The Pete Quiñones Show - Reading Ivan Ilyin's 'On Resistance to Evil by Force' w/ Dr. Matthew Raphael Johnson - Pt. 36

Episode Date: September 26, 2026

51 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 Picanuena 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 Pekignone's 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 Aline, Dr. Johnson. How are you doing today? I want to make a declaration. the man who wrote the love lyric you fool around with all those other guys

and that's why I got my cackies pressed is one of the most profound and deep of course it was Frank Zappa blows away everyone else in the romance genre he realized it was because his cockies were not pressed that she fooled around with all those other guys so he took care of that problem

and I can only assume this is from their first album, 1966 she behaved yourself I'm not 100% sure but I can only assume that but oh he got a carbure upholstered too

I mean how could you possibly not like me the song is go cry in someone else's shoulder and I absolutely love it and we repeat it You fooled around with all those other guys. And that's why. I got my cockies pressed. I mean, that's it.

It summarizes everything we deal with as teenagers when we were teenagers as young adults in the romance arena. And so long as you have a good pressed set of khakis, you're fine. How are you doing? I mean, my khakis are at the dry cleaner, so probably not that good. No, he's specifically, I can't speak today. He says, pressed. You know, someone has to go over it with an iron. So, and that will stop the girl from fooling around with those other guys.

Very, very, very. No mention of starch. No Okay Not explicitly, no Okay It's not good to starts your pants I mean I don't starch my shirt

So but yeah It's not good to start your pants Frank Zappa Um Understood our Um Um Romantic uh struggles very very well

And that proves it That proves it right there Going way back Before we were even born Wild All righty Chapter 21 on spiritual compromise

And I think we should start off by saying Don't compromise when it comes to your khakis Definitely not They keep them pressed But I also have to tell you something else This was This translation Is on the rough side

So please forgive me But yes again You have pressed cockies you'll be fine. Chapter 21 on Spursal Compromise. The question of resisting evil, whether to resist it and how, is not a question of mood or arbitrariness or taste or even temperament, but a question of character and religiosity. It is a question of a religious nature. It is a question of the fundamental religious force, love, and moreover, world accepting love. It makes sense for someone who rejects the world, who does not recognize its value, who does not see the divine powers and

purposes inherent in it, and who does not accept them with his own will? The external manifestations of evil, which must be fought, are part of the very fabric of the rejected world, and if there is nothing in the world worth defending from villainous attack, if it deserves only to be rejected, turned away, and departed, then the very problem of force and sword inevitably disappears and fades away. You know, it seems, it seems that the claim is, and funny how he mentions, you know, fabric, well, Kaki's really a color, I don't know,

that it's of a religious nature. What does that mean? That means it's connected to natural law. It has to be amenable to reason. It's like it can be, no such thing as blind faith in the world. The other option is simply you obey power because they have power. Now, I know he doesn't believe that entirely. But that's the presumption behind this first paragraph.

You know, that's all you have left without God is power. And if you're reading Nietzsche and you're thinking that you're doing great, you know, when you're trying to sound intellectual and everything, else. When an actual Superman stomps on you, you have no place to reject it. You have no

place to stand to complain. This is the view that you accept it. You know, now I know it's not quite as starch as stock as all this, but there's more nuance

to it, but that seems to be the entire conception of this first paragraph. And it makes sense when we're talking about things like compromise. The problem of the sword is a practical problem, and its resolution depends on a practical worldview so that he who rejects the world also rejects a sword, but not vice versa. However, he rejects the world not only in words,

truly has no reason to leave his personality within its composition. For as long as a person agrees to live in this world, he thereby accepts it by the very fact of his use of it, the enjoyment of its benefits, and its possibilities. No solitude, no hermitage, no reduction of needs expresses a consistent rejection of the world. On the contrary, all this remains a special kind of worldview, one that makes a rigorous choice for the sake of attaining a new vision. In short, every person who has not killed himself accepts the world, and to that extent the problem of the sword has meaning and significance for him.

