Speaker 1: With election time approaching, political ads will be inserted into
Speaker 1: the episode, along with other ads that frankly I'm not
Speaker 1: going to like and you aren't going to like, so
Speaker 1: please ignore them, skip by them, whatever you have to do.
Speaker 1: I don't endorse any of the ads that are inserted,
Speaker 1: but it is another way for me to generate income,
Speaker 1: so I appreciate you guys putting up with them. If
Speaker 1: you don't want to deal with them, go to the
Speaker 1: pekinyonasshow dot com. You can subscribe through Patreon. You can
Speaker 1: subscribe through substack, which is my preferred one because with
Speaker 1: both of those you get an RSS feed. Only Patreon
Speaker 1: and only substack give you an RSS feed. There's also
Speaker 1: all links to my website, gum road and subscribe star
Speaker 1: where you will get the audio files that you can
Speaker 1: download and listen to or you can stream in most
Speaker 1: cases through those locations as well. So if you want
Speaker 1: to avoid the ads, consider supporting the show. If not,
Speaker 1: just know none of these ads get any endorsement from me.
Speaker 1: Just skip by them, do what you need to do.
Speaker 1: I appreciate all of you. Head on over to the
Speaker 1: pekinyonasshow dot com. You can get the show early and
Speaker 1: ad free over there. If not, here's a show. I
Speaker 1: want to welcome everyone back to our reading of Unresistance
Speaker 1: to Evil by four by Ivan eileen Is, episode number
Speaker 1: twenty four, Doctor Johnson, How are you doing today?
Speaker 2: You know I've been translating up to chapter twenty. I
Speaker 2: don't get headaches anymore, which is a very good thing.
Speaker 2: But my god, it's hard this absolutely But I had
Speaker 2: something else to say. I was watching I know you're
Speaker 2: a fan, you've watched it before Breaking Bad. I watched
Speaker 2: the series for like the fourth time, and I came
Speaker 2: to the scene where Natcho led in the mercenaries to
Speaker 2: kill La Loo. I'm saying to myself, what the hell
Speaker 2: is wrong with these guys? Six guys? This is a fortress,
Speaker 2: an unknown fortress with heavily armed guards. There could be
Speaker 2: even worse as far as I and he sends six guys.
Speaker 2: How intelligent can this guy be? This is the most
Speaker 2: idiotic thing I could imagine. Really bugged me. I don't
Speaker 2: know why I didn't notice it before. Six guys for
Speaker 2: a heavily armed fortress. Of course they're all going to
Speaker 2: be killed. Awful. It wasn't thought through.
Speaker 3: M Yeah, I haven't watched.
Speaker 2: I got that out. I needed to get that out.
Speaker 2: I know there's a lot of fans out there. I
Speaker 2: needed to get it out, which is a stupid thing.
Speaker 2: I don't mind plot holes. I mean, my life has
Speaker 2: plot holes. But that's something that just that's how you know,
Speaker 2: he didn't work for Chilean intelligence or anything like that.
Speaker 2: He would never no one would ever make that kind
Speaker 2: of mistake.
Speaker 3: Alrighty, here we go.
Speaker 1: I'm gonna finish up, uh, finish up this chapter today,
Speaker 1: and we're off to the races. Each of these states,
Speaker 1: in the presence of genuine evil and true vision, can
Speaker 1: be and is, a spiritually healthy and vitally expedient reaction
Speaker 1: to villainous manifestations and actions. So the task of a
Speaker 1: person striving for spiritually faithful life will not consist in
Speaker 1: unconditionally avoiding these states, but in not allowing them within
Speaker 1: oneself without sufficient grounds, in spiritually mastering them and not
Speaker 1: allowing them to cloud the clarity of spiritual vision, and
Speaker 1: always keeping them within the ancestral bosom of fundamental benevolence,
Speaker 1: and always preserving within oneself the capacity to restore the
Speaker 1: fullness of love, the highest and purest dispassion is freedom
Speaker 1: from evil and personal passions from the passions of a
Speaker 1: spiritually not objectified, godless self.
Speaker 2: What he's getting out to here, first of all, the
Speaker 2: states he's making reference to or in the previous paragraph,
Speaker 2: and the states are how to deal with a villain
Speaker 2: or a criminal. You start off with, you know, disapproval
Speaker 2: over minor things, lack of sympathy, grief, reprimand, and then condemnation, protest, denunciation,
Speaker 2: mental coersion, the infliction of mental suffering, indignation, and then
Speaker 2: physical coercion, discuss disrespect, suppression, ruthlessness, and finally, if everything
Speaker 2: else fails, the capital punishment. And he kind of has
Speaker 2: a timeline there, sort of. I don't think it's a
Speaker 2: perfect you know, one, two, three, four, but you definitely
Speaker 2: get the picture of what you go through when you're
Speaker 2: dealing with That's not what you talking about external enemy.
Speaker 2: I'm talking about, say, a criminal domestically. But what he's
Speaker 2: getting at here is very important and it's going to
Speaker 2: be an ongoing theme that in the legitimate fight against evil,
Speaker 2: the fight itself can bring out the worst in people.
Speaker 2: May have evil people on your side that might use
Speaker 2: the fight against evil solely as a way to justify
Speaker 2: their own sociopathy. You might even be affected by that.
