The Pete Quiñones Show - Reading Ivan Ilyin's 'On Resistance to Evil by Force' w/ Dr. Matthew Raphael Johnson - Pt. 35

Episode Date: September 23, 2026

68 MinutesPG-13Dr. Matthew Raphael Johnson is a researcher, writer, and former professor of history and political science, specializing in Russian history and political ideology.Pete and Dr. Johnson continue a 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.

With election time approaching, political ads will be inserted into the episode along with other ads that, frankly, I'm not going to like and you aren't going to like. So please ignore them, skip by them, whatever you have to do. I don't endorse any of the ads that are inserted, but it is another way for me to generate income. So I appreciate you guys putting up with them. If you don't want to deal with them, go to the Picanuenae Show.com. can subscribe through Patreon. You can subscribe through Substack, which is my preferred one. Because with both of those, you get an RSS feed, only Patreon and only Substack give you an RSS feed. There's also a link to my website, Gumroad, and SubscribeStar, where you will get

the audio files that you can download and listen to or you can stream in most cases through those locations as well. So if you want to avoid the ads, consider supporting the show if not, just know none of these ads get any endorsement from me, skip by them, do what you need to do. I appreciate all of you. Head on over to P.cignonas show.com. You can get the show early and ad free over there. If not, here's a show. 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 you know i had a few things to say i've forgotten them all um i'm feeling fine thank god almighty and um i know i usually say something funny here but i want to repeat myself again that your listeners are extremely generous um with my medical

bills and despite having good insurance i do have medical bills regardless and they're um their trust in me is is is is extraordinary so um my uh the second you go second edition if people don't know of my murder of lord nicholas second is out we did a show on it a very good show on it i think um and i really want to thank you for helping me promote that no problem at all i mean we're doing this on september 19th saturday and that episode will have dropped on the 20th anybody who wants to look back and see because this probably won't come out until the 22nd or 23rd. So go back and check that episode out. It is well worth your time.

I am ready to go if you are picking up where we left off last time. Let's go. Oh, I know what I was going to say. I know what I was going to say. Are you worried about our psychological state when this all finally comes to an end? We're not doing this anymore. We're not doing this, you know, this connection, this reading and everything anymore? No, I think that if anything, this reading is helping my psychological state.

It's helping to solidify some of the end. So then when it's over, it may be a problem. Possibly. Then I think, you know, we should maybe look into a couple of Eileen's other writings, like do a one-off episode here and there. And then, you know, we can really go down a dark rabbit hole and maybe read some Dostoevsky or something. I was taking more like group therapy,

but I understand exactly what you mean. Dostoevsky's a stuff in diary of a writer is perfect. It's an endless list of things that I have specific knowledge in, and I'm just very, very pleased to be doing it. But it will come to an end. Everything comes to an end. And I just worry if there's going to be some void in my life and what to do about it.

Maybe I'll take up drinking again. No, I don't do that. We'll jump into something. All right. All right. In contrast, an unjust outcome can be achieved by a person because the very situation in which he has placed, the very objective conditions of his actions preclude a just outcome. In this case, the person himself is sufficiently strong in goodness to avoid committing sin. His will is sufficiently strong.

His consciousness does not. allow the unconscious to deceive him. His spiritual vision keenly and accurately distinguishes good from evil. His passions are ennobled and devoted to the good, and yet he is forced to accept and realize an unjust outcome. If a just outcome were objectively possible, he would subjectively find and realize it, but he must live and is called to act, confronted only with morally imperfect unjust outcomes. He is forced to commit unrighteousness. He is forced to commit unrighteousness, by the objective conditions given to him, and accepting this unrighteousness, he must simply find the lesser evil and realize it as necessary and obligatory. Such an act is a conscious, volitional

exercise and unrighteousness, but it is neither a fall nor a transgression nor a sin. We have to be careful. You know, I'm a ideologist. It's always been my thing. And, you know, I could never be a politician or a leader of a group, especially a group that actually has any kind of power. Because the minute, a group has power, a lot of things are going to happen. But one of those things is going to be sin. You have to deal with many different conditions. People talk about Varnaclus being absolute ruler. Well, it's not true. He has to get there's so many factions. You have to keep happy. Any military government in the world has to keep certain factions happy. You know, you can't just start shooting people, you know. So you might have a wonderful ideology on paper.

The minute it takes power, it gets very dirty. And it's precisely because you have to make these compromises. There's absolutely no choice. Anything else is true utopian. It is precisely in this position that a man finds himself, fighting against criminals and forced in this struggle to resort to force in the sword directly, in the form of a blow and a shot, or indirectly, in the form of some other position in the state. For since state affairs require strength, because each participant is forced by will and action to adopt a method of struggle that is not morally perfect, a man achieves an outcome that is unjust, imperfect, and unholy, but the least unjust of all possible outcomes. This is not a fall from perfection due to subjective weakness, but a deviation from perfection

due to objective necessity and a manifestation of subjective strength. A man does not do what is practically forbidden to him, but what constitutes his practical duty. He does not commit a sin but serves, and his service, unjust in its method of action, cannot be considered sinful or vicious. It's more of the same. even if the monarchy were to return in some form and one church or another would over there would do the anointing. There's still factions to deal with.

