. Now, I know that there are the cyclopaths who do just the opposite, but someone who is lying or someone who's a liar has a specific way of talking. there's certain body language, so to speak.

This stuff is very hard to hide. Now, evil is famous for hiding. You know, in demonic possession, the demon usually hides behind the person they're possessing their personality. The point of, of exorcism, is to bring that demon out and to expose it. Well, this is no different with anything we're talking about here, taking it out of the subconscious and bringing it to consciousness. That comes straight out of Hageel, long before Freud.

But normal people reveal who they are, reveal much of who they are, and all of these subtle things, eye, facial expression, whatever. It is not a purely private matter is what he's saying. And yes, you have sociopaths and psychopaths who hide it beautifully. but even there, even there, you usually see that there's something wrong. You don't know what it is, but for normal people, the overwhelming majority of the population, if they are in the wrong or if they are lying or if they are cheating in one way or another, it shows itself.

It's not purely private. Fortunately or unfortunately, people know little about this. Pay little attention to this body, cipher of the soul and are poor, deciphering it with their consciousness. But unconsciously, people perceive each other in this encrypted form as holistically as they themselves were expressed in their bodies. The fact is that everything that exists with men a man exists not only as a mental state, but also as a physical state and vice versa.

Every bodily state of a person inevitably has a spiritual existence, although the person himself is often unaware of this and unaware of how exactly it is expressed. With each of his states, a man seeks to speak two languages at once, the language of the body and the language of the soul. And so, thanks to this doubled existence, the human body seems to babble what the soul, perhaps, would like to hide not only from others, but also from itself. This is the whole, you know, people, people laugh at the whole body language field. you go to YouTube and you see these videos of analyzing the body language of someone who's already been convicted well of course you're going to be able to see it then

the trick is seeing it beforehand that guilty people act in a very different way than innocent people again sociopathy put to one side that to think that there is this strict division between body and soul is absurd. The soul expresses itself through the body. And bodily knees, of course, are found in the soul as well. And we all had experience with, I'm pretty sure all of us have had experience with this, someone who thinks that they're getting away with something, and we could just read it on their face that there's something wrong. And we're not talking about

sin. We're talking about anything, really. Anything negative is expressed in so much about themselves. And then it becomes a public matter. There is no strict division between body and soul. And despite the tremendous ability of evil to hide itself, most of the time it has to hide itself, this still remains true. Each of us with our entire soul is, as a it were, infused into our body and is fully revealed within it, and therefore those who see and hear us, often without knowing it, experience our entire soul and its fundamental structure at any given moment. This is precisely why people often know far more about each other that they themselves realize or can express in words. In the unconscious experience of communication, a person perceives

from another everything that their body expresses and reveals about their soul. Naturally, only relatively small portion of what is perceived penetrates the consciousness of the recipient, while the rest, perceived but not conscious, does not evaporate or disappear, but abides and lives in depths inaccessible to consciousness. When it does reach consciousness, it usually appears in the form of vague sympathies and antipathies, trust, and mistrust, or premonitions and suspicions. All these glimpses of knowledge may be completely true in content, but consciousness cannot and does not know how to grasp, clarify, and substantiate them. However, such knowledge can be refined and brought to true insight through appropriate long-term

spiritual work. I think Heidegger might be the only major philosopher to actually deal with the phenomenon of the gut reaction, which is something that comes from experience. you couldn't express it in normal you couldn't make an argument you just know that something is off which again comes from experience especially with someone you know um if you have a spiritual father this is i think more significant in in the orthodox world than in the catholic world uh someone the only person you go to confession with someone who who knows your spiritual life and who knows you they could see they could discern when you're covering something up when you're embarrassed to say

something. And again, it's a gut reaction. Sometimes it's not in what you say, it's what you don't say. Now, depending on who you read, I've come across maybe 10% of communication is verbal. Sometimes it's 5%, sometimes it's slightly higher than 10%. Suggesting that communication is something that is cultural, and hence ethnic, and national you know different different ethnic groups have different rules at the most minute level that you kind of have to

you know experience for yourself to understand you know the show the TV show Seinfeld which I know

guilty pleasure I thought it was funny I know the New York sense of humor the entire show was not about nothing it was about just these subtle rules that are never written down anywhere.

Like how close do you have to be to someone for it to be not weird and creepy to talk? And a million other things. Every episode was about that. These unwritten rules in society that we hardly ever even consider, bringing those to light, we don't even consider it. But different cultures have very different attitudes towards that. So when I say that the nation is bound by language, and I do say that, and of course, religious faith, language is not just words, syntax and grammar. No, it's all forms of communication, hence communion, including, you know, gesture anything.

That's also language, and it's also at a cultural level. The gut reaction is something that, and then they're quite often correct, not always, but your gut reaction is quite often correct. People say, go with your gut for better or for words. What is a gut reaction? It's precisely this. The person who you're communicating with is letting you know something is wrong. They don't know they're doing that, but there's something off about them.

You hear that all the time. very difficult to explain until you get to know them even better but that should be taken seriously it's rarely dealt with as a philosophical topic but here it is here at the same time Heidegger was a lot and it's something in social philosophy that does make a lot of sense and it is national it's it's ethnic

it's part of the language of the people and um you know a culture, you know, how do you separate orthodoxy from Russian culture? It doesn't make any sense. The Soviets try to many times. What does it mean other than, you know, the dress, even the dress has theological significance. The cuisine, even the cuisine has theological significance, especially in Russia and Ukraine. Everything does. There is no culture without that. Everything exists as an organic hole. There was no Soviet culture. It was artificial. It was imposed on people. But it's precisely within a real culture that you can come to this. You understand that someone is off. He's

not behaving like he normally does. And you can't explain it right away. You have a gut reaction that something is wrong. And that's what he's talking about here. It is precisely because of this integrity and depth of unconscious communication that no good or evil event in a person's personal life remains the exclusive property of their isolated soul. In a thousand ways, it is always manifested, expressed, and transmitted to others, and not only because they desire it, but also because they do not. Every internal act of malice, hatred, envy, revenge, or contempt inevitably alters the fabric and rhythm of a person's own spiritual life, and just as inevitably, albeit imperceptibly,

is expressed through the body and transmitted to everyone around them, and through them. in echoes further and further. In other words, private sin and private evil really isn't private. Every act of sin and malice, it does change you in a very tiny, barely perceptible way. When he says imperceptibly, he means really at such a nuanced level, it only affects your subconscious. But it will come out at one point or another. and the person that you're dealing with really doesn't know this. They don't know.

They think that, you know, they're fooling you, that they're able to hide it. But because the evil in someone is expressed that way, and to you, it's expressed that way to everyone they deal with. So we're not talking about acts of evil are never private. They all end up being public. It inevitably alters the fabric and rhythm of a problem of a problem. person's own spiritual life. It certainly does. They don't know that. And if you bring it up, you know, they get very defensive. There's some of these things that, you know, over time, you know, young guys maybe don't know that as much as an older guy might. But in my experience,

that's usually the case. In fact, it's always been the case. And it's very subtle. But the minute you mention it, they get very defensive. So you know now something is wrong. It's never purely private. The wave of vice and evil, this wave of vice and evil is all the stronger and more noticeable, the more it is repeated, the deeper, the more integrally the soul surrenders itself to these states. It is clear that in the faces of Judas, Richard III, Pope Alexander the 6th, and Maluta Skorotov man, we had to go back to names, didn't we? I thought I didn't think I'd have to deal with this again. Malutas Scrutov, it's all right.

Everyone will read with their consciousness what would imperceptibly come across their soul in the perception of an ordinary person. In the same way, every interactive kindness, love, forgiveness, reverence, sincerity, prayer, and repentance, inevitably alters the fabric and rhythm of spiritual life and imperceptibly expressed in one's gaze, face, and gait is imperceptibly transmitted to everyone else. Again, this wave of kindness, purity, and nobility grows stronger and more noticeable the more deeply the soul has been reborn in these states.

And it is clear that in the faces of Macarius, the great, Francis of Assisi, patriarch Hermogenes, and the Optina elders, everyone will see something they would fail to recognize in the faint glimmers of everyday kindness. You see, he's trying to be ecumenical here. You know, he's using both Eastern and Western examples of both good and evil. And, you know, I like the examples he uses. Skuritov is not a good one, but that's a different story. But the good actually also have the same effect on people as he.

evil. It's still a wave, you know, that you can perceive at least subconsciously at first. And it changes things. And it affects everyone, whichever it is, it affects everyone around you. And when he refers to it as a wave, I spent some time, you know, okay, he really does mean a wave, meaning that it goes from person to person to person to person. Therefore, evil acts aren't merely your own. that the Opina elders, a famous monastery in Russia, hadrakomognees, who the Poles starved to death during the time of troubles. These were men of such extraordinary virtue that when people left, you know, people left their presence. They felt differently. They were never quite the same again. They said the same in the West. but for Francis of Assisi. Just how he looked at people, it's impossible to come to any other conclusion. It's very, you can't quantify it,

so it's not scientific, but it doesn't mean it's not real. So the problem is, as far as social life is concerned, when the evil that exists reaches a certain critical mass, and the good either isn't present or is more or less neutral,

and the society is going to die. And, of course, the reverse is also true. Good deeds of these great or evil men, Goetotov being an exception, reverberate, not just historically, but with everyone around them, it changes things, and it changes the people they have to deal with every day.

How many times have you heard researchers going into prison talking to people who have been convicted of mass murder and they come out and they feel differently. They don't feel the same.

They're shaken by it. Even though the conversation was perfectly normal, they're shaken by the person's presence. And that's like this is new to them. Well, it would be weird in a society based around the individual. It's not weird to a nationalist

for anyone else who realizes that pretty much everything has a public presence, and the individual, or the ego, I should say, is a myth, at least as the foundation of any society, to the point even where he says the soul can be reborn. You're around good people like this, and you feel this constant wave of goodness, there's no way it's not going to affect you positively. And the reverse is also true. People will always criticize the American prison system. that they come out, you know, better criminals. So all they've done is saturate themselves with this energy. When people refer to energy, this is what they mean.

Something happens to them when they're surrounded with these waves that are not scientifically explicable, but are certainly real. And, you know, everyone knows what I'm talking about. But, you know, at the time, writing it down is not easy. because it is an extremely subtle subconscious process, and you want to bring subconsciousness to consciousness. This is really, you know, the nature of spiritual growth. Hegel says this,

not just the great fathers and saints say this. You know, at the judgment, your entire consciousness, sub or otherwise, is open. No more excuses, no more covering up. And this is why there's, two judgments you can't have a judgment just of the soul which is the first one because the body is clearly relevant in decision making therefore at the end when bodies are connected with the souls again as bizarrely unnatural as that is but that's the nature of a sinful world then you're judged in the

final judgment that's really the individual and in such a time there is no lying the entire subconsciousness is open and there is no lying about it anymore there's no more excuses and this is what his future father is supposed to do this is why Optinab became so young

the greats of Russian literature went there all the time even those who weren't necessarily a hundred young told story went there and said the exact same thing not quite the same again and they knew when someone was hiding a sin

and there were those who were so saintly that they knew they were hiding and sending people that people they didn't know. And it's because of their behavior. Wait a minute, there's something missing in your story. How did you get from A to Z right away? We've experienced this. There's something that the story has holes in it.

They're holes in it for a reason. And the reason, of course, the holes exist because people don't want to deal with it. the phrase one thing led to another is one of those. They don't want to talk about the, you know, it's usually to excuse something that you've done. And it goes to show that the great fathers of the church, both East and West, understood the human soul centuries and millennia, in fact, before psychology did. And I love reading technological writings today.

day because they come to the same conclusions that, you know, people, you know, Moses of Optima, for example, and others came to, you know, 100 years ago, where the church fathers came to 2,000 years ago. And they think that they've discovered something. Because, of course, they have no connection to these men. And it exists, obviously, at the same negative level, too. and bringing the subconscious to light is what spiritual growth really is. Because of this unconscious integrity of communication and transmission,

neither good nor evil has a purely personal or private character in men's lives. Every good person, regardless of even their external actions, is good not only to themselves but also to others. Every evil person, even if they are angry against themselves, is evil, harmful, and poisonous to all of humanity. What I am, I multiply in other souls, consciously and unconsciously, through doing and not doing, intentionally and unintentionally. Man is not given the gift of being and not sowing, for he sews by his very being. Every man, even the most inconspicuous and insignificant, creates an atmosphere around himself, an atmosphere that reflects his devotion, his occupation, and his obsession.

A good man is a living center of goodness and strength, while an evil person is a living center of evil, strength and evil, and weakness. People involuntarily ennoble each other with their purely personal nobility, and just as involuntarily infect each other if they themselves are internally infected with vice and evil. Therefore, each person is responsible not only for himself, but also for all that he has transmitted to others, what he has sent them, infused them with, what he has infected and enriched them with. and if this infection sent by him has infected someone's soul, poisoned it and led it to act, then he is responsible for these deeds and for these consequences. This is why, in living human communication, each person carries everyone within himself,

and when they rise, they pull everyone along with them, and when they fall, they cast everyone down with them. Therefore, the city standing on ten righteous men is not an empty phrase or an exaggeration, but a living and real spiritual fact. For anyone who truly perceives this universal living connection, both in himself and in others, it will be inevitable to draw a whole series of necessary conclusions and recognize a whole series of laws and rules. This is what the church means when they say that original sin affected

not just the two first humans, but nature itself. and sin multiplied over time and nature rebelled. Remember in Genesis, the animals were now scared of Adam and Eve and their descendants. You had to go hunting them. Prior to that, it was pure innocence. Animals, you know, they could even speak to them in a way. Nature itself is poisoned by sin. And that's exactly what they're referring to here.

I'm pretty sure, you know, the Western, the old Catholic tradition says the same thing. Because of that, you know, and speaking of animals, we know dogs and cats, especially cats, have people who they are repulsed by and people who they love. In all seriousness, my cat at the time the Empress, Buckers the first of all southern St. Louis, that was her shortened name. did not like my first wife when we first started going together. Didn't like her. Peed in her shoes. Peed in her purse. She was trying to tell me something.

Of course, she was right. They perceive these things, maybe even in a more acute way than human beings do. When the empress was, you know, she's long gone now. When I brought the empress home, my dad still had the funeral. home. She was a kitten maybe nine months. We had a viewing going on and she was very agitated. She ran down trying to get, was crowded, trying to get out the door. Eventually she did somehow. And she snaked her way, found the widow and was sitting with her. And this is my father said this.

He came and said, she's with the widow. How did she know who was the one who needed her, you know, purring services? How did she know? How did she know, you know, from behind the door? It's no question. This is one of the reasons why cats are all over. There's no monastery in existence. It doesn't have a bunch of cats.

This is why it's not just for mice. Cats are permitted everywhere. The altar doesn't matter. They have the full run of the place because they could perceive things. they can perceive things that humans either can't or don't want to perceive. That's the energy we're dealing with this here. What he's talking about here. And now when he says you're responsible for another's evil, he doesn't mean that quite literally.

He just means you're indirectly responsible. If you've infected someone with evil because you're evil, and then that person goes out and commits evil, you are not directly responsible. He is. but you are certainly indirectly responsible. You poisoned them. Bad parents create bad kids. It's not necessarily just because you beat them. It could be far more subtle than that.

And when he says city sitting on 10 righteous men, of course he's referring to Sodom and Gomorrah, where, you know, God kept telling a lot, you find he would spare the place if there were only a handful of righteous men still left. and a lot comes he says i can't find any and that was the end of that um i have an icon uh here of um um the burning of sodom and gamor which is very important for us today

um and that's what the city of ten righteous men refers to that god was willing to spare it if there was this a little bit of righteousness land it may be why he hasn't, you know, burned a soul in the world today. There's enough holiness, even though there's not that many people, but there's enough holiness for that to be stayed for the moment. And, you know, there's no doubt about this. This is a public, this is a cultural matter.

This is beyond science. It's really almost beyond psychology. This is something that theology is given to us. Sin isn't just something that you do wrong. It infects people around you. It affects the animals around you. When you get upset, what does a dog do? The dog gets upset.

Even when you're trying to hide it. They feel this very same thing. Sometimes they just want to run. That's the energy that Eileen is talking about here. And we all know it's true because you've all experienced it before. Firstly, it becomes clear from this that the evil that resides in human souls retains its existence, its power, and its toxicity, even when it does not manifest itself in any specific external acts. It continues to live and multiply, poisoning both the

soul that bears it and the soul that perceives it in reflection. This is why the primary struggle against evil must be waged internally in the mental spiritual dimension, while external measures of coercion and suppression will never be able to overtake it in its inner refuge and transform its wretchedness. This is one of the main problems that the book deals with. He's not just talking about the inner mind and soul of the person who is being suppressed. He's also talking about the people who are doing the suppression. Now, I know we've mentioned this before, but it's very important to that you go into combat, you come back a very different man. You've killed somebody. Even for a legitimate, righteous cause, you follow the rules of law, rules of war,

you've done everything correctly, it still affects you. So when you're called on to do this, your soul has to be righteous. The problem is when you have an unjust war, it's very difficult for the soldiers involved to have a proper mental makeup, so to speak, or a spiritual makeup. and physical coercion doesn't really by itself it doesn't do much all it does is force people to do just enough

to avoid being you know hit or shot or whatever it is if you've seen the movie off the space which I love of course you know all it does all the system does is gives me the incentive

do just enough not to get fired. And that's what just simple coercion. Someone who yells all the time, you eventually tune them out. Someone who yells very rarely, when they do, when they get very angry, the world ends. It changes everything. Again, every sentence here is saturated with not only psychological truth, but it also comes directly from the church fathers and the experience of the church in dealing with evil.

So it's not merely that, yes, the primary struggle is internally. It's internal. This is why media, movies, that's why we have problems with these things. Because it creates an evil mind. We know what pornography does. The evil of pornography, what it does. does, especially to youngsters. But when you're fighting against it, you also have to have the right reason and the right mentality. But if you use coercion and suppression right away,

if you yell all the time, you're not going to be taken seriously. Ultimately, you're just going to do enough to be, people are going to be hypocritable. They're going to tell you what you want to hear, and that's the end of it. Secondly, it is necessary to recognize that the universal mutual connection of people in good and evil is not merely a socioc psychological fact, but that it conceals within itself a certain spiritual task, establishing for people a great responsibility and a whole series of duties. For people are not connected, people are connected not simply by interaction, but by interaction in good or evil, by mutual ennobleman or mutual destruction. If each man bearing within themselves a certain element of evil is responsible for both themselves and others,

then the correct attitude towards this personal evil is expressed not in the fact that they can fight it if they wish, but in the fact that they are obligated to fight it under all circumstances and thus have no right to quench this struggle. For by quenching it, they harm not only themselves but everyone. The wells of human souls have a kind of unconscious connection, And he who clogs and poisons their own well clogs and poisons all others. A man who does not observe spiritual hygiene is a source of universal social infection. That is why each person, in addition to the religious and spiritual calling, to fight against evil, also has a social duty to educate himself, to spiritually purify his soul,

to restrain his evil will, to force himself to the necessary self-compulsion. I made a small error. it's for by not quenching it they harm not only themselves but everyone I think regardless of what your ideological background is I don't know how this can be denied the individual individualism

in our in the enlightenment sense is incoherent on a thousand different levels this is just one of them it is not just you know to each his own that's that's that's a utter point to tell people. Sin affects everybody. Sin affects everyone around them. There are books and books and books, thousands of them. That's what pornography does to be adults who partake in that. How it alters their view of the world, not just sexuality. And then, of course, it will affect everyone around you as well.

That's almost an extreme example, but there's others that are more subtle. I like to phrase spiritual hygiene. I went over that a couple of times. This is exactly what he says. Not observing spiritual hygiene is a source of universal social infection. He's using the language of a physician. So in fighting sin, in fighting evil, this is a social obligation, not just a personal one. And again, he says,

each person in addition to the calling to fight against evil, has also a social duty to educate himself, to purify your soul, to restrain his own evil will, force themselves necessary self-compulsion. It's a common argument among pacifists. I haven't seen it so much in Tolstoy, but pacifists always say that warfare destroys the men, the boys, always men, always men, that are, that fight it.

And there might be a limited truth to that. But it's certainly going to be lessened if the cause is just. If the kid knows why he's over there, accepts why he's over there, is educated, either by himself or by the, you know, the army as to what he's doing. That's going on killing random people. this is why you're doing this. I think that boys are destroyed when they're invaders

in another country that doesn't threaten them. We don't know what I'm talking about. You know, the Iraq war, the settlement thing never threatened the U.S. On the other hand, the Iranians today, they're fighting for their homes. The Taliban fighting for their homes. Completely different mentality.

If you're fighting for your home, If you're fighting for your family against an invader, you will not be destroyed by it. You will be affected by it, but you won't be destroyed by it. It's only when you're fighting a clearly unjust war that you may be destroyed. You're killing people for no obvious reason except as a mercenary for Israel or big corporations or whatever it might be. And I think that's one of the most important aspects of what he's been talking about here. And then that person, a soldier comes home, and people around them are also affected. That same evil, maybe even breakdown, changes people around him, his family, everyone else.

So even, you know, and I think unjust wars are an excellent example of how to make sense out of what he's saying here. I think it's very important. So by not quenching this desire for evil, they harm only themselves, but everyone. I hate, you know, you have groups, you know, the mafia is made up of men who were born and raised with this line. They don't really know anything else.

It's always a family connection. we talked about in the Solzhenitsyn book, the Jews had the Qaal, had this very tight ethnic connection where they couldn't possibly do evil no matter what. And so anything they do, no matter who is hurt,

they're not evil. Maybe, though, deep in their subconscious, they know better, and that will affect those around them. And then eventually you have a, as we talked about in Solzhenitsyn, Jews of Russia,

who are essentially like a, mafia group. They were engaged in smuggling and tax evasion and everything else, illegal alcohol, prostitution. And it was their cohesion and let them get away with this for a while. And it affects everybody. It's not just, you know, the Jews in one area. It's just don't affect them and those who are immediately harmed by it. But in a more subtle way, affects the entire society. I think we should leave it there and finish up the chapter on the next episode. How's that sound? Yeah, this is very, very, very serious stuff. I loved translating it, even though it took a long time. Some of the machine didn't help me a little bit, but they only go so far.

but this is we're getting to the core of the book here and and I think our listeners, if they've been with us from the beginning, no precisely how this is developing. I hope I'm explaining well enough how this is developing so they understand. Yeah, some of these, I've made some of these arguments myself, albeit in a much more barbaric way, or not barbaric, but in a, not as an intelligent as a way as he, he does, you know, it's like, less philosophical of a way. Yeah, less philosophical. You know, it's like, I mean, if, if one in six girls in Great Britain or have an only fans account,

Great Britain is doomed. Is that true? Yeah. I think it's even higher actually yeah they're doomed you can't you can't escape that you know it's like the libertarians will tell you oh you know prostitution's perfectly fine and everything you know prostitution should be illegal it's like yeah if if prostitution is going on in your town even before even off the streets your town is done your you're you're you're if prostitution is like, you know, if, if, and only fans is prostitution, you know, if one in 10, if one in 10

young women in your town are an only fan's whore, your town is toast, done. You know, and it's, and it's not just, that's a very good point. I didn't know it was so high in Britain. The chances of a, a, a girl making money there are almost zero. it's only the top Well, I mean, unless they're Indian or Pakistani or they're a fucking, you know, they're from somewhere else.