Remember, the sword is not just, don't take them too literally here. This is all elements of authority. Power only is worthwhile unless it has authority behind it. Authority meaning the right to rule, the knowledge, the abilities, the experience to rule.

the true aristocracy or the great monarchy in the past but rejecting the world I guess would be suicidal in his case that reminds me of John Locke's a view of consent if you drive on the roads you accept the system in his second treatise in government

I think that might be a little bit too extreme here but saying nothing short of suicide means you accept the world that's that's too much that's very extreme I don't know if he's being he wasn't known for a sense of humor a big shock that might be

but you know it's unfair to say that because you know we we're forced to to live here that we accepted the word

the term world means a lot of thing the way Christ used it most of the time was negative world meaning worldly power power power often without authority or inventing your own authority the world was normally a bad thing

in his conception of it he was taken up to the mountain and Satan showed to him all the kingdoms of the world well it implies of course Satan's a liar but it implies

that he has authority over these over these kingdoms these kingdoms have come into existence because of him and are maintained because of him again he's a liar but this conception of, you know, we reject the world. Of course we do. It's not our fault that we were born

in the early 70s or whatever it was. And, you know, we said it before. It's like everyone who says, well, you know, you're an anti-modernist and you use the internet. Well, that's pretty stupid. You know, I can't help the year I was born. This is the only way of communication I, you know, is normal for me. and plus I didn't come to this conclusion until 25, 30 years ago you know, I have to use it. It's not my fault that I was born in such a way. I was almost brainwashed into accepting this kind of thing.

Yes, I broke out of it, but it's a very unfair statement. I think he's going, he's also unfair here. But he uses the word, the term world in the most negative sense possible. For a Christian. The question of a worldview is resolved by following Christ. A Christian is called to follow in his footsteps,

to accept the world as he did, and not accept the evil in the world, as he also did, to perceive evil, to experience it, to see it, but not to accept it, rather to wage a life and death's struggle against evil. It is precisely in this following of Christ that true Christians have always accepted the burden of the world and the torment of the world, and along with it, the torment of evil and the burden of struggle,

against it both in themselves and in others. By accepting this torment and struggle, they prepared themselves for the completion of their way of the cross to accept death in battle at the hands of the evil they rejected. Most of the eastern icons, I'm not sure about the West, but most sure about the eastern icons about monasticism are essentially the monk on the cross. That this is an intense struggle.

It is painful. in the same sense that a soldier going through or a Marine going through Parris Island is in pain and that's a very very common idea and we would have mentioned him I mentioned the difference between soldiers and monks here in a little bit this is why I'm thinking about it

two very different kinds of struggle but yes you can reject the world and still use some of its accoutrements like what we're doing right now. I'm still stuck on that. And it's very, you know, it's a, it's a very extreme conclusion on his part.

To worthily embrace the world, one must clearly see God's work on earth and creatively embrace it as one's own with all one's strength. Will and activity. Sorry, say that again. To worthily embrace the world, one must clearly see God's work on earth

and creatively embrace it as one's own will, own with all one's strength, will, and activity. Not present one's own work as gods, but embrace God's work as one's own. And to the extent that one succeeds in this, to that extent will one correctly guide and correctly resolve the problem of the sword. Those who reject the sword insist that the way of the sword

is unjust. This is true in the sense of an absolute moral assessment. It is false in the sense of a rhapsod and practical outcome. The dream is understandable. A morally perfect man would face no insurmountable obstacles in the purely spiritual struggle against evil so that they could stop and transform any enemy with a single glance, word, or gesture. This dream is understandable. It is a reflection of two intersecting ideas, the idea of the godlikeness of the morally perfect man, and the idea of God's omnipotence. It refers to the fact that a truly virtuous man approaches divine perfection,