You have the army. You know, you have the business elite. You have foreign issues, foreign pressures, et cetera, et cetera. You know, even the Soviet dictators. had to deal with this sort of stuff. And you may have to water down things that someone like me, I could write it out and make it seem perfect. But power in power, I couldn't do those things.

You know, people, you know, it's, it would be, there's no way to do that. That kind of power is absolutely impossible to have. you always are going to go for the lesser of too evil the enemy of my enemy is my friend even if that you know person is is no friend of mine it is no sin to do that and this is very important to realize

you know what we do how we function so long as in the service of our ends and the proper ends a lot of not everything but a lot of what we do the concessions we have to make. We have no choice, and hence are not sinful. I'm going to read these next two paragraphs together because they go together and then they end,

and there'll be a new section there. Okay, okay. From this, it is already clear that everything morally perfect is practically obligatory for man, wherever a righteous outcome is objectively possible. But where this outcome is objectively inaccessible, an unrighteous outcome becomes obligatory. it is one that leads to the least unrighteousness. This means that the morally imperfect is not always practically forbidden, and that it is not forbidden precisely where a righteous outcome is objectively impossible. This also means that a morally imperfect act may not be a sin,

for sin is always a falling away toward a subjectively preferred evil, whereas unrighteousness may occur neither as a falling away, nor because evil proves stronger or more attractive. Thus, resistance to evil by force and sword is not a sin wherever it is objectively necessary or equivalently wherever it proves the only or least unjust outcome. To assert that such resistance is evil, sin, or a moral crime is to reveal a lack of moral experience or a helpless lack of clarity of thought, and yet this resistance manifests moral injustice. Yeah, it's a sign of immaturity to compare any system, any functioning system, with a moral ideal,

whether today or yesterday, it simply can't be done. Someone with experience realizes, you know, this whole section has really been about this. It's wonderful on paper. but in power there's a lot of things you have to do that you would rather not do you know we talked about some of these new before before we started recording these comedians and singers and things that are on our more or less on our side but they you know we may disagree with them on many issues that doesn't mean they can't do a lot of good it doesn't mean we can't help them

seeing someone like Ben, you know, okay, I don't like the anti-Arab stuff, but you know what, 80% of what he's saying is good and you want to support someone like him. But, you know, you can't apply this complete moral perfection on everybody. You could live your miserable life, if that's the case. So, at this point, it is necessary to achieve a completely clear vision. Resistance to evil itself always remains a good, righteous, and proper deed. The more difficult this resistance, the greater the dangers in suffering it entails, the greater the heroism and merit of the resistor. But what the resisting swordsman accomplishes in his

struggle against evil-doers is neither a perfect nor a holy nor a righteous series of actions. True, only the native crudeness of a straightforward moralist could say that this is evil and sin, for, in fact, it is a sinless act of injustice. However, an equally mistaken idea would be the absolute justification and sanctification of force and the sword, for in fact, it is a sinless act of injustice. Force and the sword cannot be absolutely prohibited, for resorting to them can be morally and religiously obligatory. However, one cannot elevate strength and sword to the heights of perfection and holiness,

for turning to them takes the soul out of the loving pleroma, Greek forfeiting. fullness and the places upon it and places upon it the burden of imperfect work. Then the danger, as we talked about in the beginning of this, it's a possibility of this this resistance, let's say military force, fighting communism in Vietnam or Korea, what that may do to you, the damage that might do to you. it's terribly, you know, it changes you no matter what. Even if you have a perfectly righteous battle, and I keep talking about the Montenegrin, because it's very obvious that we're being invaded. Even there, you know, it's going to change them. It's going to, they're going to be

hardened. They may see everything as a matter of violence, which of course is not. And I like this phrase, a sinless act of injustice. so long is it's and this is not you know ends and means kind of issue but sinless act of injustice we watch a uh a movie on tv any kind of real epic with a hero and and a bad guy we see two and and a half hours and yet this movie is about his own life there's a lot left down a lot of the really hard work about this crap he has to go through to get to that point get to that skill to that level of understanding. You can't.