Well, yeah, well, I mean, you know, there's a handful that make any kind of good money off Onlyfan. It's such a saturated market at this point. And it's not just that the moral society has collapsed. This has now become normal, but you have enough omegas in the male population.

that are willing to pay for this and honestly believe that in their interaction that's the whole point of OnlyFans that you could have a personal interaction that that's a relationship that's the only chance they have I don't know if I've mentioned this before but

listeners should look up the Grant Amato case I think it was Florida either yeah I think it was Florida who this is pre-only fans to see how bad this can actually get. And so remember, there's always two signs. You have the collapse of, you know, the female mind, but this is what the sexual revolution is done,

but also the collapse of especially white males, where you have such a number of those who have no chance of any relationship that this is as close they're going to get and they're going to pay through the nose to pretend they have a personal relationship for some hot girl that won't talk to them if their credit card doesn't go through. But they always have a way to explain it. He can always justify it somehow.

You know, Grant Amato really believed that they were going to get married one day. And when his family cut him off financially, he came back and shot them all. He used his father's dead finger to use the, you know, you know, the finger lock to get into the phone to pay this woman more money. Of course, it's an extreme example. But it's something you're going to be hearing about more and more. Maybe not, you know, shooting everybody. But clearly it has destroyed that guy.

You should look up grant a model to see what he looks like. But it destroyed this man and physically destroyed the entire family. And I was following that when that first happened. frightening and it has very much to do what we're talking about here it is uh it's terrifying yeah and the the girl wasn't even in this country yeah from bulgaria oh you know what i'm talking about yeah well i mean i i know the name and i had forgotten about the case but i just pulled up the pulled up the wikipedia page real quick what italian family names are kid grant that's what i never understood uh or the other his brother's name cody

I don't know. But yeah, it's a case that I followed when it was going on. And it bears out to an extreme degree what we've been talking about here. I'm going to come and say, this wasn't only fans. It was just pre, just pre only fan. And she was from Bulgaria. All right. Let's get out of here.

Go ahead on over the show notes and the descriptions of the videos, donate to Dr. Johnson's work. and buy his new book when it comes out, well, not new book, but his rewriting and reformatting, the second edition. And we'll do an episode on that when it's ready. So, yeah, look forward to that. Yep. Thank you, my friend. All right. Take care.

Bye-bye. I want to welcome everyone back to our reading of Unresistance to Evil by Force by Ivan Aline. Dr. Johnson. How are you doing today? All right. I know that a lot of your listeners and my listeners buy my books on Amazon, which, you know, it makes the most sense to publish there, no matter who you are. Well, apparently my bank is no longer good enough, and I can't get royalties from it at the moment. They actually give you a list of banks, many of them from the Far East, which I have no problems

with and applying for these turned out to be more difficult than I realized. Either my ID is not accepted or my selfie's not accepted because you have to show that you're, you know, the same person on both. I've been at it all morning. And I just, just recently just settled down from it because I hate this, this bureaucratic nonsense. I don't know why Amazon, you know, they're making, As always, you're making it very difficult for any creator or any seller to make money.

And it's bizarre. I've never heard of any of the people. I thought the email I got was fake and it wasn't. I've never heard of any of the list of proper banks that they want me to work with. I've never heard them. Otherwise, I can't get paid. I was finally putting my Ukrainian war book on Kindle. That's when I discovered it.

And then as of last night, I finished all the revisions to the 100th anniversary, which, of course, I did in 2018 of the murder of Nicholas and Alexandrine family. And so now I have to get this settled with one of their payment companies, which is being very difficult in order to make any money. So I'm not saying you still buy from it. They'll just save it for me. I'll get a much bigger check later on if this doesn't work. But it's a struggle. It's always a struggle. So so far, you know, I've gotten to a certain point and I can't go any further.

So it all has to do with IDs and pictures and they don't accept anything. And it's very frustrating. So, but I'm cool. Years ago, I would have been all upset, but I'm cool about it. I'll get it done. one way or the other. Well, I just wanted to I just wanted to mention that

Charlottesville happened nine years ago today and we should remember James Fields. I absolutely positively. As your listeners know, I was there. I was almost blinded with my son, you know, my son was with me with Michael and

I got blinded completely he got after effect he got a splash effect brought down half our guys and it was a disaster from day one however

for those who you know think the whole thing was whether it be Pikeville Kentucky or Charlottesville for the first time in many years, we totally outnumbered Antifa. Antifa is very, you know, they

puff up themselves, but they're mostly women, very effeminate men. I fought them my whole life, you know, physically and otherwise. And when I saw the James Field situation, to me it was obvious, I didn't think you'd get in any trouble. Then I heard someone died, some fatso, and then getting this life sentence and as I've said before

I've run into people over the last few years who say that he's not doing very well not that you could blame him and we should remember him and do whatever we could can for him I spoke to his mother when it initially happened she wanted me to do some research for

on the judge in his earlier decisions but even having something on video was not enough to sway a jury. The jury was obviously coerced somehow and it was agonizing to see that happen. All right, let's get into it. Yeah, on that note.

Yep. Pick it up where we left off last time. If such is a person's duty in relation to his purely inner evil, then it is clear that there can be no question of any right to commit evil deeds. A person who realizes his inner evil in external action not only sins himself, but also makes the universal spiritual connection to people a direct instrument of evil and its propagation. By allowing his personal evil to break through and become an external act, he surrenders himself to it, giving it a complete being, and he himself become a personal. a social volcano of evil. He tears social cohesion from its highest level, tramples upon the

fundamental duty of self-restraint, and violently obsessively invades other souls and the entire social atmosphere with his overflowing evil. He forces others to actually experience the full abomination of evil, its repulsive spiritual nature, its monstrous content, its life-destroying rhythm, and its ungodly purpose. He forces the strong to proceed. all this and the weak to perceive become infected and perhaps inwardly and even outwardly submit to it. This was his shot across the bound to the classical liberals of the day, what we would call libertarians. It's one of the reasons, and I say that the individual is a myth. There's a kernel of truth to it, but there is no deed of any moral significance that doesn't have an impact on

everyone around us. And that's what we talked about on Saturday. Last episode was that whether you commit good acts or evil acts, it radiates from you. And people in your presence notice it and are influenced by it. Some people call it an energy, whatever it is. And therefore, this isolated individual, this monad of an ego, is pure mythology. largely a creation of industrialization. There's a reason that, and we actually, we spoke about this, but there's a reason that the Jewish Marxists went after the so-called proletariat. It was not because they cared about workers,

or they cared about their interests, but their position in the cities was as much close you can get to a disembodied ego as possible. They were away from their village. They were tempted by every sin imaginable in the city. They received very low pay for a tremendous amount of work. All they had really was their body. They were the perfect person to go to.

They know that they couldn't go to the peasantry. The peasantry was at war with, although they had idealistic and Christian socialist institutions, which worked very well. that's not what these guys were talking about Marxists or about collectivization. No connection to community whatsoever. And so you can't talk about an individual peasants facing a landlord. No, they were in communes. That was the main form of government in the Russian Empire.

The possible exception of Siberia. They didn't really have that. have that there. So going after that particular group with those temptations, it was perfect. They really had nothing else. That's why they were targeted. That's why the so-called proletics. And that's why Marxists, once they came to power, redefined the word proletarian to such a degree that, you know, Schiff became a proletarian.

Any wealthy person supporting, you know, however, the poor ability. priest was bourgeoisie. It was absurd. And the marches, of course, always claim to speak not just for this proletarian, but also they claim to speak for history. But don't get it, don't get confused here. They did not accept legitimate community. Their collectives were just random people thrown together.

That comes directly from individualism. also from Darwinism. But that self-enclosed ego does not exist. A person is a product of a society, and their activity affects everyone. There's no such thing as a private sin. It radiates. And that's a huge part of the argument here up to this point in the book.

In this way, he brings to life and other souls an entire system of unconscious reproduction, semi-conscious imitation, and counter-detonation. He upsets the spiritual balance of some tempts others, infects others, and hypnotically subjugates others. An evil act always conceals an element of attack, encroachment, trampling, and imperiousness, and therefore the evil that breaks through in the act

aggressively and powerfully draws the souls of all people into it, making them willing or unwilling accomplices of the villain. This is also very important. Evil doesn't operate honestly. It doesn't operate. And this is a big problem for the right wing in Russia. Or then and now. But especially prior to the revolution,

the monarchy and those supporting them had no concept of propaganda. They really didn't engage in it. The monarchy didn't even permit organization on its behalf, roughly until 1909. But things like individualism, classical liberalism or Marxism, so anything like that, these are always imposed at the barrel of a gun.

There's nothing natural about any of you. An evil act conceals an element of attack, encroachment, trampling, and imperiousness, forcing oneself on someone else, to the point where, you know, they're talking about temptation, infection, hypnotism. That's how our opponents operate. And in Russia prior to the revolution, these so-called elections, people didn't know who they were voting for. There were no real political parties. They told people what they wanted to hear.

They got to the Duma and, you know, were brought into the radical sheikh of the socialist movement. They didn't, you know, they weren't honest on the road. And Lennon wasn't honest. Lennon talked about giving people land, giving people bread, giving people peace. He knew, as he wrote those words or uttered those words, that he had every intention of giving them the exact opposite. constant warfare, famine, and since he didn't believe in private property,

he couldn't give them any land whatsoever. He took from them. Keep in mind, always. And I know Eileen would agree with me. Lenin, Trotsky, and Stalin weren't identical, whether it be in their policy, their methods, their ideology. The only big difference was a,

Stalin had a much larger, you know, established state to work with. Lennon Trotsky, they had just come out of the Civil War. You know, there's only so much they can do. But this is how evil functions. Yeah, we've all had experiences where we talk to somebody and we get an uneasy feeling about them. There's something wrong. There's something unsettling about them. This is what he's talking about here.

You need to pay attention to that. I've noticed that cats tend to hate these people. And, you know, my ex-wife, my cats hated her. My Empress Buckers despised her. They can see things that I refuse to see. They can see these, this energy very, very clearly. But I didn't want to see it. But that's how it functions.

encroachment, attack, some kind of trampling later on, and then, of course, imperiousness or the imposition of someone on a personal level or on a social level. And then once society is debased, because of them, they are then willing or unwilling accomplices of the criminal or the villain, whoever they might be. In view of all this, it is pointless to defend the freedom to commit evil in a destructive way. Evil is already given too much scope when it is allowed to live unhindered within the individual soul, imperceptively poisoning the soul of others. One can confidently foresee what would happen if the wise advice of the non-resisting were accepted, and if it were publicly

established that no one dare suppress the activities of villains who are unable or unwilling to restrain their evil desires, and prefer to freely express all their evil feelings, plans. and intentions. Liberalism, at least when it's first established, says that it's completely neutral. This is why we have satanic chaplains in the military, also in the British military too. I personally never thought that truth was hard to get to.

It's just that the desire to accept it is the problem. I never had a problem with reaching the truth but that was only because I was a lot freer than most of the people. Right now, I'm freer than my colleagues at the university. They can't talk like me. I'll be the end of them.

So what I speak is the truth. I don't rely on First Amendment arguments, although I'm happy it's there, but I don't use those arguments intellectually. You listen to me because I'm right, so I know what I'm talking about. You have no right to be wrong, and you have no right to do wicked acts.

and he has established exactly why that's the case. There is no doubt that as a result of this, only villains in their frightened slaves would soon be left in the world. Only the most naive or foolish doctrinares who believe that people live like isolated atoms, that evil is not contagious, and that the villain is nothing more than an angry good person can defend the freedom to commit evil.

It would also be in vain to support this point, of view of unlimited personal freedom in that a person has the right to do anything based on their convictions because convictions are based in freedom. Such a formal approach to good and evil would be completely untenable for good and evil are not formal principles. It is not enough to say, I am convinced. One must also have objective grounds for one's conviction. As I was going through my book, it's a short book on the 100th anniversary of the murder of the royal family. Most of the book is actually contextualizing. And there was full freedom of the press at the time, which turned out to be an absolute disaster.

There was a tremendous amount of freedom for the elite at the time. There was a right, you've heard that stupid phrase, I'll defend your rights. to be wrong. No. How is that helpful? The only reason that freedom of speech has ever existed is so that you get to the truth of the matter. Then the rest of it should fall away. But unfortunately, that's not how psychology works. He is, again, going after your typical libertarian. you have to have you don't you know as I've said before the level of education and land ownership that you had to have in early American history to vote

was pretty substantial not not big landowners but it was still a substantial you had to know what you were you had to be free you had to be free from the coercion of others Thomas Jefferson would never believe that a wage worker should vote because he'd be afraid that that the boss and and everyone around him would dictate his opinion, plus the fact that he wouldn't have objective grounds for their conviction.

Of course, somewhat has changed. Since then, this is why you had 7% of the total population of the 13 colonies able to vote. There was a reason for that, because only that percentage maybe was able to articulate, in full freedom, the objective grounds

for one's conviction. And I can't count the number of times. I've dealt with people who give me, you know, I hold this point of view something stupid, and they claim that I have a right to do it. Like, I'm supposed to now just, okay, and I'm supposed to walk away. No, that's not good enough.

Why do you hold this? There is no such thing as abstract freedom. The thing I said in my book on Sir Nicholas is that there was simply too much freedom at the time. We talked about, you remember with Charles Nington, there was huge enforcement problems. But you had some very evil people. people. The terrorist groups, the word terrorism in Russian back then was not an insult. It was something that they were proud of. We will kill innocent people to further the revolution. That's not, for us, it's a problem. Well, for most some of us, it's a problem. But back then, it was a badge of honor. The terrorist groups from Lending and Liberty to the Bolsheviks, the early Bolsheviks, all had that in common. And they were able to take advantage. of very poorest borders, and since so many of them are Jews, a very friendly Western government. We talked about with Solzhenits and how few of the Western powers would even send back terrorists who had been convicted,

or at least everyone, you know, it was clear that they had been involved in terrorism, some kind of some act of violent. me, my lord, in America, if you read my paper on the 1960s, Angela Davis was directly involved in the murder of a judge, and it was very suspicious as to how that could even be. But nothing ever happened, and she is a professor of philosophy. She has ever uttered a philosophical word in her life at UCLA, of all places. and I'm sure is worshipped beyond belief. So, you know, that simply isn't wrong as far as they're concerned. And someone would to defend that, saying it was based on their convictions, simply claiming that I have a right to something, that's not the end of it.

That's a huge problem. This last sentence here is a big deal. I'm convinced. I have never uttered a syllable, any argument of any significance, that don't have mountains of evidence to back me up on. Or if I don't, I say so. I say this is just to be – I'm telling you, I have a theory about something. And to say this, you have to have objective grounds and to put it in some kind of argument – arguments.

Well, that cuts out a huge portion of the population when it comes to voting or political discussion or anything else. that was taken for granted in early America. But when that was rejected, you have the world of Angela Davis. Conviction may stem not from objective evidence, but from delusional obsession or perverse passion. Can any sane person seriously believe that any scoundrel need only cite his scoundrel convictions to ensure his objective rightness or social immunity? But in that case, it would have to be recognized that the non-evil, also convinced of the rightness of his interfering intervention,

would be just as right and unhindered if, in interfering, he brought his sword down on the head of the convinced villain. You know, Toml Tobs talks about this. Even if you had a group of, or Michael Oakshot, too, if you had a group of peaceful people, decent people, not even necessarily a government, just peaceful, you know, innocent people, And one of those people arms himself, fortifies his home, and one of them, and starts taking over the property of others. What does that mean?

That means that everyone else in the society is going to have to do the same. In a very short time, everyone is heavily armed and fortified. And no one trusts anymore. No one trusts anybody. Trust is down the drain. everything is a matter of suspicion. It takes one person to do that. Now,

Elyne is going a step further. You don't actually have to go that far. Dostoevsky has a very short story about it. The dream of a strange man, which I have in my book on Russian literature, about a man who is brought to a place where just like that. And his very person, all his biases and everything else eventually destroys it.

Just by how he talks. Destroyes the place. They're not used to that kind of talk. All the biases we bring from the sinful world. But you have, you know, the libertarian movement and those like it that believe that, you know, things like Satanism, you have a right to be a satanic person. You know, you have a right to believe that Angela Davis was right and that Marxism is the way to go.

No, there's no right to that whatsoever. And this is what he's trying to say here. And, yeah, of course, it's a variation of authoritarianism. But the root of that is authority. The root of authority is right. right both in the sense of correctness, but right also in a sense of rightness. You know, this last sentence here,

he just as right and unhindered, what a sword down the head of the convinced villain. Well, that's really what reminded me of the Hobbs thought experiment. How easy it is to take an interesting group of people and just one person and then the whole rest of them are militarized. Think of that of Adam and Eve. Adam and Eve weren't perfect. They were innocent.

When they were tempted with worldly power, the knowledge of good and evil, they acted exactly like teenagers do. I've always firmly believed that puberty, especially in liberal society, is just a recapitulation of the fall of Adam and Eve. what they go through is parallels it almost

almost exactly and um and of course the first aspect of it is to reject parents just like you know Adameney rejected God and tried to hide from them and lied to them like that would work

um but I also like the argument if you believe in the full freedom of individualism that everyone should for example be able to pursue their self-interest as long as you're not really hurting anybody else. Well, when a big corporation comes in and buys up all your homes or closes the factory you work at and sends it to China and leaving you alone,

you have no right to condemn them. They're just pursuing their own interests too. You can't talk about, you know, that's why libertarians, you can't condemn a company that's doing that. They're pursuing their self-interest, just like you believe everyone else should. it might be inconvenient for you but people don't want to hear that at the time that's the absurdity of this individualism this this pursuing your own self-interest

um um as I've said many times and I'll say it many more times it was a was actually a traumatic shock to me you know when you're in graduate school you're kind of in a bubble just every day just pouring over text I'm trying to get to the truth of the matter. I don't know about my colleagues, but they were my friends,

but I mean, pouring over text, translations, everything else, trying to get to the truth. What are people really trying to say? And then going out into the world and being confronted by the fact that no one gives a damn about truth, they care about their self-interest, which usually has nothing to do with the truth. They believe what serves them.

and I'm convinced that everything, that even the educated American believes about the world, is not true. Now, I think that's changing and it's changing rapidly. I think we have spoken about this before, but still, by and large, it remains the case. If you accept the basic mainstream view of things on anything, everything that you think about the world is simply false. And there's no way that that doesn't have social ramifications to the point now where the American liberal model is falling apart in every aspect through debt especially. But also, in the fact that no one wants to, no one even wants to work anymore. So I think those are very important points to make relative to what he's saying here. And don't talk to me about self-interest and yet condemn the self-interest.

of someone else when it inconveniences you. In contrast to all evil-loving teachings, it must be openly established that no one has the freedom to harbor malice internally, nor the freedoms that commit external evil. A healthy, religiously conscious social atmosphere will always counteract malice by means of psychological coercion, spurring the criminal to internal self-compulsion, and setting him on the path to healing, against evildoing, first by means of physical coercion, and suppression, forcefully halting the evil-doer's external influence, and then by means of internal spiritual countermeasures. Evil must not be allowed to imperiously implant itself and spread through external actions, invading weak and perhaps already half-poisoned souls as a bold appeal

and temptation. No one has the right to commit evil or to make a sacred thing out of such a man's freedom. Moreover, everyone is obliged to resist both the ill-wisher and the villain. And the to resist proactively and effectively, to resist with both internal effort and external action, to resist not out of malice and revenge, but out of love and service. This obligation among men is mutual. It wasn't that long ago that social life was based around it. We talked about it with some barts work. What the Jewish influence did to economic life.

Yes, you had private property, but you didn't have the dog-eat-dog competition like you have now. That didn't exist. The deliberate destruction of the guilds, but even beyond that, the notion of trying to put your competition down to business, that was considered outrageous. He's your fellow man. The guilds always maintained a certain standard of excellence here. So accepting a system like that. I mean, if you're a Christian, especially Orthodox, and I think of old-style traditional Catholic,

you can't accept republicanism. Then you're basically saying that Christ came to bring truth and light to the world, yeah, except in matters of public policy. Then we could decide that, you know, on our own. What were the prophets for? We weren't just talking to the people of their day. They have books named after them in the Bible. They were deeply political and economic.

there's a reason no one reads them. Even if you don't like some of the earlier books in the Old Testament, the prophets are beautiful to read. They're very much like how we are today. You know, there are pretty much nobody's who come in and condemn this. They're right. They condemn the society for all of its evils. They say that God is not accepting your prayers anymore. God's not accepting anything you do anymore.

And they usually got murdered. As a result, they get kicked out a few times. But even prior to the 1960s, talk about an evil, evil decade. And that was, you know, the age of Aquarius, as I used to say in the early 70. All this occult ritual. An entire community would be involved in raising children, not just mother and father.

If you did something wrong, your neighbor could whack you. That was considered perfectly legitimate. Now, you'd be outraged at it. But that's long gone because there's no trust anymore. There's no trust anymore because there's no homogeneity anymore. Everyone's talking a different language. Everyone's from a different place. We're actually believing that this kind of community is coercive and everything else.

So you have a peaceful community. Not the extreme that I mentioned before. You have any kind of peaceful community. And one of the kids grows up, he's a scumbag. Well, there's a few ways you can deal with them. You start off with, you know, trying to talk to him. What's the matter with you? You know, that person has been so romanticized beyond belief in literature and got music videos, you know, from the 50s onward.

The rebel will that a cause. Well, there is a cause there. He may not know it, but he has a cause. And if worse comes to worse, if none of that works, he's got to get kicked out. He can't. poisoned the society. Well, it turns out that those type of people ended up running the media, and they got into the brains of children. I'm not sure how they even could be parents when you think that all points of view are equal. Any decent parent doesn't think that. I never

dictated, but I strongly encouraged what the truth of the matter was on anything. And this is part the reason my children were both gifted intellectually and did extremely well in school and everything else um you know no you know dictate to them that no one no one does that no one just forces it um but you encourage what the truth of the matter is and for those in your society that are just incorrigible you got to get rid of them somehow and it's not you know this is why you know you know Otherwise, a liberal would say, no, they're right, and they should be there. And they're not really hurting anybody. Yeah, they are.

They're going to infect the entire society. Integration. You know, that's not a problem. It is a problem. These people hate us. And now they want to date your daughter? Well, they hate her, too. They do it as a way to show that they've won.