which increases their spiritual power to such an extent that it becomes increasingly difficult for the criminal to resist the spiritual power. This is a noble but naive dream. Its inconsistency is immediately revealed as soon as anyone attempts to transform it into a universal rule of conduct. This dream is spiritually untenable because the conversion and transformation of the wicked must be his own independent act, the flame of his own personal freedom, not a reflection of someone else's perfection. If it were otherwise, he would have long ago been transformed by the breath of God's mouth. This dream is also historically untenable. The spiritual strength of the righteous has its limits in the face of actual wickedness, and it would seem that it would be inappropriate for a person. Christians overestimate this dream, bearing before his eyes, the images of countless saints

martyred by evildoers? Well, it is true that converts to the very early Christian church came about through their martyrdom. When you have a truly virtuous man, the way he's using it here, that the criminal, the evildoer, the villain, what you want to call him, the enemy. just by his very existence, not by anything he may say, but by his very existence, it's going to be converted.

You know, that's what he's, I think that's what he's challenging here. If you've read, Dostoevsky's the idiot, which I really recommend you have, do if you haven't. I could, I could, you know, the story could be written in maybe 150 pages,

rather than a huge, thing that he has but you know someone who is too pure for this world someone who is too good for this world someone who was then taken advantage of by this world I don't see a whole lot of conversion I see some some fake sympathy but I don't see a whole lot of people converting their their worldview because of it because of this person's existence a truly virtuous man I think he means a perfect man you're talk about that in a minute. He mentions that the paragraph of the sentence

prior to that. Morally perfect man. Will that convert the enemy? Will that convert sinners? Just by his very existence. And the answer, of course, is no. You would think that it would, but

even when he speaks, even when he talks, when he performs miracles, even that's not sufficient to convert people. so yes and I'm not sure who was around arguing this I don't know if this is a swipe to Tolstoy maybe I don't think so

but I'm not sure who was going around Russia at the time saying you well if we're all perfect then no one will have any no one will invade us no one will have any problems with us so it's it's an it's an odd thing for him to bring up but he is right what he said. It's untoneable.

First of all, it doesn't exist. Everyone's a sinner. Everyone's fallen awfully. And we know, Dostoevsky is writing in the 19th century. And of course, we live in one of those evil centuries of all time. So we live, we're saturated in sin 24 hours a day. That we have any virtues at all. It's a miracle. I'll say from here to my grave, the fact that any Christians exist on earth at all is proof that the religion is true.

The way of the sword is an unjust way, but who is this person who is afraid of this unrighteousness, declares it wickedness, and runs away from it. It is this very man, a man who throughout his life not only tolerated all manner of unrighteousness, insofar as it was necessary or beneficial, but who now continually sins with a clear conscience, sins for his own benefit, and doesn't even remember it. Suddenly when he must assume the burden of statehood, the service where, in the profound words of Peter the Great, is truly God's work and therefore cannot be neglected, he remembers that he absolutely must be a sinless, righteous man, becomes alarmed and declares this unrighteousness sin, and reveals himself to be in the wrong. As mentioned of Peter the Great is interesting. This may be tongue and cheek,

he doesn't actually quote him here as you know most listeners know I'm a huge critic of Peter the Great and what he did to Russia the damage he did was very much like the Bolsheviks just you know he didn't have the bureaucracy of the Bolsheviks would create or the foreign support Bolsheviks had

but so bringing him up and it's the only time he brings him up here in this book at all but something more interesting is happening here for the first time he says yes the way the sword is unjust that doesn't mean it's sinful two very different things and for the rest of this book whatever we have a few we have one more chapter after this and he'll hopefully hopefully how to fill in the blanks as to how that actually can be. It clearly is a manifestation of our fallen nature. No one wants to defend themselves. No one wants to have to arm themselves in order to defend themselves. But given our world, we have no choice.