You can't show them, you know, reading a book for two hours. Or practicing the sword for three hours. You can't. And yet, you know, and that's what leads people to want to have this kind of thing without doing the work. This was a separate issue that has been throughout this book, too. And then there's a type that if we were to win, the coward comes running up and says,

oh yes, I was with you all along, who of course was against the war from the beginning. Dostaski, speaking of Dostoevsky, has that type always in his novel. I think pursuing some of his more politically oriented writings would be a really great idea. There's a lot of problems here. you know we see only the highlight reel of somebody

not a huge amount of work that it takes to get to that highlight and in that process you're going to make compromises and you know I don't like it that's simply how it has to be done we live in a phenomenal world of evil it's imperfect and while it might be unjust in certain limited areas it is not sinful. One of the most naive and elementary attempts to give the sword an absolute justification belongs to Martin Luther. Having established on the basis of the Apostolic Scriptures, Romans 131 and 1 Peter 2, 13 through 15,

that secular power is instituted by God, Luther points out that the sword, quote, protects godly women and children, houses in courtyards, goods and honor, and thereby maintains and protects peace and prevents far greater calamities, end quote. From this he concludes that the very work of the sword is, quote, a work of love, end quote, a work of, quote, excellent and divine, end quote, a work excellent and divine, end quote. Moreover, he asserts that the very hand that wield such a sword and kills, unless it commits clear abuses, quote, is no longer a human hand but God's hand and it is not a man but God who hangs, cuts down, beheads, kills, and makes war.

All this was done by his judgments, end quote. A person must be firmly convinced to this. Then he will have an, quote, then he will have an, quote, undoubting, confident, and well-established conscience, end quote. And this will add courage and vigor to him in battle. I was a little surprised to see him citing Martin Luther in a more or less positive way because there are many issues with him on this very issue that the state is always right no matter what it is, matter what it does,

our sins have earned an evil state, therefore we can't do anything about it And resistance would be raising our hand to God himself, which is, of course, a lie. This came up with the Judaizer. I'm doing a two-part series on Radio Albuyan on that now. The second half I'm going to do tonight, I think. And this debate came up there. you know, the state functions as a

hand of God only if it follows God's law, natural law. Otherwise, it's not a state, it's just a gang that is taken over. I mean, if a biker gang takes over for a town and starts, you know, slash with, is that from God too?

I mean, I suppose the most you know, extreme determinists would say that among the Protestants. But it's a matter of natural law. And that's what he's hinting at in the first few sentences here. It is not man doing the killing, doing the disemboweling, but God himself.

And how the hell can you be a pacifist or just believe with our Old Testament? Entire groups of people were slaughtered by Moses and their cattle. and the, I guess, bugs, anything that existed there, that's how evil they had become, and that evil penetrated into, couldn't be allowed to exist. Not all lives are equal, clearly. And Christ, you know, he only has a few words on these issues. For us, of course, it's the great,

you'll go buy a sword if you don't have one. and then the whipping of the money changers. Of course, we really love that one. We really love that one. Yeah, they have power, but it's not a godly power. Therefore, he should drive them out. And you're going to find this a lot, you know, using Romans to justify the state, no matter what it does.

the problem is the problem is at the minute it diverts from natural law it's not a government anymore it's just a gang of people who joke over big difference government you know state in the sense that we're using the term here

is something that is legitimate there is legitimacy it does matter and natural law of course and then God's law is the central issue we talked about the Russian bishops who were forced to sign this saying that the Soviet government was God-given using that very same argument, you know, Romans 13, etc.

And, you know, if you want, try to read that church defending, you know, Stalin being the great lover of orthodoxy instituted by God to recreate Russian truth, etc. It's absolutely disgusting. Especially when he died in 153.

That's what it turns these people into. They're not just compromising. Okay, we understand that. But it's penetrated them now. Now they really start believing it. And they say stupid things like that. There are icons of Stalin out there. I've seen them.

They're not obviously accepted, but someone had to have done them. You know, that this is a man who saved us from the godless German fascist and saved orthodox civilization. Can you imagine actually saying that and believing it? Well, the church did at the time. You know, this isn't just a matter of compromise. We all have to compromise. We all have to do it.

You have to tell white lies quite often to get by. No, this is when you become one with the white line and you start living in. The primitive simplicity and straightforwardness of this reasoning, inspired by Jewish thought as well as the Old Testament, is striking. Driven by the practical need to strengthen the works of the state and appease the conscience of a warrior, Luther completely removes the line separating the earthly struggle against evil-due. from the kingdom of God, the line separating legal consciousness from conscience, the expedient from the perfect, human heroism from the all good and infinite. Yeah, so, okay, I'm glad I had forgotten this, I don't read ahead.

When I know a show is coming up, I don't read ahead. I like the spontaneity of it. That's an expert, I shouldn't have to. But he's pretty much, you know, he's not supporting Luther. but in certain areas. Again, it's part of the same issue. We could use his arguments. We're allowed to use his arguments in certain areas.

Certain areas. The struggle against evil creates very weird alliances. You've experienced that in our own life. Yes, these people are not one of us fully, but they're useful. So the separation of legal consciousness from conscience, that's brutal. You know, what he's talking about is natural law versus our own, versus the state law, and separating those two. And that's what the absolute view of the Lutherans, especially back then,

that leads to this idea that the state is legitimate no matter what it does and if it's doing something evil it's your fault because you helped bring it to power

that you deserve it you've done things you get the government you deserve whether it be you know elected or other one I mean there's an argument for but it doesn't mean it's a government just a group of a gang

that's taken over that's simple The work of the human sword, with all its attributes and manifestations, is declared not the service of a limited man, but the act of the Almighty God, but since the work of God himself cannot fail to be perfect, murder breaking on the wheel and hanging are declared to be perfect deeds, excellent and divine. At the same time, Luther does not stipulate the distinction between the fullness of positive love and the imperfection of negative love. He also fails to notice that in the epistles the work of the sword, secular obedience is established not in the sense of their divine perfection, but in the order of the earthly necessity of fighting evil and silencing the ignorance of foolish men.