The booty, a pirate would say, you know, we've conquered. And so our booty is this. and women are always included in them. But you don't start off that way. You always start off calmly and cool. And then, you know, when you have a society that's already half broken, maybe not all the way there, these so-called rebels, which are just conformists, essentially as far as the media's concerned,

end up being extremely influential. And they have to romanticize themselves. You ever watched an 80s heavy metal video, you know exactly what I'm talking about, especially Twisted Sister or Kiss or every video was like that. I had the exact same storyline. But the concept of freedom, let me put it this way. I have a paper on the First Amendment.

I had to write it. When James Madison, et cetera, was putting together the Bill of Rights, simply the First Amendment, let's take freedom of speech. He was not thinking of pornography. He wasn't thinking of Satanism. And it was the last thing there. They despised that stuff. That was not the issue. There's one thing they cared about. And that's the truth. That we should allow people to speak freely on science, religion, politics,

to us to uncover what the truth is. And the rest should just fall away. He's not talking about, you know, he's not talking about, you know, he's not talking about you know these awful awful um you know he's not he didn't want to talk about abortion wasn't talking about expression wasn't talking about these sick artists none of that was even remotely relevant that had nothing to do with the First Amendment absolutely nothing it had one specific purpose and he says so in the in the

in the in his own writings as well as in a Federalist paper beyond that. It was very clear what that meant. Benjamin Franklin spent a lot of time talking about that, actually. And so there was never this generalized freedom to believe and do whatever. That's never the case. The legalization of hard drugs, you can imagine how the carnage. Can you imagine I wouldn't get in my car after that. Alcohol's been bad enough. Clearly people can't be trusted that way.

So anyway, I know I've kind of gone off topic. This is really the issue he's talking about. In America, Germany, Russia, this is not what this meant. Evil has no rights. Also, it has no rights. And personally, I never thought that the truth was something very hard to get to. You have to be free enough, though, to accept it. And rational enough, I should say.

The duty of mutual education connects people to the same extent as they are connected by the inevitable interaction of good and evil. For in the creation of good and in the struggle against evil, people are not isolated. True, each of them deals first and foremost with their own soul, directly accessible only to them, and with the evil impulses and passions that dwell within themselves. Each has before them, first and foremost, their own actions, over which they have direct control. But in this, men are already connected by a similarity that opens them to the possibility of calling to each other from well to well, understanding and testing one another, giving each other advice and assistance. And in this voluntary conscious exchange of spiritual gifts to which even the most ardent freedom lover could not object, the process of mutual education is already taking place and bearing fruit. Does anyone believe that I'm talking about your normie now? That their particular ideological or scientific point of view is actually their own?

That they rationally went through all of the possibilities. They did a pro-con list and came to their conclusions. No. No. That was not the case. I did something like that because I'm a psycho. especially in grad school. But, you know, the normie isn't doing that.

Their opinions are not theirs. They're not inventing their own language, their own policy. It comes from everybody around them. It comes from those, especially with women who are fashionable. Definitely the ideology, you know, welcome immigrants, you know, 98% women in these, you know, in these protests. you could give them all the facts in the world. That's not going to change their mind. Facts are irrelevant.

That's not how they came to their point of view. Lots of other things. Again, psychology has done very well in telling us exactly how irrational people are and how much the subconscious functions in that regard. How much is talking about taking it from your mother or father or something? I'm talking about, you know, making decisions based on, you know, self-interest or even worse, some deep psychological hang-up you have. Michael Jones has this whole thing, especially in the beginning of his career,

that those involved in the sexual revolution had very sick sexual piccadillo to their own. And they were just simply projecting it. I mean, they know how everyone's like that. People who say that, oh, teenagers have always, always been the way that they are today in the middle ages and even earlier. That's not true. but they need to believe that to justify the society that they're in. No, they weren't always doing

what they're doing today. That's the issue here. And, you know, however, fighting this evil, we have to be very careful about our own. We have to have a clear mind. We have to have, hopefully,

a clear record. We have to have a good reputation. We have to have our own soul in order before we do anything about it. And we've talked about this before in this book. But that's extremely important. And that'll go for any kind of even physical coercion.

You know, that can't just be the result of some hang-up that you had from your father. That's about the last person you want involved in giving physical coercion, even if it's deserved. No, it has to be rational. There has to be grounds for it. And the person who gives it has to have a clear mind. You know, fighting evil, it's not fought with neutrality. It's fought with the good.

And only good people are capable of fighting it. And only a handful of good people are capable of seeing it. And that's our biggest problem. You have people today who don't even believe evil exists. in which case I don't even know how to talk to them. Well, I take the Nazis. Yeah, they're evil. But everyone else, you know, evil doesn't exist otherwise.

You can't even talk to them after you're something stupid like that. So up until this point, in this chapter, he's been ripping the libertarians, which never really had a big support in Russia. They never did. Not in the 19th century, not today. maybe though in Germany in the Weimar era we know And of course

Even more so in the Anglo Angospheres So that's this is what his purpose has been We know that we're capable of the same evil That we'll condemn another's We know that We also know that we condemn them not because we hate them Because we have some hang up

Some issue It's not even personal. It's because we love them. They're one of us. They live in the same society. They're from the same neighborhood. We have to somehow fix them. As difficult as that might be. And that's what he means here. Objections usually begin only when one side, consciously or unconsciously, deviates from the path of goodness, asserts its own unique, evil goal, and no longer wishes to participate in this mutuality and reciprocity.

Then it usually happens that the one who broke away in evil begins to assert his evil and remaining silent about the fact that he is seeking freedom to do evil, he calls for freedom in the abstract, until the simple-minded and foolish, succumbing to temptation and agreeing with him, begins to defend freedom for the evil-doer as well. The key notion here, and I was smiling the whole time I read this and I translated this freedom in the abstract oh he has freedom of speech doesn't he no no don't use the word that way freedom to do what what specifically are his goals what does he want done how does he justify it only then can we talk about we talk about freedom all the bachelor life you live in

freedom to do what and i've gotten into fights this way the simple question to do what what are you using it for. Evil people use these abstract arguments. Separation of church and state. And that's it. That's all they say. So they can destroy. Lenin, that was his exact phrase when he began destroying the churches. The Orthodox churches, the separation of church and state decree. Nowhere to be found in the American Constitution, of course. No way to be found really in the American mind, except maybe today. after years, decades of generations of brainwash. So that's the key issue here. That's what he's really getting at. Don't let anyone talk in the abstract.

Lennon used the phrase, you know, peace, land and bread, the rights of man, the French revolutionaries. We know their famous Trinity that they use. to say. Deliberately abstract, words that have no definition, like racism and sexism, these are covers under which the evil can function. I think we should end right there because we're not going to be able to finish this chapter, but there is something I wanted to bring up and maybe you can address it. Yes, sir. Something that I've been trying really hard

personally to do is to remove the word hate from my vocabulary when it comes to my immediate reaction to seeing evil is hate because the more I when I see people are you know people that I like people that are on our side using it it it's going to cloud your judgment and I mean really I honestly believe that our enemy, you know, I'm talking about the enemy that we're dealing with at this point, wants to see you like that because that's exactly who they are. And they're better at it than you. And it's not going to be, you know, people have this idea that like the German soldier on the eastern front was this vicious monster who was like out of his mind and just killing people indiscriminately. and it really wasn't like that at all. They were stoic and calculated and doing exactly what they needed to do.

And until you can get yourself to that point, you're not going to be useful. The word hate is another one of these words that really don't have any meaning. I know how you are using it. And it's perfectly acceptable, it seems to me, to feel that way when we first come across, say, a horrible, you know, newspaper article. You know, the tranny is reading books to kids looking like demons and all that. That's okay. But you have to sit yourself down, calm down, then think it out rationally. And then we could function.

The regime is absolutely hateful on how they function. They're projecting that onto us. Yeah, hating the evil. That's acceptable. at a point. But when you're actually involved in fighting it, yeah, we know what our motivation,

you know, that can't be our motivation. A motivation has to be to fix things. And it does cloud your judgment. Any passion does, whatever it might be. And for the other side, you know,

they do it just to be, you know, their virtue signal. Not to interrupt you, but something that you said earlier was, you know, your cat could tell who your ex-wife was, but you couldn't.

That's because you were allowing emotion to cloud yourself and hate is a stronger emotion than even love is. Yeah, she was hot. I'm telling you. And that had a lot to do with it. But cats can see these things and didn't like my father-in-law either. The Empress Buckers actually, they have the Orientals have that whip tail. and smack them in the face. I heard it.

She was trying to tell me something. You're exactly right. And hate is even worse. And that's why you have to calm down before you fuck. Or else, you're just going to be screaming and yelling. The minute you start screaming and yelling, you've lost the argument. All righty. Let's wrap it up there.

Come back in a couple days and finish off this chapter. and I'll remind everybody to go to the show notes and donate to Dr. Johnson's work. We'll have the announcement on where the revision of the Tsar book, Zarr Nicholas book is when that comes out, we'll do an episode on it and tell you where you can find it. Until then, you can go donate to Johnson's work. I appreciate that. Links in the show notes, links in the descriptions of the video. All righty.

Talk to you in a couple of days. Thank you, Dr. Johnson. Thank you, my friend. Talk to you soon. I want to welcome everyone back to our reading of On Resistance to Evil by Force by Avon Ilene. Dr. Johnson. How are you today? I'm really not looking forward to doing the lawn later.

You know, my old place, I was married, my first wife, we were on, you know, an acre and I had a ride on. And it was, I look forward to it. I'd mow the lawn every day. It was like a little go-cart. It was fast. And it had the sticks, not the steering wheel. And the sticks, I immediately, intuitively knew how to use those. I really miss it.

But, you know, I don't have that much. It doesn't, I couldn't justify a huge investment like that. So we got a battery powered one that has some assist on it. And I think I've said this before, but that's how I know that my symptoms are. being kept at bay when I could go through the lawn cutting and not feel totally out of it and exhaust it. That's my, you know, canary in the coal mine test. But it's hot today and it's humid. And I'm going to come up with numerous excuses, but I know it has to get done. Yeah, I have to put the deck back on my riding mower tonight. So that'll be fun.

The deck? It's where the blades are. Oh, you like those sharpened. Yeah, just, yeah, Adam's sharpened and replacing the belt and everything. And, yeah, so I just got to replace that tonight. So I'm waiting until where I have the mower is in the sun right now. I'm waiting until the sun gets on the other side of the house so I can go out there and do it in the shade. Yeah, yeah, and do it when it's slightly cooler.

Yeah. Yeah, it's 84 here and a little humid. and I'm meant for colder climates. I meant for, you know, North Dakota. Definitely not Alabama. I don't know how you do it. Well, you know, air conditioning is a modern marvel. It is one of the great inventions of all time.

That in caller ID. All right. Picking up where we left off last time. I changed my life. Yeah. probably going to end the chapter today. So I'll start. However, man cannot admit and will never admit that the villain has the privilege of freedom to commit evil either internally or externally,

for they are connected to each other not only by similarity, but also by reciprocity and community. People mutually send each other their achievements and goodness and their falls into evil. They mutually perceive what is sent and mutually answer for their own. even unconscious influences. In essence, they are called to send each other no harm at all and to receive from others to do nothing but good, but not the opposite. You know, this is a bit of a mysterious paragraph,

and it's going to be unpacked in the paragraphs to come. But I've always been interested in the fact that, you know, this is taking a street crime. Law enforcement has this laundry list of things that they have to do the law that they have to follow, they have to maintain. And criminals do not. They have no,

the Italian mafia may be one exception to that, but everyone else, it doesn't matter. The Italian mafia actually had standards. You know, they wouldn't kill cops. They don't go after families, but they were the only ones who were like that. But, you know, it's kind of like going up against a sociopath. You're always going to lose.

The sociopath will just do whatever is in his interest immediately without thought. Normal people have to think about it and go through this moral inventory before we do anything. We're always at a disadvantage in that respect, as law enforcement is today. However, next paragraph, excuse me, they rarely succeed in living up to this calling. And so some of them try to secure for themselves the privilege of sending pure, evil to others and not accepting the good sense in return in the form of coercive influence. Reciprocity and justice abhor such a privilege. Anyone who sends evil must always be prepared for and agree to others being able to stop

their evil deed and compel them to qualitatively reconsider the evil they send. For those who haven't heard previous discussions, Elyne has made the argument several times. that in the commission of an evil deed, it creates an energy. It has a tremendous influence, a ripple effect, so to speak, that affects everyone around. And this has really been, this has been the Christian position about the fall from grace in the garden. It didn't just affect their Adamene's moral standing, but it affected all of nature. nature at one point was a friend animals you know no problem came up and pet them

after the fall animals hid from from man this was you know the origin of the monastics that don't eat don't eat meat trying to imitate that kind of a life now I'm on a special diet that actually includes meat because it is good for you So fasting can be difficult for me, but, you know, translating this stuff certainly makes up for it. So that's what he's talking about here if you haven't been following.

So again, this is going to be unpacked in the next few paragraphs. Let me see. Okay. He who receiving one's evil message draws another's attention to its evil quality does not affect. me, but renders me a service, and he who puts a stop in my embittered rampage, preventing it from spreading and forcing me to come to my senses, fulfills his duty, and becomes my benefactor. This is the mutual obligation of men in society. Each of us, in rendering this service and benefits to others, must desire the same service and benefit from them for ourselves.

Let each one, indeed, do for others only what he wishes for himself, but at the same time, He must also desire for himself the compulsion and restraint from others in the moment of his own evil doing. A lot of this comes straight out of Plato, both in Republic and the Gorgias. Socrates argues the point that to do evil, especially to do evil and get away with it, is worse than suffering evil. doing evil in getting away with it slowly, especially you do it over time, will destroy the soul. Suffering evil, well, you know,

it doesn't destroy the soul. In fact, it may make us even stronger. For the evil doer, he is not helping himself. Evil doers disintegrate over a long period of time. Again, sociopaths being some sort of an exception, but and I remember when you first read it, it was very odd to hear this,

that doing evil is worse than suffering it, than being the victim of it. But being the victim of evil doesn't destroy the soul necessarily. Doing evil does, especially over a long period of time. Therefore, it is our obligation to do whatever we can to stop it using the same criteria that we've talked about in episodes past, this list of things you start from here and you only end with physical violence at the very, very end, the last resort.

So when we are harsh towards someone who's doing something wrong, we're their best friend. It doesn't feel that way at the time. Or even simply telling somebody, you know, stop acting this way. You know, a friend, you know, who's being able to... he's doing something stupid, you stop it. Not just going along with it so you don't want to offend him. That does nothing for him.

Pointing out something like that, even at a criminal level, it's the best thing anyone can do for the evil doer. The only friends that evil doer can have are those who pointed out and want to stop it. However, in the creation of good and the struggle against evil, men in society are connected to each other not only by reciprocity, but also by community, for they have one single common goal, a common good that will either become immediately available to all or not. This is peace on earth blossoming from human goodwill. It is precisely the unity and commonality of this goal that compels men to combine their forces and bring a unified organization to the struggle against evil. Every criminal prevents all others from being criminals, and each one, undermines and poisons the entire general level of spiritual existence.

Therefore, every evildoer in committing criminal acts must meet with all who unite in their resistance to him. This resistance is waged by a few in the name of all and on behalf of a single common goal. Such is the meaning of any spiritually meaningful social organization. A sense of mutual connection and mutual responsibility, as it matures, points out to people their common spiritual goal and compels them to create a single common authority to serve it. I've said for so many years, and I'll keep saying it, every society has one choice to make, either a monarchy, which is based on the common good, or very strong central

government and military government, or oligarchy, which comes from republicanism, will eventually become that. The anti-federalists in early America said, it's going to become an oligarchy. In fact, everything the anti-federalists said about the constitution, everything came true. It was absolutely extraordinary when I first came across them many years ago. It always made me laugh that in the ghetto, why don't blacks, for all of their protesting against cops and all this stuff, why don't they protest against the crack dealers and the meth dealers and everything else? You know, that's not a problem for them. Clearly, it brings nothing but trouble to them. Some of them makes them money off of it, but that's about it. No, but but when, you know, the media tells them to organize against a white cop that is just doing his job, they immediately come out in huge numbers. And so, of course, that kind of behavior is going to continue. For whether it be just a villain, a criminal, anyone like that, their worst nightmare is to have an entire society as one man come out and confront them and saying, you're going to stop this.

and if you don't listen, we're either going to exile you or we're going to unalive you, if you say. You know, organized crime sometimes has local support or the Italian Mafia had local support in the neighborhoods where they're first developed. You know, they're the most peaceful and crime-free neighborhoods in the world. but society really you know I'm thinking about John Gotti here is the society as one man did not rise up people were fascinated by the guy and the movies you know romanticize them and the movies romanticize them to an extent but of course they all end up getting killed or end up in prison or turning state's evidence but at least the life seems to be much better than the lives that your typical American is leading.

So any kind of a crime, it seems, doesn't have the society. It's one man rising up and saying you're going to stop, where essentially they turn you into a freak for doing the things that are against the law or even against basic morality. And it's very rare that you see that anymore. It's very rare that a society,

especially in the West, is capable of doing that. or even knowing what the common good would be, even asking the right questions, let alone answering them. The authority, this authority, church or state, affirms in itself the living organ of the common sacred purpose, the organ of good, the organ of sanctity, and therefore performs all its service in its name and on its behalf. The coercing and suppressing representative of such a social union does not act on his own initiative, not according to personal whim, not according to arbitrary will. Rather, he acts as a servant

of the common sanctity called and obligated to coerce and suppress on its behalf. He is a living organ of that force, which is composed of all individual spiritual forces, united by a solitary and a relationship to the common sanctity. The force is the force of the sanctity itself, and he is its living manifestation and its living sword. This is why natural law so important. Protestants did everything they could to do away with it, claiming that, that, you know, there was no natural law, there was nothing good in the human mind, not to mention being nominalist, there's no such thing as human nature. Anyway, but you do something because God tells you. You don't do something because God forbids it, and that is it. And that's a very simplistic way of

going about it. I became a Christian, I was first a Platonist. I first read the Republic. I became a a Catholic and then I converted to Orthodox many years later because they were amenable to reason. It made sense. These weren't arbitrary inventions. You have to start from the beginning. You have to understand where all this stuff comes from. But, and that, and that, It's built into creation. Natural law is absolutely essential. This is part of what the common sanctity is. We have a human nature.

And when you fight it, when you deny it, really bad things happen. We live in a society that not only denies human nature, but in the postmodern mentality, denies you in the existence of itself. It's actually been fashionable postmodernism for a couple of decades now, maybe more. the best of conditions a policeman or or a priest giving a certain penance um

doesn't do this in his own name they do these things as a as it says manifestation of the living sword but that sword isn't just you know it wouldn't be a good thing if it was just some you know power he uses the word authority

and I went I spent a huge amount of the time. In Russian, the distinction between power and authority is not as clear as it is in English. So I kind of forced it here, because I know what he meant. But this is one of these areas where translation is interpretation. Power is simply the ability to force someone to do something they wouldn't otherwise do. You know, biker gang tanks over a town. That's power. But they have no authority. authority is the right to exercise power and ultimately it finds its

origin in natural law which essentially is human nature again this is something that Hegel spends a very long time unpacking in his work over the years he starts with psychology

and builds society from that we don't necessarily have to do that but again you can't be a nominalist and say that a policeman is a manifestation of the law that wouldn't make any sense to them that would that would imply a universal and they reject universal so law and everything else you know you take nominalism to its conclusion everything is arbitrary you do something and and actually william valkham said this you do something because god tells you not because it's reasonable and rational, or there's any good who come out of it? You do it just because God says it. But he made us rational creatures. We know that what he's done in the past has been done in a way that we can understand it rationally, not like he understands it, obviously, but in our small

way, understand it rationally. So that's what's going on here, and that's been going on in the last few paragraphs. It is precisely because a spiritually conceived social authority derives its rights from its relationship to a common goal and its strength from shared solidarity that the will of each individual member merges with this authority, voluntarily recognizes it, and by submitting to it, preserves their spiritual freedom. Moreover, legal consciousness binds each individual to the common and united authority in its service so that each participates with his own will and strength in its acts, even in those in which he himself does not directly participate. As a result, an organization is formed in which the common element of a single good and a

single goal receives a single and common volitional drive to a certain extent relieving individuals of the task and burden of directly coercing and suppressing evildoers. It's very obvious here that Ilin's a hegelian. We know he's a hegelian. I thought I was alone in terms of orthodoxygalianism, but when I read his two-volume work on it, I felt vindicated. Because, you know, I discovered that later on. I don't think it's been translated. I had to learn the language a little bit to, in fact, I have it in hard copy.

And you see it here. you start from the individual personality and you build society out of human nature. Law could never be just an imposition. It has to manifest the good. And when it manifests the good, it manifests your own nature. And if you see it as a alien imposition, there's something wrong with you. It doesn't mean you like it all the time. No one likes getting scolded or yelled at and everything else,

but later on you realize that you deserved it. And because Hegel was talking about nations, Elyne clearly, you know, being a nationalist himself, is talking about nation. None of this kind of talk would make any sense unless you're dealing with a society, basically with one religion, speaking the same language,

the common understanding of history, and basically common goals for the future, you know, at a minimum. Without that, this sort of thing doesn't make any sense. You imagine trying to, you know, talking to politicians like this in America. They would have no, they don't have the mental furniture to even understand any of it. um oligarchs always try to dress their

um self-interest and irrationality in the language of you know this is good for everybody um I don't know if you know I'm finishing up a paper on the US bailout of Japan because Japan is on the verge of selling

all of its um debt American debt and, you know, they don't call it a bailout anymore. They call it an intervention. And when Trump and his, you know, his secretary of the treasury is homosexual. Work for George Soros for years. I don't know where this guy came from. But why Trump thought that he would be a good, you know, he's an ignorantist.

He doesn't, he has a degree in political science from Yale. He's not an economist. He was a member of these secret societies, you know. But he says this is good for everybody. This is good for America. He took no questions and offered no follow-up. Yet again, a country without money is bailing out Japan because of the terror that Japan may start dumping American debt. This is a big deal.

I'm preoccupied with this recently. Not a whole lot of people are talking about it. you know, Johnson's law definitely applies here. So oligarchs, evildoers, when they take power, they often try to convince why they need PR firms. That's why they, you know, hide, you know, they try to cloak their irrationality, their self-interest in the language of the common good. They know they're not telling the truth. Mackey Valley's entire world was based on the fact

that the people he was dealing with knew that they had no right to rule anybody the oligarchy in Florence for example and because they had no right to rule anybody they had to manipulate them in Florence that became the Renaissance that was the bread and circuses

of the of the time period we call the Renaissance today but they're aware that they have no conception of the common good. They're opposed to it. The difference between an aristocrat and an oligarch, an aristocratic society is one ruled by the best people, most educated, most experienced, for the good of society, not themselves.