Speaker 2: You know, we've said this before. You can't go through
Speaker 2: this without being affected. Whether they're police or soldiers, you
Speaker 2: can't go through this without being affected. How much you
Speaker 2: know that depends. But and keeping your cool, keeping your
Speaker 2: spiritual vision even in the even in the thick of
Speaker 2: it of the battle. That's that's asking a lot, that's
Speaker 2: asking a lot, and even even the best of us
Speaker 2: can fall, you know, using the fact that we're combating
Speaker 2: evil as a way to just bring out the worst
Speaker 2: in ourselves, you know, inflicting pain because we enjoy being
Speaker 2: in charge, rather doing it for the sake of fighting
Speaker 2: evil and bringing out the good. So that's what he's
Speaker 2: getting at, and he'll get at it quite often. And
Speaker 2: it's a very important point to make.
Speaker 1: It is not indifference, nor lack of will, nor inaction.
Speaker 1: The highest and puristist's passion knows its ups and downs,
Speaker 1: its storms, thunder and eruptions. But their source is not
Speaker 1: the animal and man, but the spirit's vision and its presence.
Speaker 1: These storms and thunders that then reveal not evil nor malice,
Speaker 1: nor the weakness of men, but his strength and goodness,
Speaker 1: and it is not their presence that damages the essence
Speaker 1: of the spirit, while their absence would be spiritually unnatural.
Speaker 1: If a Christian ever doubted this, they would only need
Speaker 1: to recall the thunders that divinely thundered over the Pharisees
Speaker 1: and scribes, over the merchants in the temple, over Jerusalem
Speaker 1: slaughtering its profits, and over those who seduce miners. It
Speaker 1: is enough to proceed in these thunders, just once the
Speaker 1: very power of love that teaches us to do good
Speaker 1: to our enemies, forgive offenses and joyfully give away our possessions,
Speaker 1: for the idealization of sentimental weakness to begin to fade
Speaker 1: in the soul.
Speaker 2: This this, yeah, this tends to be This could be
Speaker 2: used in either case, either, you know, fighting external enemies,
Speaker 2: external enemies within our borders, as well as domestic enemies
Speaker 2: trying to remain I mean, you know, hatred makes a
Speaker 2: lot of sense if it's under reasons control and if
Speaker 2: it has a legitimate object. Now I'm not sure it's
Speaker 2: slaughtering its profits. Well, that was done. That was done
Speaker 2: by an evil sect, That was done by the worst
Speaker 2: you know testament. He's not justifying that It's just an example.
Speaker 2: The rest of it, though, what Christ did to the
Speaker 2: money chambers, changers in the temple, what he said to
Speaker 2: the pharisees and scrimes, which at at the time you know,
Speaker 2: would be like us, you know, using very foul language,
Speaker 2: and you know, seducing minors. It would seduce is probably
Speaker 2: not the right word, but that is the Russian here.
Speaker 2: These are examples of the fact that, with the exception
Speaker 2: of the prophets, that physical and verbal violent verbal violence
Speaker 2: with quotes is certainly justified because Christ didn't and it
Speaker 2: makes sense and it's according to reason, and it's the
Speaker 2: last one.
Speaker 3: You know.
Speaker 2: Pedophilia rightfully brings out just such utter hatred in normal
Speaker 2: people that would be tough to keep under control. We
Speaker 2: all know what happens to them in prison. We all
Speaker 2: know that sometimes guards lets certain guys know guess who's
Speaker 2: coming in. Maybe they'll leave their cell door open, something
Speaker 2: like that, but everyone else is locked. As these guys
Speaker 2: are coming back. You know, they do things like that,
Speaker 2: but at least outwardly, they have to show a certain
Speaker 2: level of this passion. They're professionals. You know, there's no
Speaker 2: way a policeman could ever remain the same man through
Speaker 2: thirty years dealing with the lowest in the humanity. But
Speaker 2: you really only know someone And I think this is
Speaker 2: kind of what he's getting at here. Only when they've
Speaker 2: been through the lowest of the low That's what reveals,
Speaker 2: is he says, here is strength in goodness. If they
Speaker 2: refuse to do anything they used to act, that would
Speaker 2: be unnatural, is what he's saying. There's nothing in Christianity
Speaker 2: that would that would suggest what Tolstoy is talking about.
Speaker 2: Tolstoy is kind of kind of I'm gonna slowly drop
Speaker 2: out here. I think he's made his point with Tulstoy,
Speaker 2: you know many times.
Speaker 3: Uh.
Speaker 2: And the only problem that we have we have to
Speaker 2: make there's differences between dealing with evil within ourselves, dealing
Speaker 2: with evil in a in a public arena, uh, internally domestically,
Speaker 2: dealing with evil that's coming over our borders. Those are
Speaker 2: at least three very different ways of fighting evil. Now
Speaker 2: within ourselves, you wouldn't use force, you would use you know,
Speaker 2: trying to try to coerce yourself. They have a lot
Speaker 2: in common. But sometimes, and it's my only problem so
Speaker 2: far with the book, sometimes I'm not sure which one
Speaker 2: of those he's referring to. Now, why he includes these
Speaker 2: rere all to find things? Yeah, thought of the prophets
Speaker 2: obviously that's bad. Cursing out the pharisees and scribes that's good.
Speaker 2: Beating the merchants in the temple that was good. And
Speaker 2: then of course sorting his prophets was banned through some
Speaker 2: miners was bad. So uh, now, what what makes it
Speaker 2: make sense is that Christ specifically mentioned those things. We
Speaker 2: know the Old Testament is is always going should be
Speaker 2: a part of the Bible, even though I think there's
Speaker 2: a movement to get rid of it. He did mention
Speaker 2: to these these pharisees, your your father's killed the prophet
Speaker 2: that God sent to you. And of course you also mentioned,
Speaker 2: you know, and to my little the little ones. And
Speaker 2: then you get it better better, you never be born.