Verse Peter 2.15. And as a result of his reasoning, that conscience, which he calls weak, stupid, and doubting, and which he strives to calm, either remains with its practically disempowering insights or is led astray, but he is unable to help it. A more subtle attempt to provide an absolute justification not only for the sword but for any unrighteousness can be found among some Jesuits. Apparently, like Luther, relying on the Old Testament concept of God, according to which God has conceived as the perfection of power, not the perfection of love and goodness, the Jesuits allow for the possibility that God may

entrust or permit a person to commit evil deeds. Thus, the Jesuit, Henry Boussenbaum, 1688, having established a prohibition of deliberate and conscious murder makes an exception for the case when its commission is permitted by God, the Lord of All Life. We're going to see his point of view of course is very nuanced on these issues. There are still plenty of people. They came out after January 6th saying, you know, The government is God-given. No matter what it does, no matter what it is, there is no changing it, whether it was the royal or any other kind of a way. You know, and he tries to, you know, the old Russian point of view was that the Jesuits didn't care about means so long as it got to the end.

Pure Machiavellianism, which, of course, we know isn't true. And, you know, as in the next paragraph, we'll see someone who actually believes that, allegedly. The Jesuit, Pierre Alagona, died 1624, articulates this even more clearly. Quote, by God's command, one may kill the innocent steel, commit adultery, for he is the Lord of life and death, and of everything, and therefore his command must be fulfilled. End quote. With such an interpretation, it turns out that God himself does. not directly commit the unrighteous deed, but only entrust it to man, and man, the direct perpetrator of the evil deed, not only bears no responsibility for it, for he obeys the voice of God,

but even displays the highest religious humility and submission. The seductiveness of this teaching is obvious. He who professes it three times wrong, first, in that he admits the possibility of receiving from God a compulsion to unrighteousness and sin, perceiving his absolute power and not perceiving his spiritual perfection. Second, in that he cowardly flees from the burden of human earthly necessity from the burden of decision and responsibility. Third, he is wrong in that, under the guise of humility and submission, he is giving himself free and unquestioned access to sin. I don't know if these writers actually believe that. it was very common theory

he has one quote here I don't know that much about the history of the Jesuit order but I do have an issue here when Luther says I'm sorry Luther when Elyn says the Old Testament concept of God is different

from the new Luther relies in the Old Testament of God which God has conceived as perfection of power that's the perfection of love and goodness. What we've been reading, it's the same thing. You know, it's not power necessarily, it's authority. I make a big deal out of the use of those two words.

The Russian language really doesn't so much. Power and authority are very different things. Powers as anybody. A mugger has power over you, anybody. But authority is someone who has a right to use coercion against you. And I think, of course, there's no change here. There are very specific changes that Christ made to the Old Testament. The sacrifice is the obvious one.

Multiple wives is another one. You know, he talks about that all the time. And otherwise, it's still in force. You know, so much of the old ritual have gone, you know, You don't have to do that. You don't have to kill ducks or whatever they did. And remember, he's writing in Germany. So the Lutheran issue is hanging over.

So, you know, maybe it's false. Maybe it's true. I simply don't know. Killing the innocent. Well, how do you know they're innocent? And how would fighting evil require you to commit adultery? you know it doesn't make any sense but

but I understand what he's what he's thinking where he's going and I'm always been a great protector of the Old Testament the Church Orthodox Church is a protector of the Old Testament it is the only because the Jews don't

the Jews have completely rejected the Old Testament they have their Talmud and God knows how many other writings Jews in the town would condemn the Old Testament, especially the Prophet, because they rejected Israel. It's really all they did. The Old Testament, for the most part, is this commission being given to Israel, and Israel failing. And they're told that they're failing through prophets.

Jeremiah wanted Israel to be destroyed by the Babylonian. that's why he was thrown into a sewer because there was nothing left for him to, nothing less of Israel to defend anymore. He had given up. Obviously, he's right to do so. The old

tradition that God had given to Moses had disappeared. You know, that's why, you know, we talk about that with the U.S. all the time. You know, I stand with Iran. Most of my friends do. stand with Iran. I probably wouldn't be doing that, you know, 200 years ago.

But today, given the corruption and evil that we see, that we know exists, we're going to stand with enemies who, especially in the case of Iran, who are better run, better governed, then, you know, there's this religious power that proves that proves, that you could be anti-modern in your theology and still create a very powerful scientific establishment, economic powerhouse. It is.