An oligarch, again, same number of people, usually the wealthiest few rule society for their own good aristocrats don't have to hide anything oligarchs do they have to manipulate anyone they need PR firms they need you know mobs they need mass migration to

organize against people who knew better they need to destroy unions and everything all this stuff it's all nothing's changed over the century this is an extraordinary paragraph this is a Hegelian a strongly nationalist paragraph and I regret not in my translation not not bringing it out more but that's what he's that's what he's that's what he's that's what he's saying here binds an individual to the

common and united authority other words they have the right to do this in its service and if he doesn't directly participate because it comes from human nature and the nation that he is a part of he still represented they're in and this is a very important paragraph Thanks to such an organization. Every member of the union can and should feel that their will and strength are participating in the central authority's struggle against the origins of evil and its bearers. This is expressed in the recognition of support for acts of this struggle not only for fear, but also for conscience, in sympathy for them in active, proactive, proactive assistance. The ruling center, waging this struggle, needs the sympathy and assistance and has the right to it. Moreover, he can win this struggle and build a common life for a common good only when and only to the extent that public opinion, in both its dispersed and concentrated states, supports him with its sympathy and assistance.

The government and the people must agree in their understanding of good and evil and be united in their willful rejection of evil. Without this, both sides head towards destruction. This destruction occurs if one of the sides betrays the common goal or its correct understanding. if the government begins to indulge evildoers or if the people begin to harbor them. Then socially organized resistance to evil ceases, giving way to a more or less malicious non-resistance. And as a result, the victory of evil is assured. I was in grad school and then me right right after.

Some of my earliest papers have to deal with the connection between nation and state. And they are distinct entities. Now, Mussolini's conception of fascism was incorrect because he says the nation is the creation of the state. This is why national socialism is not part of the fascist movement, certain elements that may have in common. But, of course, you know, national socialism views the opposite being true. The nation creates the state, not the other way around. And I was very, very into the concept that the only justification for a state at all, is that it represents and protects the nation.

Now, the minute the state starts having its own ideas, they start getting less and less legitimate. In other words, the autonomy of the state from the people it's supposed to rule is the great evil. You find this not only in Hegel, but in the Slava files in Russia as well. and when he refers to the central authority here, and on one hand, he can be talking about that in the abstract, but he's referring to the monarchy. Generally speaking, with the exception of the 18th century,

monarchs were popular figures. People named their kids after them, you know. Well, not really. They named their kids when they were the saints' day, they were baptized, but they were considered what we view, celebrity. They had tremendous influence, a tremendous responsibility in this regard. But the temptations of evil, temptations of having, you know, greater and greater money, great and greater resources that everyone's expense, we saw that in the Petersburg era,

where now the state and the nation didn't have a whole lot in common. there was an attempt to repair that and a successful attempt to repair that in the 19th century but of course it ended before it was fully completed now he also says every member of the union

he's not just talking about he's talking about several things before remember he said church or state so but even that is inculturated it is a Russian Orthodox church it's a Greek orthodox church. It's one of the great aspects of orthodoxy. It's inherently based on the nations, based on the

common language and all of this. And each one has its own choir of saints. Each one has its own mission within the broader church. The church is identical, of course. But they have, the St. John Maximobo students to say that they have different missions within it, depending on circumstances. How bigger they are, how small like Montenegro. Totally different world there. I've mentioned a few times. I've mentioned a few times before. So the legitimacy of the state exists only when it protects the nation. It doesn't have to be elected, it has to be representative, two very different things. You notice how he says both sides are capable of this.

Government begins to indulge evil doers or becomes evil itself, or the society becomes corrupted. You see this in the late 19th century salon culture of Petersburg, where the sexual revolution actually began. McGuette even infected the court of Nicholas II. He struggled to keep his own court under control. At the end of the third could do that. Nicholas was a different sort of a man. and of course in the 19th century thanks to Peter's revolution and bringing in foreigners he deliberately

tore the state away from the nation Moscow was the capital not St. Petersburg so that's the issue here and unless the state is legitimately representative it can't function and when it is representative, it has to have, and it will normally get the full popular support in its fight against evil. That's the absolute ideal circumstance.

Evil has a really tough time in a society like that. Just like Islam had a really tough time in Montenegro during the Dracrantia, another rule of the Turks. This tiny little place very, very hard to conquer for that reason. that was a devotion to the prince, prince devoted to the nation. They're Serbs, but their topography is very different. So, you know, that's really what he's going on here. And to be able to elucidate the common good,

what are we talking about here? You're the stupidest things you ever hear when it comes to these debates over immigration and things like that. European values. we've all heard these European values. Rarely do they get expressed. It usually has something to do with inclusion, indulgent democracy, which is just another word for liberal. They think these are European values. That's not what I'm talking about.

That's what an oligarchy does when they're asked to, you know. It's nonsensical. It's cynical. But I've never changed from that period of time. Early on in my career where I spent, I have paper after paper on it, that representation, the state's representative, when it expresses the history, the will, the mentality of the nation, and protects it the way, that's what the state's supposed to do. Both sides could be corrupted. We know that. but you know russia had a just a revolutionary schism in in very late well early 18th century which took many many years to to heal and that's really when the old believers exploded in russia after peter the great because she really was acting like antichrist assuming that was

really him who came back from the great embassy. But nevertheless, that's what's going on here. And without this connection, the fight against evil is, it can only be done in fits and starts, not institutionally. The acceptance of authority and its struggle against evil is expressed not only in the individual's conscientious assistance in combating the crimes of others, but also in their voluntary accepting coercion and suppression when it is directed against them. This conclusion is natural and necessary, for it is the law of reciprocity and community. Those who accept a common goal and a common authority also accept its correct action, regardless of whether it is directed at others or them personally.

With a mature sense of justice, a man voluntarily participates in the exercise of their authority, even when they themselves are coerced and suppressed, punished or even executed. They then perceived just coercion as self-coercion, and just punishment carried out by a socially distinguished and empowered spiritual will, is perceived as deserved self-punishment. And even an unjust just sentence of death he can survive through voluntary acceptance, like Socrates and a great many Christian martyrs coming after him. These are the consistent conclusions from the universal mutual,

connection of people in good and evil. And that ends the paragraph, and he mentioned Socrates. I knew, you know, I translated this. I vaguely remember it. I was probably exhausted at this point, but it comes from that idea. Socrates says, you know, I accepted the benefit of the state, therefore I accept its sentence of death. Now, it was a bit of an exaggeration. under the circumstances. But in broader terms, what he's talking about is if you accept,

you believe that the state is legitimate and you get audited, say, well, you know, you don't complain. You know, it's not nice. It's not fun. But maybe I did do something wrong. And if I did, I have to pay a penalty. And that's okay because I deserve it. And I won't make that mistake again.

Maybe income tax is a bad example, but you know what I mean. Even something like a speeding ticket. I had so many speeding tickets. I had to go to driving school. I was going to lose my license, which is actually a lot of fun. But it's so bizarre for Americans to hear this kind of thing that you, you know, you get in trouble for something and you accept that. You think it's good because it helps you?

You know, it's something you try to escape and get away from. No, when you think the state is legitimate and you have done something wrong, the best thing for you is for the state to come down on you. And if not the state, then family members or society as a whole. Because not all evil is necessarily, you know, illegal. The nation contains many institutions within it. The church being one very important. one. We realize that doing our penance is a good thing. Sometimes we don't like it. You know,

going to confession is sometimes a very stressful thing. But, well, we did these things, so we have to, we have to take our medicine, so to speak. And I think that it's so foreign to the modern mentality. I think it's almost inconceivable. But Eileen was born and raised. in a society more healthier than anything that we have ever experienced. So,

Socrates had to die, right? You know, I always thought that there was a prophetic element in Socrates, taking the hemlock. He could have escaped. He had a million ways to escape. And, of course,

you know, Plato was writing this. He had students, he had an army of people who were, he said, said, no, you know, I've accepted the state up until this point. So now that they're doing something inconvenient to me, I can't suddenly say I don't accept the state anymore. You know, that's simplistic, but it's a long argument, but that's pretty much what he says. He says, no, I have to die, as you said, I have to.

Now, it's not quite the same thing as Christ being killed. forcing the Jews, forcing the Romans to execute Christ, that had to happen. That's how Christ entered the, you know, Hades and set all the captives free. And then eventually brought human nature and sat at the right hand of the Father. You know, our human nature is part of the Trinity now because of the incarnation and, you know, how we understand it through Chelsodon. And if you want to read more about you, I've written about this, but Justin Martyr, very early saint, writes about this in great detail. He was a full-scale platonist, and when I discovered him, I felt vindicated again.

I mean, most of the church fathers were being Greek, especially early on. you know, Christ was raised more or less in a Greek culture despite having his education at the temple. But where he lived, the accomplice, or on the onskirts of the accomplice, was Greek. That was his upbringing. Of course, as God, he could, you know, language wasn't an issue. But as man, he knew Greek culture extremely well. Which is why in all the early documents of the church overwhelmingly, were in Greek

with a few exceptions and Greek was the language of the educated in that part of the world Middle East didn't you know didn't look the same way

today as it as it did then there were two very different planes within the you know part of the Roman Empire so you know now if You don't accept the state and you have good reason for not accepting the state.

You think the state is criminal. But no, you don't necessarily have an obligation to go along with it. Sometimes it may just be easier. You know, I have to pay, you know, my wife pays income taxes somehow. I hate it. I hate where that money goes. But, you know, it's a hell of a lot. But that's not the way you want a society to be.

people doing things just so they don't get in trouble. No, you want people to be a society where I want to pay taxes to help the state and its war effort against our enemies. That's what you want. But of course, you know, we don't have that. It's almost bizarre to even say it. So that's why he starts off his paragraphs saying with a mature sense of justice. A man voluntarily participates in the exercise authority. even when they themselves are coerced and suppressed.

You know, even on a personal level. You get yelled at by somebody because you did something stupid on the job, for example. And, yeah, you hated at the time. You're pissed off. But as time goes on, you realize, yeah, I deserved it. I could have hurt somebody. And as more years go, you realized that you became a better person because of it. I mentioned Willis Cardo many times here.

Willis Carto was a taskmaster. He can be a very difficult man. I love the guy, even, you know, but he earned that role. He created the nationalist movement in America in the 1950s. Therefore, when he got angry at me, it was all right. Even if I thought he was wrong, he had the right to be difficult, in other words. Richie Blackmore from Rainbow actually made that statement once too. You've seen the movie Whiplash.

Have I mentioned this before? You've seen that movie, right? I mean, I've seen it, yeah. You've mentioned it once or twice. Yeah, because I went to music school for my first semester of college. So I don't know what Fletcher did. He wasn't a big name. He wasn't a famous guy.

He didn't have the authority to act away. he did. Now, no one has the authority to beat the crap out of students. I'm not saying, I'm not saying that. But even being difficult, who the hell was this guy? You know, when I went, it was, you know, Jackie McLean, who was, you know, the leader of the Bup movement and played with Miles Davis and Art Blank. Okay, he had a certain level of authority there. You know, you listen, you just keep your, your, your ears open, your mouth shut. But that guy, Fletcher, for those of you who seen the movie, Who the hell was he? So, you know, in that case, getting chided or yelled at, you know, who is this guy? Maybe this isn't from my benefit.

So all of this, we've read in this particular set of passages here, comes from Ilin's Higelianism and an even broader way from his Platonism. And that's how I came up, you know, intellectually speaking. That's why Ilin is such an important guy to me. And I don't know if you've noticed, but every once in a while, there's an article like from the New Yorker that says, this fascist lunatic is the first reading material of Vladimir Putin. I don't even know if that's true. It probably is, but they've never read the guy. They call him all these names.

They couldn't possibly read this stuff. They're reporters. So he is a significant man today. over there. And that's why talking about him here is very important. And I'm really glad we came to this conclusion to do this. Oh, and I think I mentioned you before too. I translated his short work on national socialism. It was written in 1933. It was pretty early. And he has something else on fascists, which I haven't gotten to yet. I read it a long time ago. I haven't gotten to yet. So maybe at some point we could go over those two. Sounds good. Sounds good.

All right, we'll come back for chapter 18, justification of the resisting force in the next episode. In the meantime, please go over to the show notes. Please go to the description of the video, donate to Dr. Johnson's work. By his book on Ukraine, it is there. Links are there, and he will have the updated or revised version of his book on Tsar Nicholas and the murderer of the royal family, you have any idea when that's going to drop? I should have done it already.

I'm going to have to use another bank account that I never use, but I think they'll accept it. And once I get it done, it'll be ready. It'll be very, very, very fast. And you'll be the first to know. All right.

Talk to you in a couple days. Thank you, Dr. Johnson. All right, my friend. Talk to you soon. I want to welcome everyone back to our reading of Unresistance to Evil by Force by Ivan Aline. This is episode number 28. Dr. Johnson, how are you doing today? I have a Turkish princess at my feet right now, which makes it very difficult to sit here. You know, and she's right by my feet.

I mean, I can't move. Very typical of her. Now, I want to say something else, though, as far as how I'm. doing. I'm working on a very lengthy piece for my Patreon page. If you're on Patreon, please, please subscribe to it. Apple makes me charge $5. I don't, you know, but that's the minimum. I don't like it, but that's what how they make me do. That Assad's army in Syria is still quite active. And not just on the coast either, under numerous fronts. But I have a lengthy paper on that, maybe about 11 pages, but I also, in my research,

discovered something that made me laugh and cry. You know this genre of research companies that do reports for corporations who are thinking of investing in a place. They're notoriously awful. So as an appendix to my analysis, I have this guy, I think it's like Atlas International, invest research, something stupid. and it is the most ridiculous ridiculous essay I've ever read he has citations

for the most obvious things in the world it's like he it's like a high school but he reads like a high school kid who's trying to get to the word count that's what that's what I see so you know and this is this is what he sends I guess they charge money for this

and corporations want to see what's going on on the ground and this is what they what they're sent? I can't imagine. So, you know, it's, I am befuddled by this. And I have that as an appendix after my own research is done with comments and italics, making fun of this guy. Whose first name is Abdullah.

So you would think he would have some basic knowledge, which he does not have. And it is, it is both frightening and funny and funny and. slightly angering at the same time. So I'll put that up on Patreon soon. Please. Please, that's worth the $5 just by itself. All righty. Links in the show notes and the description.

Yeah. Links in the show notes and the descriptions on the videos. So go ahead and do that. All righty. Chapter 18. Moving onward. Justification of the resisting force. if we try to combine the conclusions that follow from this universal mutual connection of people for good and evil,

we can say that the spiritual dissolution and transformation of evil marks the final complete victory over it, the goal. But the compulsion to make the necessary efforts for this and the direct suppression of evil deeds are necessary for this victory as means or method of resistance. The title, and I think I got it right, it was not easy. I think I got it right. He's talking about the resisting force, meaning us, or in healthier times, the state, the monarchy, the law in general. Remember how we've said before, it's not just a matter of fighting evil. That's nice, but the people fighting it have to be themselves good and work very hard. hard to make sure that they maintain good.

And that in the fight against evil, they don't turn evil. Because that brings out so many of the anti-social instincts that we might have. Now, hurting our enemies is just, now this is an excuse. We don't care that they're enemies. We just like killing people. Try to avoid that at all cause. And it does happen. It does happen, especially over time.

Not to mention things like, you know, being traumatized and everything else. But that's the beginning here. That's what we're talking about here. And the goal, of course, is the complete victory over it, meaning evil. The mental and spiritual connection between people in good and evil is so essential and pervasive that a person who has once experienced and recognized it truly sees the unity and commonality of the evil principle in the world and feels an incessant need not only to not participate in its contagious spread, but also to resist it with a whole list.

strong-willed resistance. Not only the principle of good in its living, beneficial, and purifying breath is united in common to all people, but also the principle of evil and its corrupting and poisonous breath, and a man who has sensed this unity is no longer able to mentally distract himself from it, or pretend that it does not exist, or adopt an indifferent position in any other way. You know, when we tell somebody about who truly rules us. We tell someone about the faith. They can't later on claim ignorance.

You know, it's kind of a little, it's a nasty trick that we do. We don't mean to do it, but they can't claim ignorance later. They've heard it and sometimes even agree with it. Evil loves to make you think that it is invincible, that it's inevitable,

that it's not evil at all. You're the problem. I mentioned it before, but in demonic possession, the demon is constantly trying to hide his identity behind the possessed person. The exorcism is pulling him out, forcing him to separate himself from the person.

Then you realize there are two different people there, two different entities there. Evil can't hide anymore. Now, the other thing here in the beginning here, he says, I should have said among people in good and evil. I'm sorry about that. A person who has once experienced and recognized it sees a unity and commonality of the evil principle in the world.

Now, what he means there is this is a platonic statement. Plato and the Republic says that the struggle in the soul against the passions is, identical to the state's struggle against its enemies on that macro level. And now, of course, he's talking about a healthy, you know, aristocratic state in his case. Plato is our forebear

in many ways, although, of course, you know, Protestants never liked them. They don't like, you know, Hegel either. And Hegel is a Platonist. So, um, you know, and you realize this is what he means by the commonality of it.

What we struggle with every day internally is, it's not just an analogy, it is the same as what the state struggles with, a healthy state struggles with, what the Russian state was struggling against a revolutionary, who were purely passionate entities. my last Orthodox Nationalist, I dealt with some Tikamidov's, which is actually a part two, why I'm not a revolutionary. Sorry, why I'm no longer a revolutionary. The Tikamatov was a member, but a leader of one of the terrorist groups, leftist terrorist groups, in the 1860s and 70s,

the organization that came out of land of liberty or people's will, or people's freedom, actually. and this is a group who killed Alexander II, murdered the Nazar I was in the 2nd, which is what he escaped, he left Russia, he went to Switzerland, and he soon abandoned. He said it was such a stupid thing,

and he abandoned leftism entirely. Not only that, he came back to Russia under Ivan, under Alexander III, and he became one of the most significant right-wing writers really of all time, but certainly in the late 19th century Russia, talking about the revolutionaries.

And he describes his former comrades as these, not so much crazy, but not being able to control their impulses and emotions, being incredibly immature. And he said this over and over again. There was no place for intellectualism except for the most pseudo-intellectual nonsense, these theories that have nothing to do with anything

that justified, you know, killing people. And he couldn't take this anymore. Now, these groups were Jewish-led. He was one of the few. There were a couple of Gentiles. He was one. And I'm sure he doesn't say that explicitly, but I'm sure he noticed that.

and I think that's a very significant historical, something that Ilan knew all about. So evil is a unified entity in the sense that wherever it shows itself, it's the same. Our own sins, our own problems on the micro level, our own souls are the same that the Russian monarchy had to deal with in the 1860s, 1860s, 70s. And that's an incredibly, he's not calling for everyone to be intellectuals that fight

evil. But this kind of knowledge is absolutely necessary in addition to actually being good yourself. The evil principle is united and aggressive and in its aggressiveness is cunning and multifaceted. He who does not resist it yields to it and follows it. Anyone who doesn't stop its attacks becomes its tool or perishes from its cunning. Here one can wait, evade or hide, for to say neither yes or no to evil is to say yes to it. And therefore, he who waits and hides is not waiting or hiding at all, but betraying and being betrayed. This is another slap in the face to liberalism. It's a great line. We should use it all the time. He used. He who does not resist it, that is to say evil, yields to it, and ultimately follows it.

No one who doesn't try to stop the attacks becomes its tool. And he said in the paragraph above that, you know, once you understand it, there's no going back. The last conversation I had with E. Michael Jones was in Virginia. And, you know, of course, I had, you know, since I worked for Willis Cardo, I was known, you know, writing about the Jews and all that. That was just a day-to-day thing. But for him, there was a point where he crossed that Rubicon. And he realized that when he did it, when he started talking about the Jews, there was no going back. And it's, you know, they are a huge part of the evil that we deal with.

They are not the entirety of it, certainly, by no means. But given the power that they have and their connection with evil in the world, once you call that out, your life will never be the same again. And I don't remember a life before calling it out. But Jones for a long, a lot of people, Joe Sobrin was like that. For a long time, he didn't really talk about it. And then one day he came out with it.

And there's no going back. So knowing about it, and you know, this is why I talk about it, what if I were a tenured professor somewhere? And I knew all of this stuff, but wasn't allowed to talk about it. That would be torture. But in other words, there's no way I could have done it. You know, no matter how nice I was to people,

matter how well-published I was, eventually I just come out with it. And once we show people what the truth is, they can't run away from it anymore. Yes, we do need distractions from time to time. Trust me, we do. It could be The Simpsons. It could be lifting weight.

It could be anything. but once we find out what the truth is, we put our hand on the plow and we don't look back. In order to truly resist evil, it is necessary to constantly keep in mind all four of its fundamental characteristics, unity, aggressiveness, cunning, and diversity, and to reckon with them all. Only the spiritually blind can, while recognizing the aggressiveness, cunning, and diversity of evil, failed to notice its unity and commonality withdrawing completely into their own personal sinlessness and seeking salvation for themselves alone. This will be the virtue of the blind, the perfection of the fugitive, the salvation of the self-lover, and it will all be imaginary. Only one lacking

life experience can fail to see the aggressiveness of evil, its natural drive to expand its reach, its imperious force, and imagine that the power of evil can and should be exhausted, through unhindered submission, patience, and the sacrificial surrender of all sacred things, all human souls, and all culture. You've noticed, and we've all noticed, that the left is never satisfied. Groups like the Anti-Defamation League, they're never satisfied. We live in a, you know, essentially a post-revolutionary society. Post-World War II, especially in 1960s, the boomers, you know,

left us a society that have been completely turned upside down. And yet still, the left isn't satisfied. They simply demand more and more and more power, refusing to believe that their agenda has largely been made, not just acceptable, but a matter of law. And it's funny to bring that out, you know, talking about on the racial issue or the immigration issue, talking to leftists and saying,

your point of view is identical to corporate America. Not to mention the State Department and the Department of Defense and every university and every public intellectual and everything else. That really is brutal for them to

and of course, you know, they deny it. That's where, you know, they threaten you, whatever it might be. I've done this many times. Now, unity and diversity here are not in contradiction. It is one entity, as I said before. But of course, its manifestations are going to be very different.

There's a million different issues. I got into this field. I think the first issue was abortion that I got into in high school. And then I realized that, you know, there were many other issues just as rotten as that once you realize that you're being lied to in one area, socially speaking, the powers that be aligned to you in one area, but what else they're lying to you about? That's called growing up.

That's called, in my case, becoming an intellectual becoming a skunkling. And it takes a while, and it's hard to do. And you don't really want to do it. It's not in our interest to do it, but we have to do it anyway. Now, he's also slapping Tolstoyans again. but don't think that he's going after, you know, monks or anything like that. His monastics were always quite social.

The Autina Monastery in particular was extremely social. They were, and political too. There were huge monarchists and everything else. And suffered, of course, very badly after the revolution. Only the occasional, usually elderly monk having reached, stupendous levels of ascetic virtue can go off and become a hermit. That's not very common.

So he's not talking about those people. He's not talking about Hezekist or anything else. He is talking about, however, Tolstoyant. And beyond that, he's talking about the libertarian mentality, which essentially is a big cop-out where they don't have to take a position on anything. They just say, well, you do what you want to do. To ease his own.