And, you know, so that's those are the two things that we're dealing with here. Peter the Great, of course, was an evil man. He was normally a Mason. He was a Satanist. but you know he I don't know if he's trying to connect Pete the Great with necessary and beneficial

unrighteousness I'm not sure or if he's saying that Peter the Great's mass murder was such that that was still necessary though to make Russia into a modern state which a lot of people say it's not true but

he's saying he's saying he's saying something like that in here it's not an easy paragraph to translate or understand right off the bat yes the path of the sword is an unjust path but there is no spiritual law that says whoever walks through unrighteousness leads to sin if such were the case and all people constantly walking through unrighteousness and even sin would be doomed to hopeless destruction for sin would pile up upon sin and its insurmountable burden would drag a person down into the abyss No, life's wisdom lay not in self-righteousness, but in courageously entering into unrighteousness as necessary, moving through it, not toward it, but entering it in order to escape it.

Well, I guess it has something to do with the concept of if you don't commit suicide, you accept the world. Do you accept the world and you live in it, you have to arm yourself for self-defense? You have to be unjust in the sense that Adam and Eve would never have even conceived of that. They couldn't. They didn't have them. They were like children, you know. They were like babies. And by the way, I always thought that our puberty is very much almost identical to the fall of man.

I don't think that's an accident. when it comes to you know everything like clothes authority all this stuff and um but there are people who claim that you know Peter was the the creator of modernism in um

in Russia he didn't want to be czar anymore he wanted to be emperor who want to be just like all the other empires out there um but the point is the broader point I think is that yes it is not

it is not praiseworthy necessarily to kill these people even if you have every righteous reason to do it it isn't but we have to do it anyway and that's the struggle yes the path of force and sword is not the righteous way but is there another

righteous path isn't it the path of sentimental non-resistance already revealed above as the path of betrayal of the weak complicity with the enemy sharing the guilt with the one who suppresses and to top it all off, naive and hypocritical complacency?

Of course, this path has a calmer, more decent, and less bloody outward appearance, but only the frivolous and maliciously stupid can fail to see the price paid for this calm and this decency. Yeah, now that's definitely a punch at Tolstoy. If you can resist something, some evil, And you didn't. You bear responsibility for the evil that occurs.

If you could have stopped the guy from, you know, harming the child, that example we use all the time, then the parents of that child are going to freak out over you. Why didn't you do something? Remember, we talked about a tall story as making the claim that you don't really know if that person's actually going to stab

the child to death. You know you're going to blow his head off, you know he's going to die. That's for sure. You don't know if in bringing the knife down it's going to do anything. Therefore, you don't do anything. There's a lack of knowledge there.

We talked about that, and Tolstoy used that in his responses to enemies over time. it's silly I think and parents of dead kids I think would have a bit of a problem with that but it's not even decent

claiming that you can't you can't even interfere with someone's child being being molested say today you know which is a big deal today you know what if you can get to what if you can get to the kid before he's dragged into the van

that says free candy on it you know pull them out, punch the guy in the face, and save them. Well, I'm a pacifist. I can't do that. You know, what are the parents going to say? So yes, you are fully, I shouldn't say fully. You are to a great extent responsible for the evil that occurs as a result of your inaction. Or the evil that exists and it exists because of your inaction.

Anyone who, in the face of aggression, demands an ideal moral. outcome and will accept no other, they also understand the fundamental tragedy of life, that there are no ideal outcomes from this situation. The mere presence of those who cannot love, the materialist, and the embittered will in the soul of another person,

make such an unconditionally righteous outcome extremely difficult, for how can one not judge and condemn? How can one not depart from the fullness of love and become disturbed in spirit? How can one not break away and resist? In the presence of genuine evil, pouring out in external evil deeds, the ideal righteous outcome becomes an imaginary false task.