I saw on YouTube some guy compared the war with Iran to the Jetsons versus a Flintstone and that the level of ignorance there is absurd. Iran was simply better Iran under the Mullahs than the U.S. is today, obviously, on almost all area. And that's exactly what Jeremiah did. He said there is nothing left here in Israel. And he wanted the Babylonians to take over, which then eventually led to their captivity,

and then their return under Ezra and Nehemiah. So, you know, it's, when you talk about, you know, you're fighting your own government in a sense. No one wants to do that. No one wants to talk that way. You know. And, but sometimes we have to. We have no choice. I don't like doing that.

I mean, during the Cold War, it was a different story, maybe. Marxism was, I'm sorry, the Bolsheviks were the main issue. But now, he's not. enemies of the U.S. are religious or secular nationalists of one kind or another. I don't accept the Iranian theology, of course, but by comparison, they win, and they have won. And this has a lot to do with what he's talking about here. But again, I don't know if these judges, which actually, you know, he has one line for H-1 that's something that the Lutherans would love to hear.

Maybe it's for them. I don't know. But, you know, the belief that the state is God-given, no, what it does, is absurd and can't be maintained. It should be kept in mind that the ecclesiastical authorities, which allowed the Jesuits to express such a views, will likely want to assume the authoritative establishment and formulation of those commands which are unjust and sinful in content and which supposedly

come from God. However, the temptation will not only not subside, but will assume even more formidable proportions encroaching on ecclesiastical authority and spreading throughout the entire church. When a person resorts to force, sword or cunning in their strength against evildoers, they have neither the right nor the authority to abdicate the burden of decision and responsibility and shift it to God. For these means of struggle are not divine, but human. They are necessary precisely because of human imperfection, and they must be applied with

this awareness. A person engaged in struggle against evildoers must see himself, discern, and evaluate all the conditions of the struggle, understanding them with their mind and making decisions with their will. They must understand that they are forced to resort to these means precisely because they themselves are not God, but only a limited but devoted servant of God, and therefore must perform this necessary action according to their own utmost human understanding and discretion. Then they will see that these unjust means are not simply permitted for them, nor are they sanctified,

but obligatory in all their unrighteousness. You know, when I was going through this, when I put it together and I was translating it, I thought of how Americans see 9-11. You could give all the evidence in the universe that 9-11 was done by the Jews. It is impossible that the towers came down because of jets. That's not really the point. They can't deal with the fact that their government has been a part of this.

Whether you think it was an inside job or an Israeli job, their whole world will fall apart. The minute you talk, you know, you talk like that, everything that they ever believed and known falls to pieces. I've been there, you know, many, many, many years ago. They're not willing to do it. You know, I've won debate after debate on this. I've always have the Facebook account.

It doesn't change anyone's opinion. Now, if they ask me for proof of this, I say, okay, If I give you proof, if I give you, you know, my paper on it, will you change your mind? You know, and of course, then we get into another fight. They're not going to change their mind. You know, the problem is there are days, there are times, periods, epics, when the best men of society have to fight against their own. And it's so easy to be a determinist, as Ilin says about Luther.

And to just say, oh, well, you know, until so I was the same way. You know, I don't have to do anything. A Christian man would never, would not intervene because it's violent and that isn't that convenient. That I don't have to worry about it now. That's a great thing. But if we take our responsibility seriously, it's a, it can be a very difficult life. The entire fundamental problem of our research would be distorted if anyone were to try to reduce to the question of the permissibility, or, even worse, the excusability of coercion and suppression.

Resistance to evil by force and sword is permissible not when it is possible, but when it is necessary. But if it is truly necessary, the man has not the right, but the duty to resist. The duty to do something also includes the right to do it. However, he who has the right to attack an enemy also has the right not to attack an enemy, but to forgive or refrain or simply not want to use such a right. Moreover, the generosity of love sometimes directly suggests that sometimes it is better not to use such a right. On the contrary, duty excludes the right of not performing an action. He was obligated through duty, has lost his will, and is thus left with one path leading him to righteousness,

and this path cannot be extinguished by the generosity and compliance of love. permission unbinds the soul while duty binds it. And this is pretty much what I just said. If you truly are going to fight evil, you're going to do it by force. And force could be intellectual. It could be through, you know, a guerrilla attack. It could be anything like that.

I have the intellectual path. We both do. you know, evil is evil, no matter who's doing it. One of the worst, most obnoxious kinds of informal fallacies is special pleading. Special pleading is when an otherwise intelligent person is defending a group of people, even though the evidence is overwhelming that they've done something wrong. and they have to come up with just anything anything to rationalize it and i see it everywhere we see it with with israel uh on a regular basis you know some even with the u.s government

us government is our home we're patriots you know special pleading is very obnoxious um how can god's people possibly be wrong in their war on on palestine or anywhere else and matter what evidence you give them, you know, they're a very difficult group of people to talk to in the first way. It's not as difficult as Ukrainian. It can be. I mean, you know, I came into this through the Ukrainians. They're so hot-tempered and difficult, you know. I wrote my book Ukrainian nationalism partially in dealing with this.

and the fact that my work has not been anti-Ukrainian, but that Ukraine in and of itself can't be an independent country. It has to be, it is going to be dependent on other powers. You know, but what he's talking about here is just simple rationalization. And special pleading is a big part of it. Special pleading makes it sound like an idiot. It's like the parent that says, oh, my kid would never do anything like. That's special pleading.