Speaker 2: So even Christ was almost losing it when it came
Speaker 2: to his human side, when it came to hurting hurting children.
Speaker 2: So that's what makes it all a unified sentence there,
Speaker 2: so you know. But none of these, of course, are
Speaker 2: our personal enemies, none of them are. These are all
Speaker 2: insults against God, insults in crimes that I know, as
Speaker 2: Catholics say, cry out to Heaven for vengeance.
Speaker 1: At one great and terrible moment in history, an active
Speaker 1: divine love in the guise of wrath and scourge drove
Speaker 1: the blasphemous mob from the temple. This act was and
Speaker 1: will be the greatest prototype and justification for all spiritually
Speaker 1: and objectively grounded manifestations of love in the form of rejection.
Speaker 1: With it before their mind's eye, all prophets, rulers, judges, educators,
Speaker 1: and warriors can calmly face the possible judgment coming from
Speaker 1: them from weak willed sense of mentality, and the possible
Speaker 1: classification of them as god sacrificing haters. Their task is
Speaker 1: to affirm the strength of spiritual benevolence and the clarity
Speaker 1: of spiritual vision, as well as to remember the joyless
Speaker 1: difficulty of the struggle they wage.
Speaker 2: My favorite part about the when he whips, he really
Speaker 2: hurt them. I could only assume when he made that whip.
Speaker 2: The Bible tells us he was very careful about it.
Speaker 2: He knew what he was doing, and I'd probably had
Speaker 2: done it before. You know, he put he put his
Speaker 2: weapon together very well. And and you know I've I've
Speaker 2: been in debates with Culstoian types, and they say, well,
Speaker 2: it was only the one time. I said, what difference
Speaker 2: does that make? The Bible is a fairly short, you know,
Speaker 2: so the New Testament is only I mean, sorry, Gus
Speaker 2: was only four books. You know, how many times does
Speaker 2: this have to be repeated for it to be justified.
Speaker 2: It's something that he did that was a populous measure,
Speaker 2: you know, was John the Baptist kind of stuff, and
Speaker 2: it certainly justifies the use of physical violence. No doubt
Speaker 2: that there were discussions before that that went nowhere, as
Speaker 2: Christ already knew. And in fashioning his weapon and beating
Speaker 2: a crapt them, you imagine us walking into you know church,
Speaker 2: you know these evil people there. You have a whip
Speaker 2: and you just start whipping them. But people would turn
Speaker 2: around and you know, it'd be great. I've never done
Speaker 2: it personally, but this was something. So they were usurers.
Speaker 2: There were loan sharks more or less, and you're doing
Speaker 2: this in the temple and I think at that point
Speaker 2: it had become so normal that no one thought anything
Speaker 2: of it. And when he brought in his weapon and
Speaker 2: just beat them, I'm hoping I'm hoping that they never
Speaker 2: you know, before it was destroyed. They never came back.
Speaker 2: They may have. I mean he was educated there at
Speaker 2: the temple. I remember that this was a humongous, very
Speaker 2: large set of institutions. Wasn't just like our parishes. But uh,
Speaker 2: that's the former, and it's and it's love. It was
Speaker 2: a love for his father why he did that as
Speaker 2: well as an example to us, and of course because
Speaker 2: he's got in man, he had a purely uh clear
Speaker 2: spiritual vision. Of course, if we were to do that,
Speaker 2: I think we would be so angry that maybe our
Speaker 2: vision wouldn't be so ah, so clear. I've confronted people
Speaker 2: in in in the parish, in the in the vestibule before.
Speaker 2: Even that got a lot of attention. I didn't beat anybody.
Speaker 2: But but that's a common argument. The Tustonians will say, oh,
Speaker 2: it's only one time. You know, he clearly had done
Speaker 2: it before, because you knew exactly what he was doing
Speaker 2: when he was making this this essentially Cat nine tails,
Speaker 2: and it's yeah, it's gonna be one of my favorite
Speaker 2: parts of the four Gospels.
Speaker 1: For negative law, love is joyless and tormenting.
Speaker 3: For man.
Speaker 1: It demands of him a feat and a severe feet
Speaker 1: at that it demands strength, endurance, and steadfastness. It demands
Speaker 1: enormous exertions of will, fidelity to the onerous responsibilities one
Speaker 1: is assumed, selflessness and constant spiritual activity and self purification.
Speaker 1: Since this rejection or negative love rests not on personal
Speaker 1: calculations and passions, but on the genuine experience of evil
Speaker 1: and the spiritual necessity responding to it, it does not
Speaker 1: yield to arbitrary extinguishing or transformation into positive love, no
Speaker 1: matter how much a weary or exhausted soul may plead
Speaker 1: for it. Misunderstanding of this struggle and its burden, and
Speaker 1: the morally crooked judgment of lazy, timid, sensitive, and hypocritical
Speaker 1: people complete the joylessness of this feat under whose burden
Speaker 1: noble and refined souls have always found courage, and in
Speaker 1: so doing have never doubted the righteousness of their cause. Thus,
Speaker 1: the beginning of the spirit modifies the appearance of love
Speaker 1: in the form of its manifestation.
Speaker 2: So negative love is something along the lines of tough love.
Speaker 2: When I confronted it was a priest. Actually, I confront
Speaker 2: an investibule. I won't say where he was not the pastor.