Such an outcome does not exist and cannot exist, for the dilemma facing man leaves no room for it. It formulates that great clash between man's spiritual calling and his moral perfection, which always haunts man in the conditions of his earthly life. God's work must be freely perceived and voluntarily accepted by each of us, but it is not enough to affirm oneself in serving it. One must also be strong in defending it. It is always possible that people will be found, perhaps,

perhaps cadres, unions, organizations, who, having freely rejected God's work, will affirm the opposite and lead an attack. So the enemy who has trampled upon a person's spiritual calling and compels others to do the same confronts everyone who has accepted God's work with a dilemma. Betray this work and betray their spiritual and religious calling. mainstreaming their own righteousness or remain faithful to God and their calling choosing and

pursuing an unrighteous path there is no righteous outcome from this situation the one who betrays god's work and betrays their spiritual calling can only think of their outcome as righteous through lack of thought this lack of morally perfect action in the face of the advancing enemy must be understood and fully considered think of it like this i think this is vaguely what you'll say i'm trying to defend Tolstoy, right? Let's just say, you know, devil's advocate here. When you're fighting a war, fighting against a war of

aggression, especially in today's circumstances, 20th century, 21st century. Think of the destruction that's going to leave behind. It doesn't rationalize it, but look at Europe after World War II.

Japan. after the Second World War, the Philippines and all this stuff, just annihilated. Of course, we all think that the U.S. were on the wrong side, but was firebombing Japanese cities

worth it? I'm not even sure what the whole final purpose was. It was to maintain the British Empire over there, the Dutch Empire over there It's really hard to say Or even World War I

Which for most people had no purpose whatsoever But still If you're trying to defend I think this is what Tolstoy is getting at In his mind You know Still though In the beginning

God's work freely perceived Okay you have to know that it exists You have to know and you have to be kept to defend it. It's an extremely difficult situation. It's not an easy life, as we all know. One of the reasons that we know that the Christianity is true is the way that Christ presented himself.

He went against every presumption of his day and our day. The Catholic priest, say, for example, now, is holding upon yourself every conceivable kind of accusation before anything even gets started. And yet, if you truly believe it, you'd simply do it, and you do it in a stoic mindset. So, but I think in the latter part of this issue, that's what he really means. He's saying that even after the war is over, yeah, you've reached your goal, but my God, at what cost? how many people died or were killed during World War II in general. I think the number is like 50 million right now.

Something like that. I'm not just in Europe, of course. You see, none of this stuff works. None of this stuff can be defended. That will be Tolstoy's point of view. And so he's saying that, yes, the life of the sword is going to lead to some of these non-optimal event and situations. That doesn't mean they shouldn't be accomplished anyway. And I think that's what he means here. In the objective absence of a righteous outcome, the very problem of finding

one proves false, and the very search for it becomes a hopeless endeavor behind whose hopelessness, timidity and crookedness sometimes successfully hide. On the contrary, courage and honesty here demand an open acceptance of spiritual compromise. If an everyday life in an ordinary usage, a compromise consists of a calculated concession by a person who looks after his personal or group interests, if we are seeking a greater gain by sacrificing our own interests and hoping that a lesser sacrifice will save a greater gain, then the spiritual compromise we establish is not made in personal interest and does not seek to save any gain. It is a selfless acceptance of one's own personal unrighteousness in the struggle against the criminal as an enemy of God's work.

He who accepts a spiritual compromise thinks not of himself, but of the goal. And if he thinks of himself, not to the extent of his worldly interests, but to the extent of his spiritual and moral intensity. And if he does think of himself, then less than he, than he who, hiding, trembles over his imaginary righteousness. this. Well, in the same sense that Tolstoy said that we really don't know for absolute certain that kid was going to be killed in our little example. We also don't know that in fighting a war either on one side or the other is going to lead to the mass destruction of Europe and parts

of Asia. You don't know that either. So Tolstoy falls apart. there have been other versions of him that have been promoted you know you read Tolstoy's books on on pacifism he uses three or four maybe five New Testament slogans and that's about it none whatsoever he completely rejects the Old Testament

totally rejects the Old Testament not explicitly but implicitly that's the you're not you're not pursuing your own interests you're doing this certainly on our interest to do what we're doing me and you you could have been from a financial point of view

been much better off doing something else but we can't we were facing evil straight out and therefore it doesn't matter maybe there is something to the scorched earth tactics if it finally means victory which they did against as our Nicholas Andrew I did to some extent

to evading invading French this was a revolutionary French too by the way he weren't you know the royalists or anything therefore spiritual compromise for those who pick up the sword it's not what most readers expect when they pick up this book but there's a difference between unrighteousness and sin

it's not what they expect but there's what they're getting that our life is necessary but we may do things that are unjust you know it's just simply in the now for the most part he's talking about military action I don't think at any other time he talks about from here to the end of the book, he's talking about the action of armies. Which has been a problem, in my opinion, with this book, is that sometimes it's hard to tell who he's talking about. He's talking about an individual.