You get these stupid slogans. that evil hides behind. So in these three paragraphs, there's been a huge amount of information, not only intellectually, but even for me personally, there's a lot happening here. Evil's aggressiveness,

it can't help but be aggressive. And sometimes it shocks good people, especially when it's let out for a while. And cunning, we know this for a fact. its entire world. The left's entire world is deception. Remember, the left and right distinction comes from Rome.

It doesn't come from the assembly positions of delegates in French Revolution. That just begs the question. The right hand, this is the hand of truth. That's your sword hand. The left hand is your dagger hand. You shake someone's hand,

acting like you don't you don't have any negative desires and you take the dagger out and you stick it in their stomach that's where the right and left distinction it was based on the truth on the one hand and deceit on the other that's where right and left came from

the left hand path I'm not talking about the occult here I'm talking about in the real world was always the path to evil nothing against left-handed people by any means, that would be an exaggeration to say you can't be left-handed. That's ridiculous. But so those three concepts, you know, aggression, it's cunning, diversity, and along with this

diversity in the manifestation, it's unity and purpose. Only a naive person can fail to see the cunning of evil and believe that evil is characterized by simplicity and straightforwardness, that one can negotiate with it, expecting from it fidelity, loyalty, and a sense of duty. Only a superficial mind can overlook the fact that evil is an extremely perverse principle, capable of exploiting the entire range of a person's internal and external states, sometimes flaring up with the fire of open passion, sometimes dying in silence, sometimes assuming the guise of kindness and nobility. After all, the very doctrine of the freedom to commit evil is whispered to them. When I first started, there was an old boomer,

conservative idea that they didn't quite understand that the left never thought fair, that they lied all the time. They always lied about their agenda, whatever they, whatever country you're talking about. When Lenin was in public, when he gave public speeches, he said things that he had zero intention of actually coming to pass in Russia. He would say whatever the group he was talking to wanted to hear. The concept of perversion, The term itself means to turn away from something, to turn away from the purpose of something into its opposite. Another acceptable variation is inversion. It turns the world upside down.

The spiritual world's on the bottom, the material world's on the top, where, of course, it should be the opposite. The fact that evil knows psychology very well, and it can exploit the entire range of a man's internal and external states. I always thought about that with pornography, how, you know, they know exactly how to go after the insecure male's weak point. So, psychology's had tremendous purpose with all of these people. And it's really all the same thing, but it's just manifest in different issue. Evil, generally speaking, is not at all reducible to an evil end. It is equally characterized by evil means. its formula reads, by all means, both evil and good, to an evil end.

Moreover, the concept of evil contains not just the idea of deviation from goodness, but also the idea of indifference and an aversion to goodness. So, one who wages a struggle against evil and has comprehended its spiritual dissolution and transformability must naturally pose the question of whether one should or should not oppose external compulsion and suppression to this universal cunning and diverse principle in all its aggressiveness. You know, I know that there are certain people out there who just can't confront evil in the way we do. They might be in the military, and we can't condemn them for this. They're just not in a position to do it.

But these are the people who donate to us. and hence, you know, that's a way that they could be a part of it without actually, you know, saying anything. Well, I can't do it, but I'm going to finance someone else who is. So posing the question of whether one should not oppose evil, this universal cunning. and the left Judaic power oligarchy to me these are all essentially one entity

and it comes down to power it comes down to the Machiavellian understanding of power you know we know the Talmud ultimately says when the I think the ultimate purpose of it all is when the Messiah comes to

all the money, all anything of value will come to the Jews. In the meantime, we could try to imitate that as much as we can. But that's that's the point. Aligarchy is an evil way of thought, way of thinking. It is not aristocracy. It is certainly not democracy. It's not monarchy. The rule of the feud because they have money.

So in this case, it would be identical to. to plutocracy. This is the word that Willis Carter like to use. I use them in the same way. I mean, an oligarch exists because he has money. Not for any other reason.

And you notice that people with money tend never to be satisfied. Speaking of satisfaction. You know, they never just say, okay, I have enough, I have a few billion. I could retire to an island somewhere,

never have to worry about it again. No. They stick to it. They keep going. They keep going. They keep going. It's never enough. That's how the passions are. And it drives a man insane. And I shouldn't have said, I shouldn't have said, wages the struggle with evil and comprehended spiritual dissolution. I should have just left that at transformability. In other words, it shows itself in many different disguises. And it's so easy to be fooled by those disguises. Christ himself talks about that, the angel of light, etc. but the evil, once they take over,

they can't allow good to exist. And the Soviets took over the USSR. They had to destroy the church. They had to destroy the monastery. And they slaughtered, well, ultimately millions of men and women just for that, blowing up the most beautiful icons of Russian architecture, you know, the... the product of centuries.

They couldn't allow any of that to exist with them. Evil takes over. Even then, they still have to hide. The destruction of the churches came from Lennon's... He said, well, we have a famine here, which they caused. The Bolsheviks caused. So the church has to melt down its... We've got to take from the church and, you know,

if there's anything of value, you know, the chalice has made of gold and stuff like that. Now, the church had been spending a fortune on poor relief. but he didn't mention that. But that was just an excuse. He didn't give a damn. And he was well aware that he was a cause of this famine. That was just the way to destroy the church.

Same thing for the principle of separation of church and state. Oftentimes you come across evil people and it doesn't seem like they have principles because they change one to another depending on their audience, depending on where they are. And so opposing it can be difficult. It's a challenge. Especially for young people, you can't just go off and do it. You need someone who really knows their stuff to help you with it. Or else you can go off on some crazy path and be fooled because evil has been doing this longer than we have.

The devil has been committing evil longer than we have been. And it's so evil, easy for us to be confused by what's real and what isn't. That's what they specialize in. So ultimately, you know, Now, so that's a struggle within us, not merely our battle against evil. Because evil is always present in us. We're fallen people, and we're always sinful. If we were judged by pure justice, none of us would ever be saved.

We're hopefully judged by mercy and mercy alone, not by justice, because we've done too many wrong things. That doesn't mean evil has to win. We're well aware of what our sins are. and we're well aware why it's a problem. And when we commit a sin, we repent of it. So even the victory of evil in that case, it really is defeat because then we go and repent and we try to do something and never do it again.

So this is something that it develops over time. You have to be doing this for a while to comprehend how evil functions. And because it is very, devious. Oftentimes, not necessarily intelligent, but devious in the sense, a Machiavellian sense of the term.

You know, intelligence and devious are two very different things. And it's something that it's very hard to keep up with, and it's very important. Can you help me with the first sentence in this next paragraph? I don't know that I understand it. It's an error on my part. I don't remember what it was.

Yeah, I'm sorry. I'm sorry about that. I can go to the original later on and see it. I don't have it open. Okay, let's hold that for, let's start the next episode with that. Or just do the universal interconnectedness. Let's do that. That's where I'll start.

Yeah. The universal interconnectedness of people, which makes evil a single and common principle, places each person in the position of a will, or unwilling accomplice to evil and maintains them in this position until they voluntarily break away from the villain and turn to him with the full force of actively denying love. A person who perceives this interconnectedness of people and possesses a living conscience always feels as if they are present at the evil they know is being committed or will be committed,

but being present at the crime, they cannot help but break within themselves that single will and single feeling with the criminal in which they are usually held by love for others. This break is the first manifestation of the birth of righteous anger and indignation. That in and of itself is a problem. Because if their righteous indignation, you know, we live with this every day, especially when you first get started and you come across this, how we've been lied to in every way, every way. and the anger that comes over us can go too far.

And this is where we have to be very, very careful. Again, I apologize for that first question, actually. I don't even remember what it was supposed to be, but the paragraph still is very useful. Perceiving the interconnectedness of people, meaning we talked about this already, where good and evil acts radiate. It's never just a personal matter.

That's why there is no such thing as a right to commit evil acts. Because it's not just you who's affected by it. And it's not just a victim who's affected by it. It's everyone around. Now, many of us really, you know, we fight evil not in general. We fight evils in a specific area. even at the workplace.

You see evil, you know, developing. You tend to fight it there, even though, unfortunately, you may lose your job as a result. Because fighting evil usually leads to those kind of results. So you have to be very, very, because, you know, we're open and they're deceptive. So who has the advantage there? This is a huge problem. You know, and it's very hard to navigate. I don't want people losing their jobs by calling someone out.

There's got to be a way to do it that doesn't lead to that kind of thing. You know, there are a few places in the Old Testament where deviousness for the sake of good is permissible. You know, I can think of a few instances. Even in the New Testament there are. Now, the other concept here is that maintains them in this position until they voluntarily break away from the villain criminal, turned to him with a full force of actively denying love. Now, this is about our personal relationships here, and he goes back and forth depending on the issue. The evil doers in our life, even people who we know, people who don't know what evil is,

and hence cooperate with it without realizing it. family members we deny their actions we fight their actions not because we hate them but the opposite you point out what they're doing you tell them that they're committing evil acts that they're doing damage that it does radgate

and it affects everybody destroying thing you know one divorce doesn't just destroy a nuclear family it destroys the extended family one divorce it never goes away every ballgame, every graduation, it never ends. And the bitterness has left behind.

What happens to the kids? None of that ever goes away. It's not just the two of you. That's one of the more obvious areas where an evil act radiates and infects everything around you to the point that it never really goes away. There's a million others, of course. outsourcing is another example. I know that's a weird transition, but it's the same thing.

Greed allows someone to take a company, remove it from the U.S. and invest in Mexico or China. What happens to the people left behind? And it's not just an economic calculation. It's also a psychological one. We've all driven through cities that have been completely depopulated. Entire regions where there's nothing left, precisely because of that,

then they invest elsewhere. They import the product as if it's actual import. It isn't. And they make tremendous profits as a result. Being a part of a dying town,

dying in a region is destructive by its... That never goes away. Place like Gary, Indiana. Johnstown, Pennsylvania. you. Outsourcing has annihilated these areas

and that's just the beginning. One or two decisions by a few oligarchs continues to destroy these people. Again, that's another example of how this works and all for a couple of extra dollars.

And this is where righteous indignation developed. Now, often, you know, the people who do this are told that it's not evil. They're told that, no, no, they're going to be better off. They're going to be retrained. That's not how it normally works. You know, they want to believe that.

They're not necessarily evil. What they're doing certainly is. And, you know, there are companies that specialize in allowing firms to outsource, and they tell them a whole line of crap about how wonderful it's going to be for the people who are left behind, they probably know the truth of the matter. But those are to a divorce,

outsourcing two very different, but very similar examples of how evil radiates itself, destroys way beyond the initial decision and act, and to this day, in the outsourcing case, especially to this day, are still being felt. in cities that have been annihilated.

You know, when a man loses his job, because I think seven-eighths of the layoffs since 1975 have been white males, especially manufacturing. Again, economists don't understand this. It's not just a matter of dollars and cents. It's a sense of self-worth. You know, outsourcing and the rise of methamphetamine

and opiative. addiction. This isn't a coincidence. This wasn't a huge problem when it was fairly easy to get a decent job, let's say, in the 1950s. It became a problem much later. All this stuff functioned at the same time. And I think there is a definite connection. It's never going to go away. You know, you have insurance companies that insure with public funds. My brother-in-law used to work. He used to work at one. O PIC in New York City, the expert import bank in

Washington, D.C. where he was vice president for a while. Again, they give them a line. No, it's okay. It's good for them. They'll move somewhere else. It'll be great. Widen their horizons, whatever the nonsense is. Again, it's all based on the seat. They're not necessarily evil cigar-chomping guys who don't give a damn.

But their decision, the manifestation, It never ends. It never goes away. And there is no freedom to do this. There is no freedom to do any of this. I don't care about the dollars and cents if that's an aspect of it, but it's only one aspect of it. At the same time, he is not afraid to break this unity with the criminal, for he sees and understands that the villain has already severed the union of love with his victim in his soul, that by committing his crimes he severs the threads of this union in the soul of his victim, in the soul of his defender, and all souls around him. Therefore, maintaining a union of positive love with the villain is unnatural, disgusting, and destructive.

On the contrary, breaking away from sympathy with him in any other, complicity with him without going beyond the bounds of spiritual benevolence is natural necessary and the only right things do but anyone who does not devote all their personal strengths actively stopping the criminal remains guilty of complicity this is as simple as the parent who has a rotten kid usually a single single mother who you know the phrase I'm gonna use oh my kid would never do that or not my kid that's maintaining the union of positive love, even though it's just a kid.

It's a natural, disgusting, and absolutely destructive. She's an enabler. We know what if the word enabling means from substance abuse on down. We know what that is. People get a, these people also like these kids getting a diagnosis of autism or something like that. So then, oh, my God, it's not my fault. And, of course, it's not my kid's fault either. Isn't that great? That's very convenient.

So, now, breaking away from any kind of sympathy, now that's, I probably should have used a different word there. Complicity, he says later on, that makes, it's even stronger.

But again, you know, if you use, let's say a parent, does everything they possibly can, To keep a trial on the straightness, he still refuses. Then there has to be a severance at some point. How many times am I going to bail you out of jail?

I am not going to be your enabler anymore. I'm not going to lie for you anymore. Because clearly here he's talking about individuals. And I see this in many things, the romanticization of the organized crime. that somehow they're being, you know, defended as, as swashbuckling, you know, what John Gotti tried to create of himself. That's a complicated issue. But, and, you know, this is what he's talking about here.

And remember, without going beyond the bounds of spiritual benevolence, that's the issue here. We don't do any of this because we hate them. Do this for the exact opposite reason. we cut them off because we love them. Even under certain extreme circumstances using physical violence, get them away from us, is still within the bounds of spiritual benevolence

in a very extreme case. And then the last sentence, to anyone who does not devote all their personal strength stopping a criminal remains guilty of complicity. So anyone supporting immigration into Europe, for example, is responsible for what they do, at least in part. A divorce, you know, usually the woman initiates it.

He has all these female friends who say, you go girl. They are partly responsible for the disasters that come afterwards. What they should be doing is, Again, outside of extreme cases of violence or something like that, or certainly adultery. But other than that, what they should be doing is not being their friend necessarily. Well, actually it would be being their friend. But the true friend would tell the truth, not just tell them what they wanted to hear. But whatever we do, it could never be beyond the bounds of spiritual benevolence.

That's the key issue. And our enemy has no clue what spiritual benevolence is. anyone who turned away was afraid spared himself did not intervene did nothing did not resist to the end bears the guilt of spiritual complicity a morally sensitive person knows this guilt and the inner remorse it evokes an experience and experiences it even when the villainy somehow accidentally does not take place quote, I almost became an accomplice out of laziness or cowardice, end quote. Such a hider is left with only two options, either to feel contempt for himself and to draw from it courage for a decisive struggle in the future, or to embark on the calming path of whitewashing evil, which will gradually lead to submission, removing it completely from the ranks of those who resist. this is um these these this section here uh you see i have a division here very much on on purpose um but for the most part for the most part he's talking about individuals but he's also saying

that when we fight as an individual also is manifest uh on the social level on the legal level um on the political level and i brought up to committee because, and he talks about the left as this passionate, insane group of people who had no problem with killing innocent people if it meant that they or they think in their puts in minds that this is going to promote their agenda. You know, the nature of terrorism is precisely to kill innocent people because they can't get their agenda in any other way. to listen to my lecture on Tika Midov, he talks about that. And the left in Russia in the late 19th century didn't see terrorism as a problem. To them, it was a badge of honor. This is what we do.

We're trying to make chaos. We're trying to create chaos. We're trying to. It really doesn't do that. They were left. The left was too small at the time to do much. But they still killed a whole bunch of innocent people. And the most popular man at the time was our Nicholas, the same.

second. I'm sorry, is our Alexander the second. The great reformer. Um, so this section here was extremely powerful. And, um, we see it in our personal lives. We see it just in day-to-day politics, as well as, um, in, in, in history. Um, and again, I, when you read that section before of the mother saying, oh, not my kid, we're leaving. You know, he couldn't have done this. or the person who enables the alcoholic or the drug addict making excuses for him that is not love that is not friendship that's the opposite

it seems harsh on the outside to do the right thing but usually later on the criminal if he reforms turns her and says if it wasn't for you I wouldn't have reformed if it wasn't for this prison sentence I wouldn't have reformed it wasn't for someone stepping in and just reading me the riot act

or cracking me in the face or something like that, I would never have reformed. At the time, I didn't like it, but now I'm more mature. I've left that, and I see the people who have helped me remove it from my life. That's really what he's talking about here. Physical violence is only a tiny part of all this section. It's only done in extreme circumstances. You know, when you're attacked, of course, or something like that. It's very hard for a parent to cut off child, but it is consistent with love in the case where the child refuses to reform, refuses to listen.

And if you just continue to whitewash it, we've all seen people. I've seen it in front of my face. It's everyone's fault but his. It's everyone's fault but mine. Deep down, they probably know that they're full of it. They just can't handle responsibility. And this is really what he's getting at here. Beyond that, he's talking about the deviousness,

that it uses every disguise imaginable. And it's not like I'm saying that, you know, something like, you know, autism doesn't actually exist. It's not an illness in a traditional sense, because it's not a physical, not like an autism tumor that you can, you can, know, biopsy. It does.

But not to this massive extent that it exists today. It's just very convenient now. And a lot of people make a lot of money off of it. And to some extent, it's enabling. Especially the high functioning one. It's great to have this diagnosis. Because you could just say, no, it's not my fault. You know, like Cartman does.

Once you got his diagnosis, you know. but such a person if they're going to white watch this if they're going to support this if they're going to lie about it they're as guilty as the person who does it as difficult as it is that's life

thank God I haven't had to do it but not just with kids we think about it in a million different other areas and all the things that cause these sort of problem you know and physical violence really wasn't a part of this section whatsoever.

And that's the key element of it. You know, physical violence gets privileged because it's quantifiable. You could torture someone emotionally for years. You know, just, how do you convict someone of that? But you hit him one time and knocked teeth out, well, there's the proof.

So it gets this kind of, but physical wounds heal. The torture over decades, mental torture over decades does not. It's the psychological level of its deviousness that does the extreme damage. And it allows people to pretend it's not there when in fact it really is. And once they hear it from us, they can't later on say that they didn't know about it because we're telling them. Yeah, I think we're going to stop right there because you have that natural break. But I did want to say that this reminds me of something I saw. I saw a Palestinian being interviewed.

And they said, they were being questioned. They said, you know, if you're in solidarity with our corpses but not our rockets, just save it and go away. Just save it and go away. like really like a like a true fuck you yeah as as as as is proper um yeah

absolutely right all of these Jewish groups that came out of nowhere when the Gaza slaughter began didn't hear of it before um trying to do damage control oh no Jews aren't don't support it

but Israel they certainly do by about you know 75% 80 85% do but Jews outside of there are trying to distance themselves from it and form all these groups and favor the Palestinians only because they can't deny the corpses anymore. They weren't there.

This has been going on for decades since 1948. There's nothing special about this particular slaughter that hasn't been going on elsewhere under the occupation. This is just particularly nasty but Gaza has been the victim of genocidal attempts for a very long time now. And yet, Hamas still holds firm. So yes, that's a great example.

I like that. And I've heard other Arabs and even national say stuff like that in the past. All right. Head on over to the show notes. Go donate to Dr. Johnson's work. Join his Patreon like we were talking about in the beginning by his latest book. As soon as Dr. Johnston lets me know that the murderer, the czar and his family book is up, we'll do an episode on that and so where you can find it.

The second edition of that, the cleanup edition. Yes. Because it's when you do something electronic, somehow it always gets out of whack when you upload it somewhere. It's really weird. It's true. There was all kinds of formatting issues that were not in my original copy. But as the author, I still have to take responsibility for it, even though that's not necessarily my fault. Of course.

All right, Dr. Johnson. Talked you in a couple days. Thank you. Okay, my friend. No, thank you. Bye, bye. I want to welcome everyone back to our reading of Unresistance to Evil by Force by Ivan Eileen. Dr. Johnson, I gave you the week off.

How are you doing? well thank you sir i uh um i'm going through in my head i'm going through in my head the books that i'm working on i think it's fine peter the great china um something that just came up the um i had i wrote so much on the iranian situation that there's definitely a book there uh and then there's my revision of the uh nicholas asexecan and stuff. You know, I know there's more. I just can't think of it off top of my head because my brain is,

this is what I do all day long. You imagine? But you know what? This is what I love to do. And I'm getting so much support from your listeners and my friends and everybody. It's people are thirsting for knowledge, for real knowledge about this stuff. And we're just going to continue. to increase insignificance as time goes on.

Awesome. Awesome. I just want to put a message out there personally that apparently two weeks ago, Spotify stopped uploading my videos to Spotify, and I'm dealing with them right now trying to get them to update the RSS feed and yada yada. So no, I have not stopped uploading stuff to Spotify. Spotify is fucking with me. So that's why if you listen on Spotify, you're not going to get it.

And stop listening on Spotify. They're worse at stealing data than Facebook is. They report everything back to the U.S. government, to the global American empire. They're a terrible fucking company. Apple is 10 times better, and that's not saying much. That's right. So if you're on an iPhone, get pocketcasts or something like that. And if you're on an Android, get a podcast addict.

Stop messing with Spotify. Don't give them your money. They hate you. Yeah, they sure do. I didn't even know you were uploading there in the first place. But it is substantial. It is large. It is well known.

Now, did they give you a reason? No. but they they say that they what I'm assuming is they said that they need a human to go over my content and what I what I'm assuming is is that AI flag something their AI flags something oh oh something else happened um I used to have I used to notice some rats uh harm or they never came close to the house that suddenly disappeared just the other day in my garage I saw a six foot, snake skin.

I've never seen one before. It was hanging off the thing. And there's only really two. The racers around here. And there's one other. They're harmless. You know, I'd rather not deal with them, but they're harmless snakes. I had the feeling I know what happened to the rodents.

I have a sensation. I have just speculation. That's what's going on. Yeah, we used to get field mice in the house. We have a six-foot rat snake that goes from the field next door to under the house. And every once in a while I see him and I just tell him, hey, you know, can you know, just, I'll leave you alone. Just keep taking care of the mice. He was hanging up by my car the other day.

He was just like, he was staring up into the engine of my car. I'm like, is there a leak or something? Is this, is this a mechanic snake? Or what the hell's going on here? Well, you know, I've mentioned the sociology of the cats in their hierarchy here. Now, my scully, who is a dilute tortoise shell, beautiful animal, very athletic like a cheetah. She's in the basement, and she's the one who brings in the mice and puts it down. And whoever's the closest cat gets it.

Now, Stanley has tried very hard to teach them. here's what you do. You break their neck. That's it. These aren't toys. They're not toys. You think the kittens listen? No, they want to play with it.

They want to whack it around. They want to throw it in the air. You know? Charred apart. Leave it on your bed. Leave half of it on your bed. You know. Yeah.

I, well, that came very close to that, in fact. The guts hanging out. You know, they are not, you know, and Stanley, how they ever they communicate, these aren't toys. I've watched him show in front of all the cats how to kill them.

Stanley is a master mouser. And, you know, the kittens now, they don't need to eat them, so they just want to play and whack them around it. It can be funny. They tend to lose the mice once in a while. It gets away. How was seven cats to get away, but that shows you their competence. But I think Stanley's just finished trying to get him to do anything.