Speaker 2: He was against, and the pastor was very upset with me,
Speaker 2: and I had it out with him ten minutes later
Speaker 2: in front of him. He apologized to me, saying I overreacted.
Speaker 2: In other word, yeah, you were right to confront this guy.
Speaker 2: He's saying absolutely heretical things in front of people as
Speaker 2: a clergyman. So but I could say to some extent,
Speaker 2: I had the love of the truth in my know
Speaker 2: that was the primary reason I was doing I didn't
Speaker 2: want to do it. Wants to make a scene like that.
Speaker 2: You know, I had never done anything like that before
Speaker 2: I knew what I was talking about. He was a
Speaker 2: some people know this story who are listening right now.
Speaker 2: But but it's it's, you know, using negative, negative love
Speaker 2: in the sense that it's it's love that's not shown
Speaker 2: in the way it's normally shown. And the opposite of
Speaker 2: that would be what he says, you know, lazy, timid,
Speaker 2: sensitive and hypocritical people. Now sensitive is is? I? Probably?
Speaker 2: I want to I should go back and look at
Speaker 2: that term. I think I probably it should have been
Speaker 2: if I remember right, it may have been weak. It's
Speaker 2: sensitive is not bad in and of itself, but hypocritical, lazy, timid.
Speaker 3: Uh.
Speaker 2: And these are the people who who have you know,
Speaker 2: who would never loved the truth so much that they
Speaker 2: would do something like that in its service, looking at
Speaker 2: me like I was crazy, even though I was justified
Speaker 2: in the end. These are the same people who would
Speaker 2: never who don't you know, really care if I was
Speaker 2: in that. If I saw someone doing that and I
Speaker 2: knew the reason why, I probably I would join in,
Speaker 2: But I fully, I would fully understand where this is
Speaker 2: coming from. You know, I didn't do it joining liturgy
Speaker 2: or anything. You know, I did it afterwards. So and yes,
Speaker 2: but when you're doing this full time, I guess I
Speaker 2: do do this full time. You know, strength endures insteadfastness
Speaker 2: without it affecting you in such a way that you
Speaker 2: become like them. I'm not even talking about that your
Speaker 2: beliefs change. But you you know, sometimes you forget that
Speaker 2: that sort of thing is the very last resort we're
Speaker 2: talking about now more abstractly, you know, physical violence being
Speaker 2: the absolute last resort after everything else has been has
Speaker 2: been done. This is why I'm certain that in the
Speaker 2: Temple Christ didn't just show up and start whipping these guys.
Speaker 2: I have the feeling he had confronted them many times
Speaker 2: and nothing changed, And so he just that was now finally,
Speaker 2: you know, you couldn't do anymore, couldn't. He whipped them out,
Speaker 2: no question, he was condemned by these lazy, timid, you know,
Speaker 2: hypocritical people. You know, it is a burden, as he
Speaker 2: says here, it is difficult. No one wants to do this.
Speaker 2: But for those of us who are dedicated to the truth,
Speaker 2: and I think I am. Although we always make mistakes,
Speaker 2: and we always allow external internal forces to affect us,
Speaker 2: hopefully not for long, and we're all sinful people, and
Speaker 2: sometimes we screw up and all that, but that there
Speaker 2: is a certain joy in it, those of us who've
Speaker 2: never doubted the righteousness of my cause. I've never done
Speaker 2: the righteousness of I've read the other side in depth.
Speaker 2: I know the other side extremely well. Some of these
Speaker 2: writers are better than others. So I always thought that
Speaker 2: debating somebody, when you keep your cool, that is an
Speaker 2: active love. It's absolutely an active love, and I would
Speaker 2: even say negative, it's just another manifestation of what love
Speaker 2: truly is.
Speaker 1: It is precisely through this influence of the spirit on
Speaker 1: the primitive, naive, direct and blind power of love that
Speaker 1: it acquires higher abilities and higher tasks and as a
Speaker 1: result of this, its entire attitude towards evil is affirmed
Speaker 1: on the following grounds. For love to be able to
Speaker 1: effectively resist evil, it must be spiritually understood, limited, and modified.
Speaker 1: But once understood and modified, it is the initial and
Speaker 1: supreme basis of the entire struggle waged by man against evil.
Speaker 1: The whole problem of resistance to evil is resolved by
Speaker 1: this basic principle. The struggle is waged precisely by love,
Speaker 1: but by spiritualized love.
Speaker 2: Now, if you remember, he's been through this, this is
Speaker 2: a very informal list. Then on the following ground, he
Speaker 2: doesn't you know one, two, three, This is actually in
Speaker 2: the original here he's done this before, but now he's
Speaker 2: using this as is far more detailed and summarizes a
Speaker 2: lot of what he said up until that point.
Speaker 1: Up to this point, this means that the rule resists
Speaker 1: evil not out of love is fundamentally rejected in all
Speaker 1: its possible interpretations and implementations. Any act that grows from
Speaker 1: another source either does not combat evil but multiplies it,
Speaker 1: or fights not evil but it's individual superficial symptoms. Consequently,
Speaker 1: one must condemn both non loving non resistance. When someone
Speaker 1: tries to sober up evildoers with generosity and compliance. Driven however,
Speaker 1: not by love, but for example, by rational calculation or
Speaker 1: coward or cowardly weakness of will. One must also condemn
Speaker 1: non unloving coercion. When someone fights evildoers out of malice, revenge, hunger, greed,
Speaker 1: or the luss for power. Both can be psychologically understood.