And then when they show the evidence, they double down. They say it again. Oh, it's my kid. He couldn't possibly have done it. I don't care what you have on video. And that makes otherwise intelligent people sound like idiots. This difference becomes clearer when permission acquires a shade of excusability or forgivability. For he who fulfills his duty does not need an apology.

One must not forgive him, but imitate him. And vice versa. If any outcome is forgivable and in this sense permitted, this means the opposite outcome is not obligatory. That which is forgivable is, strictly speaking, something improper, inappropriate, perhaps even downright forbidden, and no matter how great this forgivability may be, it will never impart to the soul the rightness of a duty fulfilled. This is why the obligatory nature of force and the sword is the criterion of their permissibility.

Any attempt to close one's eyes to the necessity of unjust means in the fight against evil or to the unjust nature of this duty is a manifestation of cowardice. For in reality, the path of force and the sword is defined precisely as both obligatory and unjust. Many times do I say, I don't like talking like this, but I have to. Let's say on the race issue, for example. As individuals, black folk are, I. treated me very well. We're not talking about individuals.

We're talking about social groups. Therefore, I don't like talking like this. But yes, you know, there's damage that you've done in this country is extraordinary. And I'm saying it. I may even be saying it to a friend of mine. You know, and this is why people like Pastor Manning are so, to refreshing. Because again, we're talking about the fight against evil, not the fight against the enemies of Israel or the enemies of the U.S. or the enemies of Russia, for that matter. Putin is

anything but perfect. And there's a care that has to be taken on my part and many others. No special pleading there. I've been very critical of Putin on stuff, World War II stuff and all that. I'm very, very aware of that. So special pleading has been the big issue here. And they're also, it's very convenient because then you don't have to do anything. You don't have to fight against your own government then. You could just simply say, everything's fine, doing the right thing, you know, going to the troop. Thank you for your service, to the troops, and that's it. To turn a blind eye to its unrighteousness, people often resort to to the well-known argument that a righteous end justifies bad means. Yet this is an act of moral

cowardice and the seductive argument is entirely untenable. For, in reality, the moral value of a means is not determined by the moral value of the end, nor does it depend upon it. To determine the moral value of a means, one must not compare it with the end for which it is employed. An end which is not in itself, a criterion of goodness. Comparison with the end may reveal the practical expediency of the means, but certainly not its moral rectitude. Clearly, a practically expedient means may prove to be immoral and vice versa. Likewise, a morally perfect means may be inexpedient and vice versa. Yeah, I can't imagine morally perfect means of waging war on your enemies.

And he's right, you can't ever have a hard and fast rule. And Mackey Valley never said this, by the way. at the ends justify the means. Because, as he says, the ends have no intellectual connection with the means. That's something we have to come up with. The means are going to be judged on a different criterion entirely. However, we've been talking about the idea that immoral means, what would we say, sinless injustice, is going to have to happen. It's dirty.

warfare is dirty fighting is dirty you're going to have to lie you're going to have to you know you're going to have to um you know if people say talk about innocent people

you have no idea if they're innocent or not you have no idea who these people even are so um it's just you know it depends on on circumstances but ultimate end of course

is a destruction of evil I have a small book out that I put on Patreon, the whole thing. Against the leftist condemnations of the Boto League massacre in Korea during the Korean War and the so-called Mailei massacre in Vietnam. And they keep making reference to innocent people. Well, there is absolutely very good reason to think that they are not innocent. We're not entirely sure. But that's the problem.

You know, when you have a situation, say, in Vietnam, where women, when I say child, children, but like 12, I don't mean like babies, are actual, occasionally actual combatants, believing that one is out to get you and you shoot them. That's what happened in the Miline massacre. She had a grenade. Well, yeah, they've had grenades in many other circumstances. The laws of war don't apply. to people fighting like that. Those are very dirty means. Those are impermissible means.

Laws of war say that in order to be protected by the laws of war, you have to have a uniform. You have to have your weapons has to be shown openly. And there has to be a chain of command that you're working under. Otherwise, we have nothing to say to you. And if true innocent people are killed, that's not on the Marines. That's on the communists who have been using those ends for a means for a very long time. How much could they take?

We don't know what's going to happen. We're sick of losing guys because we think this 15-year-old is innocent. These old ladies who would carry out bowls of fruit with a grenade underneath. What does that do to a man? As it turns out, of course, the left with us trying to find anything to condemn the U.S. and Vietnam. They had to find something, and it's laughable because the North Vietnamese, what they did to South Vietnam is unspeakable. But the North Vietnam is unspeakable. So this is where it becomes very, very difficult.