But Scully, however, is Stanley Student and really took to it. And they're earning their keep. I'm very happy about that. Oh, by the way, I mentioned that about Spotify, and I immediately get a text from my buddy Andy Edwards. There's a couple great books out, Pro Bar and King of Dogs, by the way. He's talked about King of Dogs on my show before, and I have to have months to talk about Crowbar.

But he just told me, yeah, now, Spotify's updating again. They have my most recent episodes just in like since we started this, like in the last six minutes. Oh, wow. Oh, they're updating, they're up they updated the software. Yeah, well, no, they let it, they allowed my, my podcast, my episodes to upload again. So, yeah. Yeah, hopefully they think we're just eccentric Russia specialists, you know, or least I am and they don't have to worry about it, you know. Yeah. All we do is talk about history here. That's right. All right. Let's pick up where we left off last time.

Okay. This is a rather long chapter, so we're going to, might be here for a couple more episodes. Yeah. Thus, every external crime is like a test or a touchstone for all who perceive it. By its very execution, it tests the spirit. maturity of those present, their devotion to goodness, their strength in goodness, the sensitivity of their conscience, their love for their neighbor, their ability to tolerate and condone the triumph of evil. Anyone witnessing a crime experiences a certain temptation and seduction,

for in every crime evil provokes all those around it, compelling them to speak out and reveal themselves, to take a decisive stand against evil or in favor of evil. It is impossible to evade this test for anyone who evades and turns away, thereby speaks out in favor of evil. It is precisely this acuteness of the problem that gives every crime a tragic character, not only for the villain, but for all who perceive it. This is another one of those very powerful paragraphs in a book loaded with powerful paragraph. Every act of evil that we all see, that we have anything to do with, you know, that we perceive in our town or whatever it is.

It seems like victory for the enemy. It seems like a victory for demonic forces. But in fact, it's a defeat. Because assuming that society is even vaguely healthy, it forces us to confront it. It forces us to look inside. It forces us to elite the best of us anyway. to take stock of ourselves and to do battle against it.

In fact, every victory is really a defeat for a healthy society because the more evil that you perceive, the more that the good arms themselves, so to speak, you know, metaphorically speaking. Unhealthy societies, of course, it's like a body that doesn't have any white cells. There's nothing to fight the infection. fight the invasion and it dies demons love this spiritual age that they're trying to create

and as we said before we're living in an age where people are really they know that something's wrong as Edmund Burke said in the 18th century they know that something's badly wrong but putting their finger on precisely what it is is often beyond them and that's what we're here for

and that's why our books sell well that's why we get a lot of people listening to this especially mainstream people it's the you know I'm almost tired of it it's the same

it's almost like a shuffle you know I say something it's rejected and then a month later I hear it you know being promoted in the mainstream the most recent one is I know it's all

subject. The most recent one is how the U.S. hides its casualties. I've been talking about that for a decade. And finally, the U.S. just did it. It was so blatant and stupid about it that now even mainstream sources are right. It's a way to way for like the New Yorker in the Atlantic to get to Trump, but it's become mainstream. Even mainstream white ringers, right wingers, either listen to us or know someone who listens to us and people like us. and they talk about this. Once we do all the legwork, they then talk about it later as if they have discovered it.

I don't know. Is that a form of flattery or I'll take it as a form of flattering? Yeah, I think it is. I think you might be nice. There's a lot of people who aren't going to give you any credit for, and, you know, do you care, you know, it comes down to you, do you care about credit or do you care about, you know, seeing the

kind of change you want in society that you want in the message messages going out further so I don't know I don't know it's a continued it's a reflection that we are doing the right thing and that we're influential

even though they don't want to admit it moving on the overwhelming majority of people approach a crime in a state of inner unpreparedness their own personal internal struggle with evil is unfinished and is unfinished. Oh boy. Yeah. Sorry about that. And from this precarious equilibrium, they are forced to

perform an external act of will, which sharply places them on one side and often forces them to bear the long term or eternal consequences of this act. This is why most people find themselves at a loss in the face of a crime, and this confusion is all the greater, the more daring and self-assured the villain, and what plausible motives don't come to the aid of those drawn to safe passivity. Aversion to violence. Pity for the villain. False humility. I myself am a sinful man. An excuse for one's lack of authority. A duty to preserve oneself for the family. Reluctance to become an informer. The wise maxim when in doubt abstain. And much more. All this serves one purpose to justify and embellish their religious and moral desertion.

This is precisely why those who have not lost their conscience often feel such gratitude and even delight towards the one who takes the burden of temptation upon himself and frees them with his act of suppression from the unpleasant duality and subsequent remorse. Being unprepared, this is such a common thing. Another word for unprepared might be weakness. And the regime knows how to keep us constantly off balance. Yeah, we have the castle doctrine in Pennsylvania. But if anyone actually carries it out, they're going to be in court for years. You could go broke. And they may still get convicted.

Even self-defense is challenged. I mean, who can deal with that? And yet, some of us may have no choice one day in a case of a home invasion. But whenever, and I guess he's back a little bit talking about Tolstoy here, look at this great, brilliant writer. He says, I don't have to do anything, you know, because I can't, I can't resist. That's a Christian thing to do. That's wonderful.

And the false humility is another wonderful. I've heard this before. How can I judge someone when I'm a sinner, myself, which doesn't make any sense. Makes absolutely know what they're doing has nothing to do with your sins in the past. In fact, if anything, it gives you more authority. You know, sometimes when the state, actually, well, the natural law says when the state either cannot or will not carry out its law enforcement duties, then that falls to the best people in the area.

And that's what the lack of authority means. The regime hates any kind of vigilanteism. Now, we know that that could go way out of hand. But in any situation, like in Detroit, for example, where the city doesn't have power in a lot of areas, no-go zones all over Europe today. you know that's that's a you know the people have to defend themselves and of course that's a whole separate issue especially where races are concerned and where any kind of self-defense is concerned so he's really talking about

he's talking about us he's talking about you know an individual matter um and that comes from being unprepared you know and he said from the very beginning of this book no you can't fight evil unless you yourself are struggling to be a virtuous man. Now, it doesn't mean you can't, you may have no choice but to confront it. I keep going back to the guy with the knife and the kid. You know, I don't care how sinful I am. I don't care the fact that I don't, I'm not a policeman,

that I don't like violence, any of that, whatever they'll do. It's ridiculous not to intervene there. And that kid's family should and, will blame you as much as the psycho who's doing it. And then when you see, when you come across someone who says, no, that it's wrong. You shouldn't intervene in these cases and give some nice philosophical discussion about it. You say the gratitude and delight you feel. And that's part of the reason why some of these so-called pacifists end up becoming popular.

because it's not the entire thing, but because it lifts the burden of actually having to do anything. Citizenship means nothing to them because, you know, the battle with evil, with criminality, you know, the police are the last resort. They're not the first resort, they're the last resort. Because they only come when a crime has already been committed. It's the people.

But keep it from being committed. The locals. You know, your old lady is always watching everybody. That comes from something. It comes from an old, you know, old tradition. It used to be that when you've done something wrong, even your neighbors would whack you. Not just the parents.

You still see that in some old Italian neighborhoods. I've seen that. Black neighborhoods are kind of like that sometimes. I've heard. but the you know so a strong community is very hard for an outsider to commit evil against therefore evil requires atomism it requires individualism

and if you are insecure and you don't even know who you are let alone whether I have the authority to fight evil you're not going to do a damn thing now when Tolstoy comes around oh isn't this wonderful not only is it do I not have to do anything but the criminal himself it's not even his fault

and I'm only angry because they're black or something like that you know Tulsaid wouldn't talk like that obviously but today's pacifist is talking like that so-called the Christian socialist and Christian anarchist that there wasn't a Christian

socialist party in Austria that was national socialist in fact so I think they've they've destroyed the concept not only do you not and they're always pacifists except for the revolution anyway they're pastis when it suits them but not only do you don't have to do anything

but it's not the criminals fall and it's racist to even think about it it's racist to even leave an area because it's violent and the violence is being done by black I've heard it all and when you come across this first time especially you're an isolated individual who does have a conscience and

and his conscience is keeping you awake at night. Oh, good. I don't even have to think about it. I'm not going to do anything. And now, listen, Tolsoi tells me I don't have to do anything. Wonderful for them. All this means that evil not only invades all souls with a bold temptation, a call, and the poison of example,

but demands from the majority a spiritually insufficient heroism, vision, spiritual maturity, and outward resolve. It poisons souls not only with its explosion, but also with the poisonous consciousness of one's own betrayal, which it evokes in weak souls, and which in itself is tantamount to a half victory for evil. This is why he who compels and suppresses is doing a faithful deed, precious for the entire inner struggle against evil in all people.

He, as it were, receives that sword of great dissection between good and evil, of which the mysterious words of the gospel speak. I came not to bring peace, but a sword. All in Matthew, Mark, and Luke's gospel. Yep. He heroically reveals the opposition between good and evil, draws a clear and precious line between them, helps people recognize this line and maintain it in their inner world,

saves himself and others from the guilt of complicity and self-contempt, restrains the violent outpouring of evil, and delivers people from overwhelming temptation. He affirms within himself and reveals to others the power of goodness, which naturally seeks holistic existence in external action, and not only creative, but also reflective, and it is understandable why people, bearing in mind this dividing, distinguishing, and protecting function of the good, rational force, mentally turns to the bright image of an angel, and specifically a guardian angel.

The conscience is our, you know, the central part of our soul. It's our heart. it's that's what's going to be judged and refusing to intervene when we could have that will be brought up so to speak in the judgment day your your conscience will be exposed no excuses no nonsense uh sense of what the judgment is um

and for those who you know we live in an era where sociopathy and people approaching sociopathy are becoming increasingly common You have people who don't even see these things as evil. If you remember back in the Clinton era, everyone was talking about crimes going down. And I reminded them that, you know, big city police departments have had their police forces slashed in this era. There used to be 45,000 policemen in New York City.

That isn't anywhere near the case anymore. city governments can't afford it and that doesn't mean that there's less crime being committed all that means is that there's no one to take any action against it or arrest records show crime has gone down no it's just there are fewer policemen that's the issue but again he's he's going over this concept that the very existence of evil forces us to look inside

we know that we're sinners. That has absolutely nothing to do with our taking action against something that we know is evil within our own world. And we have certainly plenty of examples of that, depending on where you live. And the guardian angels also this voice assisting the conscience and bringing this up. and hopefully that good men who do nothing will not sleep at night and then come across something that will read you know this is why I'm not sleeping at night natural law says I have to take action where the state cannot or will not hopefully in concert with others and mentioning finally after all these pages

I came not to bring peace but a sword, the sword of division, sort of violence. Again, Christ was not a pacifist by any stretch of the imagination. Certainly neither were the apostles. They were killed because they were overwhelmed. There were nothing. They were one man, a handful of followers, nothing what they could do. Christ allowed himself to be killed because that was the nature of our salvation. It had nothing to do with pacifism.

And I've actually heard people saying, I'm such a sinner, how dare I take action against others? Or even judge others. We haven't even started talking about the concept of judgment. How dare you judge me? In other words, how dare I point out something about you that you're doing incorrectly? You're doing this morally wrong. You would rather not have anyone mentioned. I am daring.

I'm telling you. and I've done it before I assume you've done it before it doesn't make you popular but I've done many times before actually right in my own family

and it's just a matter of personality but if a man is weak he needs other men near him that could build them up this is the power of a healthy community

which is why the regime for so long that's on everything in its power to destroy everything from the extended family to the ethnic community you've read the slaughter of cities by E. Michael Jones the ethnic community was the central institution in places like Philadelphia and New York City

in Boston. It was deliberately destroyed by the regime and the only one left was the Jewish one, which of course is very cohesive and the blacks and the projects who are very cohesive. That's it. Everyone else has been cast to the suburbs

where this kind of action is really unheard of. You won't take any action. You call the police, you know, and that's pretty much the end of it. But when it comes to you taking action, how many of your typical American suburban fathers will actually do it? and thank God I never had to in a violent way

with my kids or anything like that but what would you do what would you do and that's what you have to think about and develop in your own mind because we are surrounded by evil constantly I remember in 2020 that make believe the overdose of George Floyd

as they called killing black gangs were coming into the suburbs they were attacking, if you remember, they were attacking restaurants and screaming and yelling. White people were just sitting there. Now, maybe others fought back and it just wasn't, you know, I could put that on the news. But in the footage I saw, these fat black girls would be coming in screaming about how evil white people are in a restaurant in the suburb and the white people just be sitting there. I saw a video recently of a black guy stealing stuff at a mall from a kiosk.

very expensive cell phones. And no one did a thing. And that's one of the ways you can tell that we live in an unhealthy but dying society. The white blood cells aren't there to take action. And the white blood cells that are there

get labels attached to them. Many of them go off the prison for daring to take action. It's a, it's you know, this is one of the, this is one of the, this is one of It's why I use the word touchstone. It's one of the central criteria, if not the central criteria, of how to tell a healthy society from an unhealthy one, is how we deal with stuff like that.

When there's no community, crime is everywhere. And therefore, the regime is on all it can to destroy community, except for those races that it finds useful for the most. moment. It is clear that if evil did not possess an aggressive tendency or did not express itself in external actions, then resistance to it through physical suppression would be unnecessary and impossible. It is precisely the aggressiveness of evil and its need to express itself in external actions that makes counter-attacks against it necessary. It would be in vain to counter this by citing the fact that the external acts add nothing to malice and in the presence

of the latter is immaterial. The one who desires evil is related to the doer of evil as the one who restrains himself is related to the one who does not restrain himself. As the one who does not dare is related to the one who dares and the one who does condemn evil even if only with a corner of his soul is related to the one who approves of it. As the one who has not yet been confirmed in evil is related to the one who has given himself over to it. All other things being equal, The guilt of the latter is much greater and his maliciousness is greater under all circumstances. It is also futile to think and say that an evil act is caused precisely by external opposition and real historical reality.

The situation is precisely the opposite. This is a continuation of what he's said before. For those who are weak, and we all have these moments of weakness, I tend to be personally, be very excitable and impulsive when it comes to stuff like this, which may or may not be an advantage depending. You know, I've been in so many protests where I've been the first one to get up to in front and and fight them verbally. Something that I turned out to be pretty talented at.

But at the same thing, time doing that, it's more my anger at them, more than my desire to see them convert. And that's where I was incorrect many years ago. Evil, by its very nature, it's a bit like, again, it's like cancer. It spreads violently. That's what a, what does a virus do? A virus attacks the cell and forces it to work for it, and then get others to work for it, to be metaphor. That's exactly what the virus does. it hijacks it is a better word. Would it be, that's not morally evil.

But it's a good metaphor for actual moral evil in the human world. The fact that people are, people will rather see their neighborhood burn than be called a racist on the internet. It says that this society is on its last length. And you know, those people, If we're able to ever, ever win this in the end, and of course, God coming back, we will.

Maybe the first ones come running up and say, yeah, I was with you all along. And we know, we know better. And it's not just a matter of our personal war with evil. That's ongoing. That's never going to end. And it's very clear that someone who refuses to take action may be even more guilty. than the one, especially a low IQ person, than the one who is forcing evil onto others.

So, and then over time, this happens repeatedly, it becomes the norm. You know, the proof of this is in 2020, again, a very, very bad year for us, where you had mainstream journalists and academics who were calling for the destruction of police departments. Could you imagine if they got their way? In some places they did. In some places, they put so many shackles on the cops that in Portland is one, by the way,

where many of them simply quit. You had people all over the place. These twisted evil doers saying that we have to get rid of the police. And if that doesn't prove of the illness, of the sickness that infects this society, this isn't going to goad even weak people into action, then nothing will. I used to say, I remember the bailouts.

I vaguely remember the bailouts of Chrysler. That was long as a kid. But after 2008, the collapse. I remember reading, I was going to be a case. get my car service. I was reading in the waiting room about the bailout that was going on. And I remember thinking to myself, this is now public knowledge that we're being forced to bail out big companies as we're losing our job, getting our houses repossessed, whatever it is. Sometimes it's the same company. You know, it becomes you're all getting bailed out.

if that doesn't create a huge movement against them, that nothing will. That might be the end. And, of course, it didn't. And it, you know, I thought there'd be more of a reaction. But, you know, I can be naive that way sometimes. Throughout human history, the best people have perished, violated by the worst in various eras and communities,

and so the best dared to offer a systematic and organized rebuff. This has always been the case, and it always will be. The radical evil that dwells within man triumphs until it is restrained and until it is contained. And wherever this restraining and restraining force does not arise within the individual, it must and does come from without, from others in the form of external resistance and the fear of suffering it evokes through fear of pain, St. Augustine. External alien force is necessary for a person to learn to maintain, to maintain, the correct social boundaries in their behavior, so that this boundary gradually becomes their

own, internally supported, and voluntarily accepted. Then fear will transform into respect and strengthen their sense of duty, while suffering will prompt them to turn inward and discover its source in their own imperfections. Coercion and restraint are necessary to awaken and strengthen a defective soul, a sense of justice and morality, each of which, in its own way, leads to true morality or, in its own way, brings it closer. You can tell I'm getting tired when you see stuff like that at the time. The very act he's saying here at the end, the very act of doing battle itself helps purify your own battle against evil personally.

When you see it externalized, you realize how horrible that must be internalized. I never got into pornography like a lot of guys did for a whole bunch of reasons. The main reason is because I read a lot about it. And what I read about these directors who abandoned that industry and wrote books about it, the torture that they put these girls through. It is disgusting. It is vile. there is no way even if I were tempted

there is no way I could I could get into that now so in other words it's you know it's our this is a very battle against it that has helped purifying

it would be that issue or a million others the stuff that I saw when I was at the fighting the abortion clinics in Hartford in 1990 in 1991 in downtown Hartford, I saw how the women are being dragged in there.

Almost every couple, the woman is being dragged in there. It changed me completely. It wasn't just you're opposed to abortion on some, you know, an abstract, you know, pro-life thing, but you actually saw it in front of you,

how evil it is. And the woman's sense of maternity kicks in at that last minute and tries to, get get out of it almost every time almost every time I when I was there doing the so-called sidewalk counseling thing I used to you know we had like maybe 30 of us 20 of us so the very act of taking action also helps you not only in terms of learning but evil then looks so vile that the war against it internally is a little bit easier and

And he says here coercion and restraint necessary to awaken and strengthened the defect of soul. I certainly had one then. I have one now. A sense of justice and morality. That will lead to true morality or at least bringing in closer. And that is certainly the case. And because evil is, in essence, one thing, although it takes many, many forms, you know that evil that we see in front of our faces is the very same temptation.

we deal with all the time internally. And when you see how wicked and disgusting it is not there, we realize internally that by giving into it, that's what we're accepting. There's almost a form of purification. You know, it's a way to, you know, it's a way to reduce our own sinfulness. And I think,

think this is very important. This is the first time he's mentioning this. I think it's the first time he's mentioning this. So a healthy community can fix defective souls this way. And I invited a lot of my friends to go to that thing back when I was in college, at Harvard, University of Hartford. And yet, change them too. Seeing it like that. I said, now watch. Never the same again. It's, you know, that's part of our purification. Yeah, I'm pretty sure this is the first time he's mentioned that. Taking action itself is a way to purification. So long, however, as our motives are good, they're not going to be perfect because none of us are perfect.

So long as they're good. And we were struggling to make sure this is about the right thing, not about ourselves. This taming and re-educating process, transforming the humanoid animal into a social and disciplined being, has been going on for millennia. The more social and discipline this animal is, the more accessible it is to spiritual culture, and the more accessible it is to the work of inner self-education. The very idea of the possibility of resistance through non-resistance is bestowed upon humanity and proves applicable when insofar as the general ancestral process of taming the beast within man through threat and punishment, the Old Testament, creates an accumulated and settled results of taming and discipline.

a kind of existential minimum of legal consciousness and morality, opening hearts to the realm of love and spirit, the New Testament. However, the new teaching by no means condemns, abolishes, rejects, threatened punishment. Both the sword and God's servant are still necessary to punish him who practices evil, Romans 3-4, 13-4. Besides this path, a new, higher, and gracious path has already been established. not the only one but the primary one. That is God's path, which does not condemn, but rather comprehends and sanctifies the former path,

the path of Caesar. It is precisely where the beast is tamed and the devil and the soul is suppressed, that the ability, the inclination, and the objective social possibility awakens to nurture souls with the word of reason and the deed of yielding love. But where this is absent, the word falls upon barren stones and wasted kindness is trampled by ferocious beasts, Matthew 7.6. Therefore, the storm, sending fear and suffering, is still necessary.

Well, the one thing, I guess this is kind of a minor thing. I do disagree with his Old Testament comprehension. Threat and punishment are always there, as well as love and spirit. There's plenty of love and spirit in the Old Testament, too, if you read the prophets. you know I think that that's a minor issue but I that irritated me slightly um but um

this is this is one of these things it's a continuation of the last two paragraph and he sees seizure that is to say the monarch and the monarchy as a um as a moral force this isn't just a it doesn't it's a matter of administration this is how the

beast is tamed. And the beast is tamed through, not just through the fear of punishment, but once you realize how much easier your life is if you don't go down that path in the first place. It's not just because, and, you know, the minute you live in a society where people just don't do things because they're afraid of being punished, rather, a healthy society, you don't do things because it's a wrong thing to do. That's the key distinction.

and Aristotle's thought true virtue is when you do the right thing because it's pleasurable to you. Of course, that's often never the case, but you'd be very advanced in virtue if the right thing was always the pleasurable thing in your mind. And it takes this kind of discipline to get to that point. I don't know if anyone actually gets to that point, but keep in mind throughout all of this.

Always keep an eye on your own motivations. As I said before, there's been so many demonstrations where I'm just angry and I'm just letting off steam with these people. Rather than, and it was funny if you were there, rather than converting them or talking to them in a normal way, putting out, you know, But those people who were talking about the abolition of the police department, whenever they were forced to, I read a few papers on this from the academics,

and they said, rather than coercion, if you remember this or not, they wanted to empower psychology. That would send psychologists and counselors to deal with crime rather than actual armed policemen. That was actually taking. taken seriously for a while. Now, in a healthy society, maybe that wouldn't be crazy, but it's not a healthy society. What happened in El Salvador over the last few years shows you the absolute necessity for a state of emergency and the use of extreme violence to save the society. Once the society, once that's gone, then you can rebuild. The El Salvador case was interesting because once the gangs were removed, moved, society was able to rebuild the society. They didn't need anyone to tell it. People were

coming out of their homes. They had their old festivals again. They didn't have to worry about giving 75% of their take to the crime lord locally. That happens almost naturally. But that kind of extreme violence has to be done. If the president of El Salvador didn't take action in the extreme way he did, there wouldn't be in El Salvador today. It would be essentially carved up among various gang factions, and then that would be their base to use against everyone else around them. That's exactly where they were going. Therefore, you can't talk about habeas corpus.