Speaker 1: Both can be relatively harmful and relatively useful in terms
Speaker 1: of overall energy conservation, but there will be no real
Speaker 1: resistance to evil in either case.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I forgot about that. I should have gone back
Speaker 2: and looked at that again. Energy conservation. But it is
Speaker 2: true that, you know, fanatics really are the only ones
Speaker 2: who get anything done. People on your side who are
Speaker 2: driven by revenge, you know, hunger, breed less for power.
Speaker 2: That's okay, so long as they're going to be kept
Speaker 2: under control, because let's say during the Russian Civil War,
Speaker 2: you know you need guys like that. You want to
Speaker 2: few lunatics on your side just when you're fighting the
Speaker 2: Red Army. But they can't be allowed to just run wild.
Speaker 2: They have to be brought under control. That's why he
Speaker 2: says they're relatively harmful and can also be psychologically understood.
Speaker 1: Consequently, there remains only one universal rule resists evil out
Speaker 1: of love, giving all that is yours where it is needed,
Speaker 1: out of love, coercing and suppressing where necessary, out of love,
Speaker 1: persuading and out of love, punishing, and out of love,
Speaker 1: giving nothing of yours if this property, if it isn't yours,
Speaker 1: for example, if it is also God's a shrine, a church,
Speaker 1: a homeland, or their material embodiment, and all their manifestations
Speaker 1: giving and not giving, pleading and punishing, this level will
Speaker 1: be neither indifference, nor self sufficient sensitivity, nor timid indulgence,
Speaker 1: nor weak willed pity, nor complicity.
Speaker 2: When I was in college University of Harnford, I distinctly
Speaker 2: remember the day I knew I was going to go
Speaker 2: to grad school. I said to myself, and it was
Speaker 2: such a you know, I was watching people just repeat slogans,
Speaker 2: usually left the slogans of course it's university, not necessarily
Speaker 2: because they even agreed with them, because this is what
Speaker 2: this is what the smart people are saying. Even a
Speaker 2: few people on our side, it's just you know, you know, spouting,
Speaker 2: so they don't really understand. Of course, that was only
Speaker 2: I was just a young guy myself. But I made
Speaker 2: a decision. I made a promise to myself that I
Speaker 2: was simply going to follow the truth wherever it takes me,
Speaker 2: even if it's inconvenient, and God knows, it's been very inconvenient,
Speaker 2: even if it hurts not just about you know, outside,
Speaker 2: but about myself too. That's a that's a rough life.
Speaker 2: I'm starting to realize very few people can do it,
Speaker 2: you know. I I I left grad school obsessed with
Speaker 2: you know, going over these texts day after day after
Speaker 2: day for god knows how many years. Then going out
Speaker 2: into the world and realizing that the truth is not
Speaker 2: really a motivating force for most people. I was kind
Speaker 2: of naive, but that was an extremely It was almost
Speaker 2: a crushing realization that the truth wasn't the issue. True,
Speaker 2: it was more, you know, self interest, what makes me
Speaker 2: look smart, what makes me conform, you know, virtual signaling,
Speaker 2: that kind of thing. But I remember that day, I
Speaker 2: remember where, I remember where I was, and I said
Speaker 2: to myself, I'm not going to be like them. I'm
Speaker 2: not going to be like them. I'm going to follow
Speaker 2: the truth wherever it goes. And that's how I ended up.
Speaker 2: You know, we get everything from the Holocaust, the third
Speaker 2: rank everything. You know, that's certainly not in our interest
Speaker 2: to believe that. We only believe that because it's absolutely
Speaker 2: true our views on those things, and it came from that.
Speaker 2: You know, if I sometimes I say to myself, let's
Speaker 2: say you had a tenured position at a university, what
Speaker 2: would I have done? Well, I'd be incognitive dissonance because
Speaker 2: I couldn't talk like this there, even with tenure. I'd
Speaker 2: have to I'd have to go along again along It
Speaker 2: would be completely and utterly hypocritical, or or I would
Speaker 2: simply you know, like right, like a handful of right
Speaker 2: wingers in academia. You know, they give the the right
Speaker 2: wing reason to despise the third rank. It was they
Speaker 2: were homosexual, or that they were occultist or something not there,
Speaker 2: or financed by by Western capital, which is absolutely garbage,
Speaker 2: all that stuff, you know, creating reasons like that to
Speaker 2: reject all the inconvenience stuff. That's probably what I would
Speaker 2: have done. But that's also you know, I would have lived.
Speaker 2: I would have been living in a line. And this
Speaker 2: is not sour grapes, a little bit of tower. But
Speaker 2: I know that I am simply freer than most people
Speaker 2: and the question is how many of these academics really
Speaker 2: do believe the stuff that they spount. I've said it
Speaker 2: to a few of them, you know, friends of mine.
Speaker 2: Later I said, you know, if you were a plumber
Speaker 2: rather than an academic, you wouldn't be saying this stuff.
Speaker 2: So the concept of love would have been completely squashed.
Speaker 2: I would have been an utter hypocrite. I would have
Speaker 2: been I would have been frightened that I one day
Speaker 2: I'm gonna slip. That's no way to live. So I
Speaker 2: realized that there was no way I can do it,
Speaker 2: and I'm very pleased with that today. Thanks to you
Speaker 2: and your listeners and everybody else, I know I've made
Speaker 2: an impact. But I couldn't have done that in the academy.
Speaker 2: Now there's a big difference between an academic and a scholar.
Speaker 2: I am a scholar, not an academic. Academics almost like journalists.