And that's why I wrote it, I wrote a book, a short book, like maybe 120 pages. on my life massacre because these people are not covered by the rules of war. Therefore, any crime you may commit against them is on the enemy, not on you. Moral righteousness of both end and means is determined by comparing each of them separately against the fullness of goodness, that is, against the idea of moral perfection as a singular supreme criterion. This comparison must be performed twice, once for the end and once for the means, yielding two conclusions, which may well be diametrically opposed. There is no other way to establish the moral character of a means. The means in the end are linked not by a bond of moral necessity,

but by a connection that is, firstly, motivational, and secondly, genetic. Thus, within the inner experience of the human soul, as desire is directed toward an end and imagination seeks a suitable means, the will to achieve the end evokes and motivates the will to employ the means and carry it out. And this occurs because the individual perceives a causal link between them, a link that, in its essence, is independent of their moral value. Secondly, in the process of implementation, the means becomes the cause and the end, the consequence. This genetic connection is entirely independent of the moral value of, either element. The suitability of a means depends on whether it constitutes a necessary and sufficient

cause for the end. The question of the moral rightness of the means is not thereby predetermined, but rather requires a distinct form of consideration, one that is not a matter of practical choice, but of theoretical evaluation. And when you're talking about warfare, especially warfare like, say you had in Vietnam, or say a white policeman in an all-black area in say Chicago or, you know, Harlem. You have to keep in mind not only the moral issues in a formal sense, but the fact that, you know, these guys have seen people,

their friends killed, these guys have, you know, they know where all the criminals are. They're not allowed to do anything about it. David Dinkins, I remember when he, I don't forget, you were living in New York then, And David Dinkin's police union said, we need updated weapons. Our weapons we have are old. And he said no.

Well, you know, their enemies certainly have updated weapons. A gang certainly don't. But to think that these are just automaton's, and again, my lie massacre, they had seen many of their men killed by these ununiformed, you know, gorillas. And, you know, they don't sleep. they're in they're in yeah they don't know what's going on at home and it's just it's it's it's it's terrifying you think that they're they're going to not not do this they don't know who's innocent and who isn't people assume that they were innocent people who don't like the u.s. assume and you know the

South Koreans said the same thing we don't know who's innocent here that's why we've won every battle we ever had um we're not slaughtering people but we also realize that the same thing in El Salvador. We don't know who's innocent. Sometimes innocent people are going to be caught up in this. Well, the courts will take care of that. So I think a lot of this is self-exponatory, but it is a struggle. It goes on the individual level, as well as the level of the state to figure out.

and it's not something that I would ever envy. I'm going to read this small paragraph, and then I'll let you take over. You can explain your note here on the footnote. Ah. Okay. This is why the moral worth of the end cannot be transferred to the means, just as a morally worthy means can serve a vile end.

It's good to help the poor, but not in order to buy their vote in an election, or, to take another example, someone who betrays a friend for money commits a base act even if he wants to save his wife and children from starvation. A good end does not justify or sanctify an unjust means. Okay, let me just read this footnote here. I think there's only two that we've done so far. And if I leave it in, I'm basically saying it should be a part of the text and not a footnote at all.

and we're talking about the same issues with the Jesuits and all that. The doctrine that a good end justifies or sanctifies bad means has been frequently attributed to the Jesuits in recent centuries. Those who attribute it generally overlooked the fact the Jesuits speak in their treatises, not of righteousness or holiness, only of innocence and permissibility. Instead, to the sake of a good end, they often permit various bad means as innocuous.

However, as I've already pointed out, what is permitted is not thereby righteous, what is innocuous is not thereby wholly. The Jesuits' position in this debate would be much more difficult if their opponents spoke not of justifying bad means but permitting them. Along with this, it is not difficult to find among the Jesuits a doctrine. This learned Jesuit formulates in the following view. for the end gives deeds their specific value and depending on the good or bad end deeds are made good or bad now the example here that he gives

betraying a friend to save your family from starvation that would be very difficult to not do it would be very difficult to avoid so we wouldn't be much of a friend if you can help you and you can't you know no one's really starving in the U.S.

Starvation only is done by the upper middle class trying to lose weight but again he makes the point that whether or not you accept the relationship between means and ends comes down to whether you accept that the end gives their

specific deeds gives deeds their specific value. And that may depend on the end itself. And when it comes down to survival, survival of your nation, of your people, it's really hard to argue with them. We all know the Samson doctrine in Israel. Once Israel's, they're back against the wall, they're going to send their nuclear weapons up and back down again.

I don't think they'd ever actually do it, but this mass suicide idea. But again, the Montenegrans, they knew what the muzzles would do to them. They've been fighting all this time. They're going to take their revenge on them. And they always did. So bad means that's almost, you know, it's really hard to condemn them. Like, for example, saving his wife and children from starvation, therefore we betray a friend for money. We steal.

why is a friend giving you the money in the first place? It doesn't justify and sanctifying on just means, but something that severe, your wife and child's starvation, well, if we were in that position, what would we do? What would you do? All right, we got two paragraphs left. I was actually asking you, but that was rhetorical.