I don't want to hear about it. That's for peaceful times. This is now a war, a war for a very existence. Therefore, that needs to be dropped, and the army, militia, policemen, has to be given every power possible within reason. to destroy them. Then, of course, they're restrained by the same president once it's over, and then society can rebuild.

How do you build an economy in that kind of a situation? You can only build anything that lasts once those people are gone and people feel secure again. That was during the so-called Biden administration. Biden tried to put sanctions on El Salvador for this, condemning them violently. for taking action against because maybe some innocent people may be thrown in jail. That was at least a claim. I think a lot of people were getting jipped on their drug cut,

but, you know, the left has always had this love affair with criminals. And you guaranteed wherever, you know, the drug war is one. I've had some friends challenged me on the Philippines, but it's been one elsewhere, certainly in Afghanistan, you're going to get condemnation.

Of course, El Salvador is the other place. China in the 1840 to the extent that the opium was with the result. It can be one. To have a healthy society to begin with. And you have to take state action. I remember Duterte in the Philippines said,

You know, if you're an addict, I give you permission to kill your dealer, which made me laugh. He certainly did a lot of damage to the drug trade when he was mayor of deval. But when you're drowning in this, you have to take extreme measures. Just like when you're drowning personally in sin, you have to take extreme measures against yourself. You have to go away for a while. Go to a monastery, whatever you need to do. and it's you know this is this is this is a this is what he's trying to say here and it's very important and a lot of people don't want to deal with it or even talk about it well we're coming up to a natural

it looks like you put a natural break here and um this next section goes on for a while so um let's call it here come back on the next episode pick it up from right here and um what i will yep what i will do at this time is to remind people to go over to the show notes and to go over to the descriptions in the video and donate to Dr. Johnson's work. He will appreciate it. He has said it. He says it every episode. And I don't think that most people understand just how appreciative we are of the

support that we get that allows us to be able to do this. I mean, all day where you wake up and read and take notes and plan out. you know, the next thing that you're going to do. I do it and Dr. Johnson does it five times, probably five times a volume I do as his study goes and probably understands it better than I do. I'm just saying, I'm just being honest. I appreciate the flattery there. Yeah, you're, I know what you mean.

I know what you mean. And in fact that I'm very specialized in one area. Correct. So in that sense, that's the only way this can be done. This isn't a part-time job. This isn't a hobby. This is a vocation. Of course, not everyone in the world is going to have this vocation.

You know, we're doing the right thing. And then you could be involved by assisting those who do have the vocation. All right. We will talk in a couple days. Thank you very much, as always. Talk to them, my friend. I want to welcome everyone back to our reading of Unresistance to Evil by Force by Ivan Eileen. Dr. Johnson, what's happening today?

What's happening today? I wonder how much of Eileen stuff has been translated to English. I have his collected works online, and I think at some point we're going to do his work on national socialism and fascism as two very separate things, and that's true. what they were, as well as pretty much anything else you could think of that has any remote connection to politics. And I'd never even look. I don't look for the English stuff. I'm assuming it's going to be corrupted somehow. I love the guy. And it's part of why I've been in a good mood recently. Eileen was a someone who

and I just if you search for him on Google you're going to get garbage like you wouldn't imagine this is the man that Vladimir Putin is reading proving that he's a fascist stuff like that

everyone is the influence on Putin one time it was Dugan now it's Yilin there's been a few others you know he's always He's a gift that keeps on giving.

I hate clichés, but it's true. You know, it always pisses me off about the whole fascism and national socialism thing. It's the argument of, are they, were they left wing or right wing? First of all, you're eventually going to fall into the fallacy of presentism and trying to define that in modern, using the modern day. And second of all, there's really no context for that in, in, in, in, early 20th century Europe right or left. That's not really there's there that's not something that's not how people looked at things. Even even academics are like this now. The concept of context destroys their narrative. You know it's always been the the classic mark of the

amateur when they assume people 100 years ago had the same language and the same same mentality as they do today. But you see this even amongst academics now. But context will destroy their very simplistic narrative, this good guy, bad guy thing that justifies everything that happened during the Second World War. And I know in different parts of the world,

it's not quite the same as it is here. The propaganda has lessened a little bit from what I could see. So, you know, God, how many movies? Anyway, you're right. It's irritating. But the truth is, it's a lot of Hitler, stole all of the, everything that the communist promised,

he actually did. While maintaining private property and basic entrepreneurship to an extent, he made them irrelevant. He made the other parties irrelevant. You know, it's like Korea, South Korea turned to General Park, turned that country from third world to first world overnight, practically overnight. Why would you, what other party, how are you going to do it? You could do it better? Everything those people have came from General Park's plans.

Say the same thing for Taiwan, same thing for even for Singapore. So the riding and everything else came from the West. So, yeah, it's, you know, and of course, as I mentioned before, General Parks, one of his models was out of Hitler. And he didn't care what anyone thought about. All right. Here we go, picking up where we left off from last time. That's how I'm doing. Okay, good.

This view of ancestral historical secession reveals with particular clarity, the inconsistency of those who, in principle, reject external coercion and suppression. The proponent of pure non-resistance, along with the rest of humanity, enjoys the fruits of the entire previous struggle against evil. He owes his entire life, his security, his opportunity to work and create, to the efforts, exploits, and suffering of those who, generation after generation, tame the beast and man and nurture the animal within him, as well as those who continue this work today. you know it's the argument is so simple that sometimes I forget about it but it's the most powerful it may be just this the mic drop so to speak

argument here we have mentioned that it's easy for Tolstoy to be a pacifist when he's surrounded by a very professional army and he lives in peace he can do it then Christian pacifists don't realize that without the empire

there would be no Christianity today everyone was at war with it the empire preserved it and maintained it and numerous you know not just one empire Byzantium especially and of course Russian Empire and now that all that's done they can get up and say we're pacifists and even worse that the people who fought back then were in the wrong.

This is a very, very powerful argument that I forget about. It is precisely because of this that there were people who voluntarily accepted the burden of active struggle against evildoers. This, perhaps, the heaviest form of the world's burden. All other people were given the opportunity to work peacefully, to create spiritually, and to improve morally. protected and provided for protected and provided for from evildoers surrounded by good people they found themselves to a large extent freed from the tensions of negative love and could freely indulge according to their moral needs in the blessings of higher selflessness loving compliance and personal non-resistance it's like the early forms of liberalism it's been argued as i've argued too that it's parasitic that liberalism that liberalism that liberalism symbolism can only function so long as older traditional morals were in place. The minute those were removed, destroyed, chipped the way at, whatever you want to say,

liberalism went straight into the gutter. And it's very similar. You know, not to mention the simple fact that pacifism is a almost a purely modern phenomenon. that all of a sudden people have learned that this is what Christ taught this is what everyone all the great philosophers of the past really taught that in the modern world we know we know better than the than the ancients and the only way that the only reason they have the language that they are the civilization of everything they don't seem to understand that came from to some extent violence defending it from enemies both internal and external.

And the fact that they condemn even those people shows a complete disconnect in their mind, a short circuit that has to be explained. Thus, the supporters of pure non-resistance enjoying these blessings of the age-old oak, but not seeing that the source of these blessings was precisely in it, began to devote all their virtue and their leisure

to undermining its roots and felling it. condemnation of benefactors began, censure of their own defenders. A sermon was heard against the very need to bear the world's burden of suppressing evil. Evidence poured forth that this burden was imaginary, that there was no evil, that those who compelled and suppressed were the real and only villains, yet all the benefits of protection continue to be bestowed by the reviled benefactors and continued to be accepted by the reviled righteous ones. I don't think, you know, I've read many responses to pacifism over the years,

and including my own. And I don't think this has come up. Because, you know, and it's often, like Ortega said many, you know, 100 years ago, civilization is so delicate. And people don't understand how difficult it is. people take it all for granted and the intense discipline necessary to maintain it. And it's the same thing for military, for police, for just even creating the mentality, but there is evil.

And, you know, right now, we all know that people who are calling for the abolition of the police did not live in high crime areas. Many of them had their own private security. They wouldn't be dealing with the, back in 2020, they wouldn't be dealing with the, you know, without the police, of course, the inner city, we divided up among the gangs. People living there would be serfs, in essence. And it was something similar was the case of the fall of the Roman Empire in the West. You know, the very early origins of serfdom, that's really what it would be. and you have people somehow who think that people would be free then without them.

People would be individual liberty would thrive if the state were to go away. The whole anarchist movement to a great extent is based on it. And I can't imagine actually believing this seriously for any length of time. If those who protected bearing their burden assumed guilt, then this guilt in all fairness fell upon the protected as well, for the protected enjoyed all the benefits flowing from it, and could not help but enjoy them, and in fact accepted them, but only pretended that they were not benefits, that they did not need them, that they did not enjoy them, and that they, with all this falsehood and ingratitude and all their proud hypocrisy and moral

sanctimony, maintained moral purity, love, and non-resistance, and they continued to detonate the powder keg of evil beneath themselves and beneath everyone else. All these explanations finally established not only the necessity of external coercion and suppression, but also their comparative significance in the general system of the fight against evil. In my article, I did on the Buckelis suppression of the gang violence in El Salvador, successful, by the way, how the U.S. as Biden at the time put sanctions on the country, condemned everything he did. And we know what the ACLU does. They're not as prominent as they used to be, but they will do anything to defend certain classes of criminal. And I started to look

into the psychology of the left relative to this romantic conception of the criminal. They knew, there was no doubt that they knew that Bucchela's action was successful. That was the problem with it. And that if he wasn't successful, the country would be, well, as I just said, it was already in the process of being divided up among the gangs,

many of which have footholds in America. MS-13 is one. It's impossible that they don't know this. I think they have such a romantic view of this criminal class that you're oppressed, and if you only got a chance to get spoken to and treat it as an equal

and you wouldn't be like that anymore. I mean, it's deeper than not, obviously, but it's romanticization. You know, it's no accident that every revolutionary movement that ever existed opened up all the prisons. Knowing full well that there were plenty of actual real criminals in there. And the point was to create, you know, they destroyed, you know, they raped and their pillages as you would expect.

showing what these revolutions were like, a point was to create chaos, and they, of course, were the only solution to the chaos. This meaning is purely negative. It would be naive to think that external influence on a person emanating from others and mechanically directed at their physical makeup can replace internal, organic education, and spirit and love. It is impossible to make a good person or compel them to perform good deeds

through external coercion and suppression, as these would be, at most, a semblance of good deeds. but through this path it is impossible to extinguish the evil that dwells in the soul. It is impossible to re-educate a person or ennoble their feelings and will. These measures do not increase goodness, but rather reduce evil. They negatively prepare the way for the solution of the main task, but precisely to this extent they are absolutely necessary. It's a simple matter of positive and negative.

It can't all be positive, can all be negative. there has to be a correction when someone does something does something wrong. There has to be. Whatever that correction may be, so long as it's relevant to whatever the crime might be. But it can't just be that. It has to also be the proper education. Here's why this happens.

Here's why this system is worth defending. Here's why this is what these people do. criminals do and the American media has always been dedicated to suppressing that I remember Pat Buchanan one time it may have been on crossfire it was that David Duke was on crossfire remember this and he said you know

blacks will come out in huge numbers to protest the clan for example thousands and thousands but won't do a damn thing with the drug dealers in their own neighborhoods you know it's a weird and I think it is media driven culture driven

total lack of priorities here and that's I think a lot of what he's what he's talking about here has to be positive and that you have to explain you know it's not just you get punished for wrongdoing

you have to explain to them what the right is and why it's right and how it's right and it has to be done competently and intelligently now I think for these lists here we have lists coming up a threefold purpose and there's one after it i will comment uh after each one i think that's the best way to do it okay external coercion and suppression of a threefold purpose first prevent the individual from committing the crime stop this evil will

in its evil direction sober it up with external obstacles and resistance and show it that the prohibition of the forbidden is supported not only by motives of conscience and legal consciousness, but also by an external force that sometimes impedes the criminal, sometimes overtakes him with harsh consequences, and finally, by depriving him of freedom and inflicting mental anguish and suffering, induce him to turn to self-awareness, self-motivation, and self-reformation. For a soul fundamentally noble, yet passionate and fallen, the first glimmer of external restraint may be enough to restore balance and self-control. Conversely, a soul fundamentally perverted and embittered may not respond in its obsession to any external or internal influences and find its end in the death penalty.

You see this in literature, and you see it in more recent, like television, you've seen it in Better Call Saul. You see it in someone like the guy who worked for Hector, a bald guy who shot himself. a good kid somehow brought into that life and had to live it while being a good kid. Mafia guys who are they're all pretty much born and raised in that life. So

talking to them like they're a normal person is notcho, Nacho Varga, that's what I meant. Talk to them like a normal person is almost out of the question. This is pretty much all they know. now we live in a society today where we live under an oligarchic regime the way I've defined the word regime over time

that does not give any positive elements to law-abiding people they justify the gangs in Detroit or Chicago or anywhere else and they have attacked every harsh way to go after them you know

and there's a reason for that there's this there's this hatred there their belief in equality means that any time you know crime wouldn't exist

if there wasn't inequality and we're all equal therefore those guys are justified something along those one um he's talking this last sentence here he's talking about a sociopath

uh you know what do you do with what do with someone who simply can't be reasoned with who is going to be violent or criminal no matter what you do

you know it's either the way we can't death penalty or life in prison it's my opinion of course that prisons should only exist for violent criminals especially those types that you simply can't you can't see reforming

Natto Varga was reformable he just saw all the money involved others who were born and raised with this criminal lifestyle it's really hard to change anything. This is what my dad did. This is what my brothers do. This is what all my friends do.

Unless they betray him in some way, that's usually a motive. Or if he's facing 100 years for drug dealing. That's the only time you get any kind of a change of heart. And he's showing here that the actual, you know, the sanction, whatever the sanction might be, you know, going to jail. for a while or getting hit by a cop or something like that, that itself has a positive element. It's not purely negative.

In the Philippines, when Duterte cracked down hard on drug dealers and even allowed addicts to shoot their dealers, something like 200,000 turned themselves in. the minute they know that they've got been serious and that they're real you know severe consequences they either you know leave or as you saw there turn themselves in and in El Salvador

they're either in prison they're dead or they're in the United States so you have different levels of of this depravity but I think this last line is for a sociopath someone who knows how to act as if he's a moral man but he doesn't there is no good and evil he's the same people who can defeat any any a lie detector machine because they really don't have a conception between good and evil right and wrong and the body's not going to respond to it the way a normal person would when when hooked up to a machine like that I think that's what he's really talking about death penalty does make some sense in extreme cases Second, protect all other people from crime and its poisonous influence from the mental and spiritual temptation and seduction and all that it carries in itself and further to deliver others from danger from their fear for their lives, for freedom, for rights, for their work, for their creativity, for one's family, from which evokes mutual distrust, weariness, alienation, hostility, hatred, and bitterness in people. Expecting criminality from everywhere means suspecting everyone, seeing enemies everywhere, preparing for resistance and destruction, and preparing the destruction of others.

If the young, the weak, the sick, and the defenseless are the ones who most and unconditionally need protection, then for everyone else, the opportunity for spiritual creativity and self-improvement is lost in the face of a fierce struggle of all against all. it may shock some people that the social science literature dealing with community structure really actually says if it is homogenous they don't say it that way

racially or ethnically this is worldwide not just in the UN there tends to be a far superior social life and this is also connected with the protection of the family where the family is strong we don't have much crime crime pretty much everything you could think of anything perverted you could think of from any kind of crime derives from the lack of trust as it says here that comes from diversity now I was

shocked to see this is all over academia the thing is they don't they use you know they couch their language, you know, they don't come out and say it, but it's very clear what they mean. If you ever read the book Bowling Alone, the total lack of trust breaks everything down. The lack of trust derives from the fact, it derives from diversity. People speaking different languages, having different beliefs, having different religions. You don't even know what's going on. That's what causes it. as I've said before, you know, you have a very healthy society.

One person decides to make out of their house a fortress and goes and attacked everyone else. What happens? Everyone then has to make their house into a fortress because they don't want to lose everything. This is the pretty much the foundation of Hobbes and it's Leviathan. This is what define the modern world. And the regime, of course, benefits. I'm expecting criminality from everywhere,

suspecting everyone, enemies everywhere. The total breakdown of trust. So it's the family and ethno-nationalism, which is connected to the religion, of course, that maintain a healthy society. And I have, I don't know how many, maybe 30 academic articles over the last 20 years that are forced to admit this. Not in ways, they're not going to say, oh, should be. all white, they don't say that.

But it's very clear what the truth of the matter is. Yeah, they couch it in different language. But the breakdown of trust seems to be in the interest of the regime is only then can their final great reset ever come to pass.

Third, restrain from the path of evil all those capable of being tempted or carried away by it. The example of a criminal compelled and thwarted teaches self-control to all who are weak in goodness. External incentives reinforce and strengthen the uncertain action of internal motives, and, in the full sense of the word, come to the aid of a man in his inner struggle with himself.

The legal threat of dire consequences, of course, does not in itself unite people, but it does diminish and weaken the force of mutual repulsion and mutual aggression, that centrifugal discord and disintegration under which human life becomes hell. The maintenance of external social and legal order does not in itself evoke the blossoming of Christian love, but it does establish in human interaction that external rhythm of peacefulness, tolerance, and correctness, which inevitably, though imperceptibly, is transmitted to people's souls. The external legal order educates men in the same way as military bearing, discipline, and saluting due as skills of self-control,

coordination, and united action are developed and strengthened. Through discipline, external legal order also creates a psychological atmosphere of mutual recognition, respect, and even a general invisibly diffused mood of trust and friendliness. Of course, this mood has its minimum and its maximum, and even with the minimum level it is, of course, still far from a true act of love. Nevertheless, this clears the way for the possibility of unity, creates the grounds for mutual goodwill and the very malice not having the opportunity to pour out into to pour out into evil deeds is forced to seek other outcomes and internally burns out in its focus on its own

suffering. I think I said last week or a couple of weeks ago that when Ukele drove the gangs out of rural area, we can except of them mostly an urban phenomenon, but there it was it was rural as well, that they all, they came to life. They couldn't do their old, you know, the festivals, the, the, the, the processions, well, not without giving them a huge cut anyway. No one trusted each other. Now he made it, he did this to the criminals. And the criminals trust each other now, if any one of them could be an informant. That's a good thing. and somehow the Biden administration vehemently condemned me.

I mean, every NGO out there, the church included, by the way, condemned Buckele and everything he did. And despite the fact that even since that started a few years ago, God knows how many lives the man is saved. That's not important. You know, they condemn him for the huge prison that he's. that he built is now you know full so there couldn't be any more overcrowded you know

the basic rights that we take for granted you know including thinking of habeas corpus this kind of stuff the basic criminal uh... criminal procedure that exists that works only in peaceful societies once the society is overwhelmed with criminality they they can't work anymore this is where military governments come from

And this is why they're popular. You can't keep it that way, of course. And the important thing is that what he's talking about here, everything about physical coercion, it's not an end in and of itself. It does sometimes force someone to rethink their life. Go into prison sometimes forces the drug addict to get clean. He has no choice. But sometimes it's merely spontaneous, that people just are able to finally do what they used to do.

And so this is just a foundational conception of it. It's not that it's just purely negative. But Bukala, of course, to this day, is immensely popular in El Salvador. That doesn't, you know, the left doesn't care. Not only that, he's being imitated elsewhere in Latin America. Bolivia and a few other places. But that's not how, you know, what's going on in the U.S. Where the regime is dedicated to saying somehow in some twisted way to black America

that white people hate you and what you do is perfectly legitimate putting out this vicious anti-white gangster rap stuff from the 90s onward. People haven't read the lyrics in some of that stuff. Talking about killing and lynching whites. pretty normal. That's a damn good reason to oppose interracial relationships in marriage, especially with the black male and white female, which is the dominant one. So this is very important, but this sort of thing, if you were to get in front of a university classroom and say this, you know damn well what's going to happen to you. And I have to get together

the papers that I talked about and put this out in a full article, because even some academics now, in a certain way, have come to agree with it. This is the single negative task of coercion and suppression to cut off the path to evil, leaving open the path to unity. This is far from creating paradise, but it is the exclusion of hell and the maintenance of an external purgatory for further inner work. This is not yet an upward movement, but rather the construction of a mountain highway.

This is not yet a cure for the disease of evil, but rather the isolation of its source, quarantine, and the struggle with preventive measures. This is not yet life in a renewed home, a healthy and creative life, but merely the necessary disinfection of an infected home. He who carries out this struggle serves precisely the cause of spirit and love,

but his service is negative and preparatory. and this service is by no means limit. Hey, buddy. Come on, buddy. You got to get down. This is a kitten. Okay. True bed, man, coon.

We will take a break. We will take a break. We want to say hi. Yeah, okay. And this service is by no means limited to the use of external physical force, but consists in creating a confident perspective for its application. Coercion and suppression are raised to the proper level, not where they are in constant use,

but where their possibility for their use is always present, and the necessity for their use does not arise. For their task is not to fill prisons and execute, but to help develop, establish, and maintain the internal motivating forces of legal consciousness. This task is finally accomplished, not when the criminal is caught and executed, but when there are no criminals left to catch and execute.

And this is precisely what means that legal consciousness has been strengthened and that the spiritual calling of legal force has been realized. Any society that is constantly relying on external coercion is in trouble. Any society that constantly is just, you know, it has no unity. There is no mutual trust. That's why this is happening. And that's why our prisons are packed to the guild.

This is why courts just, you know, most, I think it's like 95% of cases are, or adjudicated by a plea deal. Because you can imagine having trials for every crime? We'd all be judges. I mean, it would be almost impossible to do. But it's something that is used once in a while. And that was the case in much of the world for a long time. And it's no accident that it was after the 1960s.

and the World War II after the 1960s and everything that those people preached that this began to explode you know you know better than I do that there were parts of the Bronx that simply were just empty burned out building never rebuilt at the time anyway

this is what happens when that ideology is imposed most of it was lies So, you know, any society that's forced to use physical violence all the time can't last for long. It is now clear that only the recognition of these methods of struggle can give the principle of good and good the full range of necessary weapons. It is absurd to think that external coercion and suppression are the only or, main methods of resisting evil, i.e. the evil is defeated as soon as it is hidden. I don't know what that too is. I don't know why it's there. That may have been a feline.

I don't know. Go ahead. It arose and hid, but it is equally absurd to think the coercion and suppression are villainous and unacceptable methods of struggle, i.e. that evil is invi. that evil is invi. as soon as it has dared to express itself in external action. External physical struggle with the villain should not be anti-spiritual for its goal is spiritual education, and therefore it should flow from the will to the spirit. And in exactly the same way, the struggle should not be anti-love for its goal is to pave the way for mutual acceptance and unity of people, and therefore it should flow from true love for God, and people end from goodwill toward the villain himself. Spirit and love, on the one hand, an external

coercion and suppression on the other hand do not at all stand in a fundamental relationship of mutual exclusion. This is, you know, this is implying that the people that are being, you know, coerced, say, by the state for a good reason, or even by just this community, you know, social sanction is very powerful, as we all know. You know, again, it implies that they have been raised properly that they could even be reasoned with we live in a society where reason itself you know the the postmodern rot has even attacked the very concept of reason itself and the self um breaking it down you know um i've always argued for example and i have many papers done on this I have my book on the failure of American foreign policy in the Islamic world

that the Taliban are doing the right thing. A society that is constantly at war has its moral code destroyed. Life is cheap. In order to bring this country out, you have to have a very harsh, in this case religious, centralized system. You know, they won their drug war by going to people, farmers growing poppies and putting a pistol to their head. So you're not going to do this anymore. And it worked.