He's talking about a family. He's talking about organizations. He's talking about international conflict. That's been a problem, I think, here. but now it's not a problem because he's clearly talking about the international situation, that you do what you have to do to survive, even if that's nasty. It's not righteous, but it doesn't mean it's sinful. And that's been his whole message here up to this point.

The sword-bearer's compromise consistent as conscious and voluntary acceptance of a morally unjust outcome as spiritually necessary. and if every deviation from moral perfection is unrighteousness, then he takes unrighteousness upon himself. If every conscious voluntary admission of unrighteousness creates guilt, then he accepts the guilt of his decision. If he had previously been afforded the greatest happiness living in accordance with the demands of his conscience, he now denies himself this happiness as impossible. In the face of a true villain, conscience calls man to, conscience calls man to accomplish accomplishments accessible only to the divine and his

omnipotence and for which neither human thought nor language has the capacity to understand or express them. Understand here. He's the unrighteous element that we have to grasp, at least in the international realm, that armies have had to face in the international realm, is that, you know, innocent people are going to be hurt. there is going to be a scorched earth kind of idea. You know, Vladimir Putin has done in his war with Ukraine,

which I know something on the other thing or two about, has tried to minimize civilian casualties. And that's hurt the war effort. Elyne is saying not to do that. You know, some of the militias hid in cities in central Ukraine, firing rockets, well, you hit that city. that's not sinful. You're being sinned against.

Not the sinner in this case. You're being sinned against. That's the main issue. We're not talking about an outcome in terms of utilitarianism. We're not even talking about happiness, but manifesting the truth, which are three very different things. These are, which one am I at?

Am I at the sword bearer's compromise, or the next one, these accomplishments? Lost my place. I've lost my place, too. It's these accomplishments. I got it. These accomplishments, if they were possible, would deny the very mode of separate existence inherent to people on Earth

and would presuppose a possibility that a righteous person, remaining himself, could enter the soul of an enemy and become him, a villain, without becoming him completely, in order to remove the villain in him, turning him into a righteous man. But these accomplishments are not within the power of men, but of God. And to believe they will be converted on earth remains practically fruitless. Yeah, you know, that was really hard to translate.

It is that confusing in the original. I'm telling you now. He's basically talking about Christ's mission. You know, Christ can convert sinners directly if you wanted to. but we can't we can't become something else therefore you know what do we have left we have the sword you know I've always thought that if if Christ or the Virgin Mary is being blasphemed I don't care where it is you lay into somebody I have no problem with that.

I've never done it. I've never been in a situation where that's been the case. But I think it's fully justified, regardless of what may happen to you as a result. But again, truth is all that matters. We're not talking about outcomes. In any sense, the outcomes are irrelevant. If manifesting truth, in other words,

it's a destruction of whole peoples, then that's the path we go. down. That's what's being advocated here, being understood here. And it's been so I guess you can make it not just international, make it even personal. That's the concept here. If I have to

you know, if this leads to the destruction of huge numbers of people as a result for me to get my goal. My goal is the true one and the right one and the Christian one. And that's what I have to do. That's what I have to do.