Speaker 2: It's a terrible term anymore. But of course I simply
Speaker 2: couldn't have been devoted to the truth. Love would have
Speaker 2: been completely squashed the entire time. And beyond that, He's
Speaker 2: also saying here, when it comes to defending something belonging
Speaker 2: to God, shrine church, your own nation, that those attacking
Speaker 2: and destroying those are not your personal enemies. Therefore violence
Speaker 2: is going to be used against them. And so the
Speaker 2: rule is you resist evil. You resist evil out of
Speaker 2: love for the good, out of love for all the
Speaker 2: people that it perverts, out of love for all the
Speaker 2: people that it destroys. What it can do when it's
Speaker 2: adopted by a population, we know what it can do. Falsehoods.
Speaker 2: I mean, the typical, typical educated American lives in an
Speaker 2: utter bubble. Although I think that maybe changing very recently,
Speaker 2: but generally speaking, they live in a bubble. Everything they
Speaker 2: believe is wrong. Do your ship will nor mean American.
Speaker 2: But I don't do this because you know it's like
Speaker 2: you know, you don't do this because you despise them.
Speaker 2: You do it because maybe one day some of those
Speaker 2: people will come to the truth and we'll just take
Speaker 2: the consequences. You know, it's a lot to ask, but
Speaker 2: it's still very possible.
Speaker 1: Resistance to evil is created by love, but not towards
Speaker 1: the animality of man, and not towards his philistine soulfulness,
Speaker 1: but to its spirit. That is a love that can
Speaker 1: love both the soul of man and his entire earthly being.
Speaker 1: But only to the extent only to the extent of
Speaker 1: their spiritual satisfaction for a consciously and unconsciously perceived man,
Speaker 1: and measures him by the sacredly spiritual standards of conscience, dignity, honor, sincerity, patriotism,
Speaker 1: and righteousness before God, and therefore invariably turns its negative
Speaker 1: face towards everything shameless, humiliating, dishonest, false, treacherous, and abominable
Speaker 1: in the struggle against evil. Such a state is love
Speaker 1: with a clear sighted spirit and a world accepting will.
Speaker 1: And therefore it sees God's work in God's work in
Speaker 1: the world, and actively and creatively sends it forth with
Speaker 1: its power.
Speaker 2: And you don't want to turn your struggle against evil
Speaker 2: into sin. You know, we're Christian men. I'm a Christian
Speaker 2: because I think it's true, Because it stands to reason,
Speaker 2: there is no blind faith here. Anyone who believes that
Speaker 2: anyone's expected to believe blindly is absurd. You know, our theologians,
Speaker 2: going back to the very beginning. I love getting into
Speaker 2: a debate with an atheist who makes an argument that
Speaker 2: was dealt with in the third century AD. You know,
Speaker 2: it's been over and over and over and over again.
Speaker 2: It's such nonsense here, what do we love? You know,
Speaker 2: dignity under sincerity, nationalism, righteousness, it's opposite, of course, shameless, humiliating,
Speaker 2: dishon as false, treacherous. It's the latter people that need
Speaker 2: to be converted by varying means, and some of us
Speaker 2: are in the business of doing just that. And you
Speaker 2: do it, and then you know, physical violence of course,
Speaker 2: actually for governments, all the ways straight up to execution
Speaker 2: is the final, very last thing. That's that's how you
Speaker 2: know that there's a certain legitimacy to it. Those of
Speaker 2: us who've been forced to use physical violence in the past.
Speaker 2: When everything else fails, then you have to take physical action.
Speaker 2: But that would only be the case if it was
Speaker 2: out of love. If it was out of anything else,
Speaker 2: you use physical violence right away. And we've come across
Speaker 2: this before. States do this, individuals do this, so you
Speaker 2: know what he bringing it. That's why what he's really
Speaker 2: bringing down here, that's the standard. And today these standards
Speaker 2: are extremely difficult, especially when it's done the same time
Speaker 2: as righteousness. Before God, we're not allowed to turn our
Speaker 2: backs to evil. We simply aren't allowed to it.
Speaker 1: Therefore, what it loves, its object is above all, the
Speaker 1: one work of God on earth, and in relation to it,
Speaker 1: love his whole. Furthermore, its object is the Divine embodied
Speaker 1: in an earthly shrine, and in relation to it, love
Speaker 1: takes on the appearance of protective reverence. Further it is
Speaker 1: the divine spiritual principle in an oppressed neighbor, and in
Speaker 1: relation to him, love takes on the appearance of benevolent compassion.
Speaker 1: And finally, it is the spiritual principle perishing in the wicked,
Speaker 1: and in relation to him, love reveals the appearance of
Speaker 1: pure but stern benevolence.
Speaker 2: Stern benevolence. That's an excellent way to put it. And
Speaker 2: I went back and forth on how to state that,
Speaker 2: but that's precisely it. And you know, somebody, let's say
Speaker 2: your neighbor, let's say literally your neighbor comes to your
Speaker 2: door saying, you know, my wife and my husband has
Speaker 2: lost it. I need to come in here for a while.
Speaker 2: And if this person then follows her or him into
Speaker 2: your house, well you may have to then take that
Speaker 2: next step. That would be stern benevolence. It will be
Speaker 2: fully justified. Now he uses a phrase oppressed neighbor for
Speaker 2: the oppressed, you know, so long as they're you know,
Speaker 2: being oppressed for the proper reason. Not it's not their
Speaker 2: own fault. It's benevolent compassion, but stern benevolent benevolence for those,
Speaker 2: let's say, in our personal lives who are causing that
Speaker 2: we're causing that evil person would have follow you, you know,
Speaker 2: come on over, you know, let me add them. You know,
Speaker 2: you have to take action right there at that point.