And they knew that they meant it. And they carried through. And of course, you know, like in China during the, what eventually led to the opium wars, it wasn't just coercion. They had a full, back then, a full treatment program. know what that consisted of, but it wasn't just negative sanction. It wasn't just throwing people in prison. In fact, it was enough that the British were starting to lose money, or the Sassoon family was starting to lose money and invaded the country in the opium wars. So it isn't like, it, all of this assumes that you're dealing with decent people. And don't forget, substance

abuse over time destroys the mind you know alcoholics you know you see you know the I don't know if they could reason after a while people who have been destroyed by acid God forbid PCP and things like that I don't know how you know sometimes

their thought process doesn't simply well doesn't work anymore but this paragraph is dealing with people and even them yeah they have to be coerced sometimes it has to be violent but you could never do it because you hate them sometimes you do and you can't but that can't be the motive

it can ever be revenge for something it's love for God and you know the people who he's created and that includes you know everyone around you you know and certainly in basically Afghanistan

they're 100% Islamic that was the only chance that country has of functioning talk about mass PTSD how do you deal with it The only way they can. And the Taliban were in a perfect position to do it.

And, of course, there the drug trade has been, for the second time, gone down to zero. The first time they were in power, even the UN congratulated them on their anti-drug efforts. I've seen all the charts, you know, and then Taliban take over and nothing. That's not an accident. And sometimes I wonder, you know, are. Americans at a point where they're beyond help, although there are some good reasons. There's some reasons to be, there's some white pills out there, indeed. I know there are.

But still, you know, I wonder if basic education, natural law, if that can be completely eradicated from someone entirely. And I don't know the answer to that. I've gone on both sides of that question. I'm not talking about sociopaths here. I'm talking about someone who has just been steeped and evil for so long that they simply, their brain has been permanently changed. I don't know the answer to that question.

Still, those people have to be dealt with usually in some violent way. They're not rational. You can't claim to be a citizen of anything. without being both rational and free. Reason and freedom, they're two sides of the same coin. If you have free will, you have to have reason. If you have reason, well, you have to be able to use it freely. So they're almost the same thing as two sides at the same point.

It's a very important point to make. But we live in a society where we realize that many people, even around us, may not have one or both. of those things for any number of causes and it's up to I don't know who it's up to sometimes up to us sometimes of the people around them to figure out exactly how deep that goes this this paragraph is an introductory paragraph I'm going to read the whole thing and then go into the first point okay that makes sense all right it is impossible to educate people without starting from the spirit and love and

without turning to the spirit and love but it is precisely the true who must be able not only to persuade, but, when necessary, to persuade by forcing and, when necessary, to force without persuading, and he must, when necessary, place the prospect of this possibility and even inevitability before the mental eye of the person being educated. This prospect of physical coercion and suppression has, as it were, three planes and three possibilities, facing the one who was called to it in his objective ministry. These possibilities are to determined by the mental state of the person possessed by evil. First, a man who has fallen into a state of anti-spirituality and malice may reveal a tendency

and capacity for criminality. The necessity of resisting evil in another soul is already established, but the entire apparatus of measures is advanced in a certain spiritual sequence, beginning with an appeal and word and deed to reason and love, and ending with a readiness to resort to physical coercion if necessary. This readiness, is put forward here only in the form of a threatening sanction. Let's be careful. I don't mean that they're possessed by demons. Possessed meaning that that's the dominant, you know, that's the dominant quality of their,

of their personality. That's what I mean by that. These were very difficult to translate. I used, you know, the machine at first and it was a mess. And I went to the original. okay, I've made sense out of it. So a lot of this first one is pretty much what we've said already. It's very simple.

This is what we're talking about. And education, remember, isn't just in the classroom, taking notes and taking exams. Education is every aspect of growing up. Learning on the job. All this is education. you know um so but it's a very it's very simple point in the sense that the appeal in word indeed okay you have good examples and reason and you show them you know love we're not evil people and then you start realizing that for some reason none of that is working maybe there's

something wrong with the kid i don't know and um physical coercion only for your own safety and the safety of everyone around. But here, he says, only in the form of a threatening sanction, not an actual one. So maybe we haven't gotten that far yet. Second, a man overcome by evil may attempt or even commit actual crimes, perhaps repeatedly, demonstrating an evil will to disregard spiritual compulsion and perhaps even physical restraint. In all such cases, physical restraint is necessary first and foremost. Subsequently, it will be the responsibility of the state court to determine the criminal's legal consciousness at the time of the crime and at the time of the trial and to decide whether and to what extent physical coercion is necessary. The church, correctional institutions and public opinion will have to shoulder the burden of spiritual re-education.

Yeah, we don't normally associate, you know, prisons with spiritual re-education, although it may lead someone there. He's kind of switched gears. We're talking about, you know, education. And then he switched now to legality, court cases, which I suppose is a form of education. and what we have today is, at least especially in capital cases, each side has its psychiatrists or psychologists. I know the Arias trial, Jodi Arias trial very, very well because Juan Martinez was the greatest prosecutor in America.

Unfortunately, they dragged him down for a separate issue, but And it's a shame that that field is so weak that you can talk to the same person and come to a completely different conclusions, depending on who hires you. And so, you know, every interest is afforded to the accused, especially in times of appeal. so you know yes innocent people get put in prison and usually comes from either a bad witness or somebody you know they go to his cellmate and say we'll let you out in a short time

if he says to him something like that which is permitted as you know but there's more to it than that the church especially when we're talking about Russia talking about, you know, the old world was a huge factor. It's not so much anymore, unfortunately. But we also do have public opinion, which sometimes works, sometimes doesn't. Social sanction is very powerful.

I used to work for Willis Cardo. We moved to one of the worst areas of Washington, D.C., eastern market. And there was always a black cop there. His name was Danny. And a roly-poly guy. And I said hi to him every morning. And one day I talked to him. I said, what made you become a policeman?

He said, because my mom lives down there. And the crack dealers are always around here. Anything could happen. I see what they've done to other families. That's why I became a policeman. Which I think is an excellent motive, especially in that part of the in that part of that crime-bridden city

and and so this is where I mean he would be part of the correctional institution you know the executive branch the church, he's in public opinion these guys know in detail where the criminals are what they're doing where the crack houses are where the meth houses are

and yet because dealers are able to put together an impressive legal team, especially from the ACLU and places like that. They can't get them all the time. This is what Bukale did, is he simply untied their hands. And the police and the militia, even ordinary people,

went to write those very same places and ended it. But because of the inappropriate use of criminal procedure in the West, a society that's overwhelmed by crime, especially in the big cities, has a completely overwhelmed judicial system and an overwhelmed prison system. But then your concept of legal consciousness, mens rea, to what extent do you mean? Are you, in a sociopathic, the extreme form? Someone like Nacho Varga would be the benefit.

he was just brought into it. Somehow he fell into it. He's still a good guy, though. And eventually, his conscience is going to get to. His conscience is going to get to him. And he can't do it anymore. That's the sort of,

that's the more sensitive person that you want to deal with. And I think that's who he's referring to here. That kind of guy who, who is not brainwashed by it, but certainly loves the money that comes from it. He can, maybe he can be reasonable. But not,

the U.S. with the total lack of trust, the total lack of any kind of real ethno-nationalism, with non-existence of the church and the breakdown of the family, and the breakdown of even reason itself. It's no surprise that decent people go over to the, just when they're in debt, go over to the other side. Penis Woods, the Mule. Great, great one, great movie. he just needed the money old man he played he was in it he played the who's going to pull this guy over

he just needed he's not an evil man at all he didn't think he had any choice which may go to why was that the case in the first place what was wrong with the society that he was in that position maybe he didn't have any other choice

so you know shoulder the burden of spiritual reeducation the first thing you've got to to do is figure out where their mind is. You know, decent guy who gets sucked in on the one side, all the way to sociopath on the other side. Finally, a person possessed by evil may exhibit a direct inability to refrain from evil doing, such as the absolute criminal who is incapable of nothing but atrocities and before whose perverse will, all human measures are powerless.

In the face of such a monster, spiritual education and physical coercion may fall away as powerless and hopeless and then everything will be reduced to physical suppression, which in its purest form can take the form of the death penalty. And that's something that starts showing itself in childhood. It connects always with, in a criminal world, it connects with pornography addiction, unfortunate hurting of animals. I'm not just talking about serial killers here. I'm talking about the same mentality, though.

they could be drug dealers, there could be anything. This kind of antisocial mentality will show itself early on. And, you know, people talk about the death penalty. People who are opposed to the death penalty will say it doesn't deter crime. That's a very easy argument to refute. Well, first of all, it's only rarely used. And second of all, even if someone's convicted, there's a chance that they won't get the death penalty.

and it takes so long to get there. Anything could happen in the meantime. So how can you possibly, if it was an immediate, once the appeals were excused, you got shot. Okay, now you could start talking about whether it deters or not. The death penalty is such a rare end of a criminal's life, and yet we know that's probably, in these cases, the best for society and the best for him, the best for the person involved. This is how one should conceive of the organization of an externally coercive struggle against evil under conditions of peaceful legal order and state equilibrium. This struggle may take a completely different form under conditions of revolutionary upheavals or civil and international wars. In these conditions, the need to defend the homeland, faith, and sacred places a man in the position not as an educator, but of a warrior.

His calling is not to awaken the love and the soul of the attacker, not to soften his ferocity, and not to ennoble his intentions. He is called upon to physically stop and suppress. He must forcibly put an end to the onslaught. A thunderstorm is necessary, sowing fear, suffering, and death. I know I've used this argument before. I've said it before, but I kind of like it. There has been no drug war in the United States. And I know this because we still have a system where every one of the accused has a lawyer.

I don't recall Japanese Marines and soldiers on Iwo Jima having a lawyer before they got shot. It is not a war. In places like Detroit, it is an absolute state of emergency that the state has simply given up on. In El Salvador, if you read my paper on the subject, there was actually attempts to contact the major gangs asking them to please don't kill people on Sunday or can you avoid this year

how are they going to respect that clearly something that comes from weakness we'll let you put you in a better prison if your people don't kill people under 18 stuff like that that was a case that's been done in Chicago

and you think possibly that would ever that would make them laugh these are people who know one thing and that is physical violence and deceit

in a Machiavellian way of life and it makes it much more complicated when you have violent crime being mostly non-white phenomenon and the Jewish mafia, probably the most powerful in America. They call it the Russian mafia, which it drives me crazy,

having zero, and I mean zero enforcement against it. And yet, just a few months ago, they arrested a couple of elderly Italian men with Brooklyn for illegal gambling. And it's almost as if they're getting, out their frustrations on these guys. They can't go after the real guys, so they'll figure out something.

The Italians, okay, we could do that. That's no problem. But in this case, you know, we're talking about an invasion. We're talking about warfare. We're not talking about a war for colonies. You know, a war for the wealthy, a war for a foreign country like, you know, Israel. We're talking about real legitimate self-defense.

Well, there's no education involved there. It is relevant, though, because your warriors have to know that they're doing the right thing. They can't be questioning themselves every time they pull the trigger. You know, it always struck me. The Germans right up until May of 1945, there was no, they weren't shooting their officers. They weren't really. Some of them were surrendering, especially on the eastern front with Berlin. some of them that were surrendering

just because the war was over there was no attack on officers they didn't reject the system they just simply ran out of ammunition in many cases we're talking about in this case we're talking about a war of defense and

I read it's actually in my book on Ukraine if the draft would be instituted in America today I think it's 18% of young people would pass muster for any branch of the military and it's for two reasons.

Obesity on the one side and mental illness on the other side. This is why education is relevant to the creation of warriors. This is why, you know, Russia, China is not exactly worried about coming into direct contact with either NATO or American militaries,

infantry in particular, aside from everything else. it's not the same over there. And the U.S., you know, the founding fathers overwhelmingly rejected the idea of a standing army because what's going to happen? No one can invade us from either side. So, you know, how large does a, should be a standing army at all? And I have another book that I'm working on. I'm shaking my head.

I'm shaking my head at myself on the U.S. military and I start off with all of those quotes from the founding fathers, various founding fathers about how the standing army is a, can put an end to liberty in a lot of, and not near the way you're thinking in very subtle way and the militarization of society. So, you know, he's talking about a legitimate war here. And the thunderstorm is necessary. There's no concern with habeas corpus. There's no concern with rights and duties. You have a duty to go out there. You've been told you're doing the right.

You've explained why it's right. You believe it's right. And you do what you have to do. You know, like my father did in 1950 when he was drafted. Yes, he was on the right side. He fought against the Marxists. He fought against the Chinese and particularly. He fought against Mao.

And that's what he referring to here. The power of decisive external influence is evoked here by the concentration of all the conditions that intensify the struggle and block other exits such as the violent aggressiveness of the rebel, the impossibility of wasting time, the need to control space, the indefinitely vast object of influence, the intractability of the possessed enemy, or the impossibility of betraying the defended treasure. all this can, as it were, temporarily extinguish all the positive tasks of the struggle against evil and temporarily dismiss all spiritual and loving avenues of influences untenable. Physical suppression then appears in all its merciless and harsh forms, leading the offensive against the attacker and leaving only a comparatively small field of action for the beginning of the positive love, acts of personal compassion and mercy, laws regarding the wounded, sick, and prisoners.

Yeah. It's been coming out over the last 20 years, especially in Yolkham Hoffman's book, Stalin's War of Extermination, that a huge, I don't think the majority, but a huge portion of Soviet Council to Eastern War, more than war, we're talking about, of course, were committed by these guards, Stalin created,

that were behind. the infantry. They turned around and ran. They were shot. Soviet Union didn't have mostly peasant soldiers. They knew that Soviet Union was evil. They knew that the kid knew the Soviet Union was evil. And to avoid any kind of officers

or NCO getting to weapony, they were assigned what we call they called political commissars. Usually often Jewish. They weren't necessarily fighters, but they were ideologues and officers couldn't do a damn thing without having it passed by the ideological you know it was an arm of the arm of the nkvd huge number of executions of casualties were done by them um and i keep more more keep coming out on that and you had whole area whole lines of infantry

connected to the NKVD there to fight their own men if necessary. Officers had everything central. They couldn't make an important decision alone. Absolutely out of the question. They had to deal with this guy here sent him from Moscow and tell them what the true ideological purpose of this war is, whether he agreed or not. That's what an illegitimate government has to do.

government governments don't have to worry about that and all my work on the U.S. military the morale in the U.S. is extremely low that planes are falling out of the sky every day in this country

and at the front like for example in Iraq and Iran desertion is a huge problem that was a massive problem among the Ukrainians in fact there was talk of having another you know background line but they didn't have enough men for them um if you remember the memes i don't know if you call them memes or not the military man who put

a piece of paper in front of his face you know i didn't i didn't join the military to fight for israel you remember that i remember there was a bunch bunch of that um yeah whole bunch and that was the tip of the iceberg that's those are the guys who were willing to do that which is probably a tiny minority. Illigimate government's wars that should never be fought that don't make any sense except for them, you know, Israel are going to create that. Because people aren't machines. One of the reasons for the blatant loss of the defeat of the U.S. in Iran is this total lack of justification. Moral has been low in the U.S. military for a very, very, very long time, and desertion, AWOL

have been in Iraq later were critical levels for a while and you have the same problem in Iran today. It's a regular problem that doesn't get talked about in the papers very much but you can find information about it if you know where to look. But legitimate governments don't have to worry about any of that.

I talked about the Montenegrids. It's one of my favorite papers I've ever done. It was a three-part lecture I did on Radio Albion. A little tiny Montenegro, Orthodox people, fighting against the Turkish colonial army. And, you know, with a handful of men, they fought them off longer than anyone else. They're saints. The princes and even monastics talked about the glory of spilling Turkish blood. and Albanian blood too

and the wickedness of those who convert just to go along that would be very different someone who is living in on Tolstoy's farm that's worth about any of that stuff the Iranians today

the Montenegrins yesterday they're fighting for their homes they're fighting for their kids they're fighting for everything they have their opponents were aware especially in the American case, but that's not what they're doing. There's no good reason for this fight. How can you expect morale to be very high,

among all the 10 billion other problems that the military has? Which explains to some extent why the war has been lost. At least for a little bit in Afghanistan, you had 9-11, but I don't know how anyone putting that together for even a dim wind would be very difficult.

But that wore off very quickly. You know, and that's why morale was extremely low. And morale is very important. And yet legitimate governments, I think of something like, you know, Montenegro throughout most of his history, in fact. It's wars against the Turks throughout, middle ages onwards. No one denied that the prince bishop, they're usually one of the same, was legitimate, that they needed to defend their homes and therefore

even though there was a handful of them their destruction of almost whole Turkish armies was extremely impressive that's the difference here that's why Stalin had to have lines of men behind the infantry to shoot deserters to shoot those who retreated

that weren't really allowed to retreat and these these I forget their precise name in Russian they even had armor if that's what you know necessary. They had automatic way. It weren't just guys with bolt actions. Again, a legitimate government would never have to worry about them. We've got two paragraphs left, so we can finish out this chapter.

The danger of such isolation and the exclusive use of physical force is self-evident. By enthralling and hardening human souls, suppression begins to lose its true spiritual ground. It begins to be imperceptibly overvalued by those who suppress it, acquiring in their eyes the significance of the primary, self-sufficient, ordinary, and almost exclusive means of combating evil. It seems to transcend the general ladder of means and begins to be considered the most genuine and authentic struggle par excellence, damaging both the souls of those who fight, the souls of those who are being suppressed, and the souls of those present at the struggle. Great vision, wisdom, and will are required to put a timely end to the prevalence of this method of struggle, to find the right measure for the sword's effect, and to begin the effective healing of existing spiritual ruptures. Through the power of positive love, beginning with political amnesty and the conclusion of peace, and ending with national repentance and the discovery of a new justice.

That's a very easy way to explain this. Growing up, my mother yelled all the time. someone who yells all the time, you tune them out. It's just a Tuesday. It's no big deal. My father was very close to. Almost. Never raised his voice.

Almost. But when he did, the world was ending. And you would, you would, you know, still have nightmares about that. Just because, not just raising his voice. Oh, my God, what did I do? you know, compared to the mom, who yells constantly, you just tune her out. And my dad would raise his voice.

Very rarely, it would have an extraordinary effect on everyone around. That's what he's talking about here. You don't have to be a sentimental person to experience these periods of self-sufficient suppression. These eras of sword and blood with their ferocity, their suffering, the sacrificial self-sacrifice of the best of men, and the spiritual exhaustion and impoverishment of the survival. are a burden and a curse on the earthly life of humanity. But one must be both sentimental and foolish to curse the sword as such and reject any form of suppression out of disgust for these painful periods.

As long as evil dwells in the human soul, the sword will be necessary to suppress its external effects, a sword powerful in its inexorability and in its crushing blow. But the sword will never be creative, nor the final, nor the deepest manifestation of struggle. The sword, The sword serves external struggle, but in the name of the spirit, and therefore, as long as spirituality remains alive in man, the calling of the sword will be to ensure that his struggle is religiously meaningful and spiritually pure. After all that has been explained and said, it still remains to establish this calling of the sword. I think I may have brought this up before but my book on the

Latin American military governments Latin American military dictators so I published I think it was 2018, 2017 is essentially an expansion of this very concept the military does not want to take over a government

they have so much else to do they have enemies to deal with, they have their own problems. The last thing they want is a responsibility of running the government. Why do they do it? They do it because the oligarchs in power either would not or could not defend the country from the communist insurgency, from endless poverty, from hyperinflation, or usually all of them. And it was only after every other, you know, they waited and waited and waited and waited. finally they simply couldn't take it anymore, and they were forced to take over the state.

Regardless what you hear in academia, these were very popular men. The Greek quintetou was very popular, especially since they actually delivered the goods. It isn't so much that you have to create a positive plan. Just stop the communists from destroying it. it didn't take long for the military governments to damage the left enough so that normal life could take its place. It's not something that they want, and it's hard to convince people of that because they're stupid, especially in the academy.

But military, you know, I mean, Pinocet voluntarily stepped down, having saved his country. remember pinnose was asked by the legislature in chile to take over when something's out of control and there's no other way to deal with it usually it's because the oligarchs in in the kind of like a vimar republic the case all over Latin America with the violence from the left

and these military men were not oligarchs they usually were from the peasant classes they hated the oligarch General Parker mentioned in South Korea Same thing He was he was from a peasant family He had no love

For the wealthy He knew what the wealthy really were And that's exactly the kind of Mentality you want running a Running the government That's why generally speaking Generally speaking They at least for a time

Were successful But you can't do that forever You know Soldiers are aren't politicians. Soldiers aren't priests. You know, they're not, they're not the, they're not the substitute for a good father. You know, they're there to maintain, to bring the society to a period of tolerable order and then go away, which tended to happen. But unfortunately, bringing them to a tolerable order was extremely difficult in some places.

Oh, and the myth that the U.S. supported them, specifically supported them, more than any other government possible at the time is a myth. that never happened. I have all the CIA cables in my book, and they're very distrustful of these guys, because they tend to nationalize capital. Pinochet nationalized the copper industry in Chile. That is not exactly what they were expecting. So military governments were always very difficult to predict.

What the regime was always wanted was a weak republic, but not a republic. a weak republic that they can do pretty much whatever they want. They could buy off one faction of their legislature and just do whatever they please. Military government often is too strong

and two principles to do anything about, especially since they're not of the wealthy classes. And their unpredictability. Some of them like Velasco in Peru, my favorite of the mall, had an entire plan, ideology just to himself. And he was successful.

he actually created the land reform system. And who tried to stop it. Who was setting off bombs? The communists were. So this is, yeah, this is a great place to end. Still, regardless of that, it's still only a temporary, the mom who yells all the time isn't going to be effective. But she yells all the time.

It's just normal. You roll your eyes. No one rolled my eyes with my father yelled. Alrighty. This was definitely longer than normal. But it's good to get this chapter out of the way so we can start something new on the next one. Oh, yeah. Now we're seeing. I didn't even see it. I'm looking at my own PDF. I'm not even, oh, oh, my, okay. Hopefully our people have not blown up their brains. They don't have an aneurysm or something, but. All right. All right. So go on over to the show notes. Go on into the description. The video, donate to Dr. Johnson's work. Sign up. for his Patreon and show him some love, show him some support.

Please do. And we'll be back in a couple days with the new chapter. Thank you, Dr. Johnson. No, thank you, my friend. Talk to them.