And again, you know, Putin's very slow movement forward, refusing to kill Russians. Everyone speaks Russian over there, refusing to, to, you know, saturate these areas with, with artillery ammunition to save this, not to have civilian casualties. It's only been recently. He started he attacked, what we could call, you know, civilian. capital, you know, power stations and the rest of, he didn't want to do that in the beginning. He never wanted that. He thought this is, you know, maybe this is going to be like Georgia in 2008. But if truth-wise here, I certainly think it does

in the Russian cause in this case, then, and now they have to start doing it. There's going to be a lot of pain. And you can't look at Putin. I don't look at the demons, Jews, and people who rule Kiev. They're the ones who are at fault. And that's, you know, again, I've, you know, this is, you know,

I'm trying to take this stuff and make it more relevant for today. But still, this is what he's been saying so far in this chapter. Truth comes before everything. In the face of this impossibility, the resister must decide on a spiritually necessary, albeit unjust path. He must accept the present moral impasse and overcome it with feeling, will, thought, word, indeed. Desiring and devoted to the good, he sees himself compelled, in the name of his religious faith, to take upon himself unrighteousness and perhaps guilt, and, as it were, to turn away from goodness

and do so with full awareness of what he is doing. His situation is morally tragic, and it is clear that only strong people can escape it. but a strong man, but strong men affirm their strength, precisely by not fleeing from the conflict in a supposedly virtuous passivity, and by not closing his eyes to its tragic nature, falling from cowardice into criminality. A strong man sees the tragedy of his situation and goes to meet it, to enter into it and overcome it.

He takes upon himself on righteousness, not for himself, but in the name of God's work, and what he does in this struggle is his own act, his own activity, which he does not even think to attribute to God. This is human outcome, which he himself recognizes as a spiritual compromise, and which is at the same time his heroic deed. For it is a great objective tension of his will, struggling for good. The heroism lay not in the struggle itself, but also in the spiritual intensity required for an open and patient acceptance of possible guilt. spiritual intensity is needed not only to kill the enemy but also to endure one's actions and carry through life the accomplished deed without diminishing one's actions through a cowardly denial of their necessity nor by idealizing their moral content the old testament moses was commanded to slaughter entire groups of people their sin was so overwhelming that they all had to be destroyed they couldn't have their

children, everybody. Now, I can't imagine what that did to the Israelites at the time. These are our people, of course. Just like, you know, even in a righteous war, what war does for anybody who fights it, especially if it ends up being a, something very nasty, something very, you know,

if truth is the only thing, you have to do all these nasty things, you know, and and something of course Tolstoy is going to completely reject the Old Testament not saying so of course because of this because of this

lots of people were killed in the Old Testament think of all the Psalms that talk about you know smashing your enemies and all of this by the way by the way all of this

all of this as a manifestation of love none of this comes from hatred necessarily. None of this comes from, it's that these are all rational things that people do, people do to defend the truth. Now, if it gets away from that, then you have a problem.

But so long as the truth is the only thing. And whatever happens, happens. We have about two and a half pages left in this chapter and we're at about 45 minutes. what do you suggest we do? You know, the big problem, I think you've noticed, I think the listeners have noticed that Eileen is repetitive.

He says the same thing. No, really? Have you noticed this? I keep thinking I'm saying this, starting the same paragraph over and over again. I know, I know. I think there's a method there. I think he just wants to drive that point home.

By saying it so many times, you're never going to forget it. He's extremely repetitive. Alexander Dugan is very repetitive in his work. But I think that's the method behind. Yeah, we can stop here. I have no problem with that. Yeah, let's do that and we'll pick it up on the next go-round. All righty.

Well, I will ask people to go-hmm. go to the show notes and go to the description of the video donate to dr johnson's work pick up his go to amazon and search his name and get the new get his updated version of the um the murder of the czar and his family and uh get his book on ukraine and go to patreon or send them a one off do something just go ahead and do it so but um i will come on go ahead do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it But please, please. I need it. You're on the fence.

It's the only way that guys like me can function. I don't have a university behind me. So while I have a tremendous amount of freedom on the one hand, I have to say things like this on the other. I don't like it. But we also know that I can't count the number of times that people have come to me saying, you were the university professor I never had

or you've at least filled in the gaps that they've left out in my own university education so and that's that's I see myself doing that is a part of my mission all righty talks you in a couple days thank you all right my friend bye bye