What would I do? I mean, I would do what it would take to survive. Yeah. And that's what he's talking about here, or so it seems. Yeah. Sorry, I thought it was rhetorical. I thought that was rhetorical flourish at the end there. Yeah.

Okay, we'll finish up. All right. Thus, the fallacy of both extreme solutions is revealed. The first, which betrays the fundamental goal of the struggle in order to avoid unjust means, that of non-resistance. And the second, which turns away from the contemplation of perfection, in order to freely and confidently use unjust means. The first outcome creates the illusion of righteousness, ensures the easy triumph of evil,

and disillusions manned with the vitality of righteousness and goodness. As a result, the view develops and strengthens that righteousness is not viable and that virtue is intended for foolish people. The second outcome creates the illusion of expediency and the illusion of the victory of good, imperceptibly tearing the fighter away from his primary and ultimate goal and corrupting his soul with the idea of permissiveness. As a result, evil means begins to serve evil ends, and the view arises that, quote, only the sinful is viable and that for an intelligent person, even sin is not terrible, end quote. It is clear that both of those outcomes ultimately lead to the same thing. Public demoralization.

This is what happens when, let's say, soldiers or policemen have simply had enough, you know, seeing someone starve to death atatomically is this got to be inconceivably hard. There is no, there is nothing that you, a normal person wouldn't do. Natural law would tell you to steal from this person. I can't get over this. He's mentioning this. So he's talking about two extremes. The one extreme, of course, is Tolstoy. We've been through that too many times. The other extreme is someone who has been so badly affected by the war that he does whatever.

He hates these people and therefore does whatever it takes to destroy them. And including hurting his own people. You know, I think depending on the circumstances, how severe. the battle is. Remember, you know, America's wars are imperial. They're not, Americans are defending their homes. Iranians are defending their homes. Very different story, very different circumstances. And warfare, no matter how just or unjust, leads to public demoralization. There's always these people. I mean, who rises to the top? In a civil war, people who rise to the top are the most vicious. And even more disconcerting, the most, the most,

intelligent or at least the most deviant and most devious the most vicious uh and that that seems to win now if you read plato's um um um republic he actually deals with this people think righteousness is not viable virtue is only for idiots you know um and you're talking about self-sacrifice here that I'm willing to suffer. I am willing to suffer to help someone who might be a scam artist. Because I don't know, maybe someday I'm going to come across someone who's not a scam artist.

What am I supposed to do? It might be a little bit, you know, naivete. But those are the two extremes. And again, this extreme, the second extreme is the one who has been so badly affected by the fight that he's not thinking straight anymore. And again, but that can't be avoided much of the time.

And such people have to, but they could be useful. It can be very useful, but they have to be put on a leash. And those are too extreme. Staying in the middle, staying in the path of virtue there, that's something that would take an extraordinary, extraordinary, heroic man to do. You know, Thomas talks about Milai all the time, and he says that, you know, Stars and Stripes celebrated it two days later because basically the victory metric in Vietnam was body count. Sure. And they were considered enemies.

And like you said, you don't know who has a grenade under a bowl of rice. So, yeah, a lot of those guys, they're. basically doing what they were doing what they were sent there to do. And if body count is your victory metric, well, you're going to get a situation like we had in Vietnam. Right. Right. And you're fighting an enemy that doesn't have standards this way.

They will slaughter their opponents, including their own people that don't go along, without the slightest concern, which unfortunately gives them an advantage. All right. Well, I look forward to your future translations because we're at the end of this one. And it should be fun. Well, yeah, it will be fun. I got a lot to do, but I'll at least get a couple paragraphs done. Yeah, yeah.

If we're going to record in a couple of days and then we won't be able to record for a little while there because both taking a little bit of time off, then, yeah, you just record as much as we need to record. I mean, it translates just as much as we need to record. Right. That's probably what I'm going to do. And again, that's always say it's a labor of love. And it's the generosity of your and my listener, reader, that make this even possible in the first place. Awesome, awesome.

All right. Like Dr. Johnson said, generosity. patronage two great words go over to the show notes and go over to the descriptions on the video donate to dr johnson's work and um yeah show him how much you appreciate everything that he's doing here this is uh i don't think people i don't think people are going to realize how much this takes this takes out of us until um i don't know until they really get uh i think if it's sinking in for them They'll know, they'll probably be affected the way reading this and, you know, affects. This isn't the easiest material, not the most difficult material, but it takes a huge amount

of work, an effort to translate, and then to describe to somebody. And, God, after this is over, I'm exhausted. How did I do, when I was a professor, I did, I did three hours, a couple of semesters. Every Wednesday. I don't know how I did it. You took breaks. Every time, yeah, an hour, 10 minutes every hour. Yep.

All right, man. Talk to you in a couple days. Thank you. Okay, my friend. Bye-bye.