Speaker 2: So it's a very important paragraph.
Speaker 1: This is why the entire doctrine that active offensive resistance
Speaker 1: to evil against the evil doer is contrary to love
Speaker 1: falls short as a harmful moral prejudice. Like every other
Speaker 1: true form of resistance to evil, coercion or suppression, this
Speaker 1: is the work of love itself. If love rejects anything,
Speaker 1: it is not coercion as such, nor physical coercion, nor suppression,
Speaker 1: but malevolence in the struggle against evil, that is malevolent
Speaker 1: coercion and malevolent suppression. But active offensive resistance to evil
Speaker 1: against the evil do doer desires not evil for others,
Speaker 1: but good for the evil doer himself, and therefore it
Speaker 1: can and must be the work of conquering love.
Speaker 2: That's another great phrase conquering love. Usually those those two
Speaker 2: words aren't used together. There is still I think there's
Speaker 2: still the prejudice that love refers to outside of its
Speaker 2: sexual connotation, that it refers to indulgence. I love somebody,
Speaker 2: so I'm never going to criticize them. You know, certainly,
Speaker 2: physical violence is absolutely very opposite of love, and that's
Speaker 2: simply not true. Physical violence, under very specific conditions can
Speaker 2: be a manifestation of love, can be a necessary manifestation
Speaker 2: of love. And there are those that say, and in
Speaker 2: this in this very book has gone back and forth
Speaker 2: on the issue, you know, this physical violence. Can physical
Speaker 2: violence bring out the best in the person who is
Speaker 2: being hit, you know, being suppressed so to speak? And
Speaker 2: it's very possible. We say sometimes we say to people
Speaker 2: that guy needs his ask cap. What do we mean
Speaker 2: by that? We mean that maybe if that were to happen,
Speaker 2: he would be shocked into realizing that he's doing the
Speaker 2: wrong thing and make changes in his life. That would
Speaker 2: be an example of conquering love. There's plenty of paths
Speaker 2: of us out there who say, oh, that would be impossible.
Speaker 2: No one's ever been made better by violence, Yes, yes
Speaker 2: they have. You know, when you're much younger. I have
Speaker 2: professors and others just just reaming out for doing the
Speaker 2: wrong thing, and many times they were right. And it's
Speaker 2: one of the reasons I'd never want to be young again.
Speaker 2: But it was necessary. It's done so that and it
Speaker 2: was done, and I was shocked by this, and I
Speaker 2: go back, and then I had to realize that I
Speaker 2: was wrong and I had to refigure things, but then
Speaker 2: punch me out. But in some case, we have plenty
Speaker 2: of people, especially in this dying society, where violence is
Speaker 2: the only thing that they understand. They understand that in
Speaker 2: Nol Salvador, which is why that policy is working there.
Speaker 2: This is why the Biden administration condemned it to the
Speaker 2: point that put sanctions on the country. States of emergency,
Speaker 2: remove basic some some habeas, corpus principles and stuff like that.
Speaker 2: But that's that's it is a state of emergency.
Speaker 3: It was.
Speaker 2: So in the sentence. If love rejects anything, it's not core,
Speaker 2: it's not violence. There's nothing, you know, there's nothing anti
Speaker 2: love about violence in and of itself, nor suppression. The
Speaker 2: only thing it rejects, of course, is its opposite, malevolence.
Speaker 2: Especially in the struggle against evil. Sometimes we could use
Speaker 2: those people sometimes we can't. Now. I love how we
Speaker 2: makes use of the word twice offensive. We're not reactionaries.
Speaker 2: We go for you know, there these are We are nothing,
Speaker 2: not in the sense that we're taking offense to something,
Speaker 2: but offensive in the sense that we are preempting something.
Speaker 2: We're on the offense, not on the defense. That's what
Speaker 2: he means by that. But it is a moral prejudice
Speaker 2: that people still have, and I think legally speaking it's
Speaker 2: quantitatively physical violence gets privileged above everything else. You could
Speaker 2: torture somebody, your wife could torture, or a husband for
Speaker 2: thirty years, and nothing could ever happen to the one
Speaker 2: that same poor man slaps for once and he's in handcuffs,
Speaker 2: and she goes around crying, Oh my god, I can't
Speaker 2: believe he hit me. The concept of torturing that guy,
Speaker 2: that's so abstract, would probably take him hours to explain
Speaker 2: it all. But all she has to do is that
Speaker 2: I was hit once. Things like bruises and broken bones,
Speaker 2: those are easier to show, But the effects of daily humiliation,
Speaker 2: that kind of thing, that's that's far more difficult to show.
Speaker 2: And so physical violence gets gets singled out and I
Speaker 2: think the legal system, you know, we think we have
Speaker 2: this even the standard ground doctrine. And I'm going off
Speaker 2: off track here, but I don't care. You'll be in
Speaker 2: court for years. I was just reading about Bernie Get.
Speaker 2: You remember Bernie Gets in eighty four.
Speaker 1: Of course, Bernie Gets. We were just a bunch of
Speaker 1: us were just talking about it the other day.
Speaker 2: Yeah, we just talked about him. I was reading more
Speaker 2: about him recently and the reactions to him. He had
Speaker 2: very few allies, despite the obviousness. Some of those guys
Speaker 2: actually went out to rob some more after they after
Speaker 2: they you know, the guy that we he didn't kill
Speaker 2: him all court, and you know, he was just so
Speaker 2: he listened. He listen. He's still alive. He lies an
Speaker 2: utter poverty. Today, legitimate self defense will land you in
Speaker 2: court for prob me maybe for decades. So even there,
Speaker 2: you know, and I know that policemen, any white policeman
Speaker 2: in black areas, are being are not pulling out their weapons.
Speaker 2: They'd rather be hitting and beaten up instead. And I'm
Speaker 2: seeing more and more examples of that coming coming through
Speaker 2: because they're terrified of being on the nightly news and
Speaker 2: they're being protests and and everything else, because then everything
Speaker 2: will be rigged after that. So but there has to
Speaker 2: be this kind of stoke. God is in charge in
Speaker 2: this case. I got to do what it's right, and
Speaker 2: it doesn't matter what happens. So even even basic self
Speaker 2: defense in this country, even if it's obvious, you will
Speaker 2: be in court for decades and there's still the chance
Speaker 2: that you're going to be convicted of murder, even with
Speaker 2: the standard ground law. And depending on who, depending on
Speaker 2: the race, depending on how the media is depicting this,
Speaker 2: whatever it is, it's a terrifying concept. And I guarantee
Speaker 2: you that there are people who would rather be robbed
Speaker 2: than shoot someone, especially a non white who's invaded their home.
Speaker 2: But I know that there are people like that, and
Speaker 2: maybe for good reason, because you know, even though it
Speaker 2: would be the right thing to shoot them, they know
Speaker 2: how that's gonna look in the regime's eyes, and they're
Speaker 2: gonna be considered evil, just as Bernie Gets was considered evil.
Speaker 2: Bernie Gets today lives in voluntary poverty. I don't know
Speaker 2: if you know this, but one of them was paralyzed.
Speaker 2: Wait a minute, no, wait a minute, wait, excuse me.
Speaker 2: The families of those who were killed. Yeah, that's it.
Speaker 2: Suit him in civil court. And one of them. I
Speaker 2: don't think he killed them all. I think he did
Speaker 2: wound one really really wound him. And he got a
Speaker 2: judgment for forty million dollars against him. So no matter
Speaker 2: how justified you might be, even though he was very
Speaker 2: popular in New York City at the time, you know,
Speaker 2: they could just go to civil court and yeah they
Speaker 2: you know it failed in criminal but they just went
Speaker 2: to civil court and he could never make any money again.
Speaker 2: He lives in Squalor today as as I as I read.
Speaker 2: So it's very hard to get anything from That's the
Speaker 2: that's the cost of doing the right thing in a
Speaker 2: dying society. So what Ellen is talking about here almost
Speaker 2: assumes a relatively healthy society. You know, Germany was falling fast,
Speaker 2: you know at the time, the Soviet Union was at
Speaker 2: work trying to destroy what had been a more or
Speaker 2: less healthy society. We're dealing with something very different here.
Speaker 2: I'll never forget James Fields. I remember because I could
Speaker 2: hardly see. I had been hurt so badly at a Charlesville.
Speaker 2: I was watching TV and I was holding my eyes
Speaker 2: open like this because I couldn't see otherwise. And I
Speaker 2: saw the initial news reports about James Field. I was
Speaker 2: watching them trying to tear his car part, trying to
Speaker 2: tear his windshield out and everything else. They didn't get
Speaker 2: the message as to I don't even think they knew
Speaker 2: that she that she died, She was not killed. And
Speaker 2: guy pointed a pistol rightfule atimale. You found out later
Speaker 2: on didn't matter. And if I threatened to burn the
Speaker 2: town down unless this guy got what three life sentences
Speaker 2: or whatever the hell it wants a huge amount of time,
Speaker 2: even though everything was on video, So even video is
Speaker 2: going to save you in a dying society. Those people
Speaker 2: shouldn't even been out. There was a total ban on
Speaker 2: protest at that point. They're the ones who removed the
Speaker 2: street blocking, you know, all the all the gates blocking
Speaker 2: the street. He hit him in such a slow speed
Speaker 2: that his airbags didn't even go on. He didn't He
Speaker 2: wasn't trying to hurt anybody. He was very obvious. And
Speaker 2: yet Charlottesville they were well aware what would happen if
Speaker 2: they came out with the with the wrong.
Speaker 3: Verdict.
Speaker 2: And if you guys could help him in any way,
Speaker 2: if there's anyone who needs help. It's him, because the
Speaker 2: man has done nothing wrong as far as I'm concerned,
Speaker 2: and he was just a normal guy. Is a normal
Speaker 2: kid trying to get home and and and now he's
Speaker 2: going to spend the rest of his life in prison.
Speaker 2: And that guy that could be any one of us
Speaker 2: at any time, depending on who's this so called victim.
Speaker 2: And that's very relevant.
Speaker 3: Here.
Speaker 2: We were the ones. We were there for the truth,
Speaker 2: loving our people, the people who built this country. These communists,
Speaker 2: these anarchists, they were there for destruction. It's very clear
Speaker 2: who the signs were, and it was it was when
Speaker 2: I first saw the news report. You know, barely could
Speaker 2: watch it. They didn't get the memo yet. It was
Speaker 2: fairly objective at that point. They didn't even see any
Speaker 2: kind of violence. They never said that he smashed into them.
Speaker 2: He never did no such thing. Only later on when
Speaker 2: they built the story did they come up with that.
Speaker 2: And then he was arrested that day, and the poor
Speaker 2: kiddy was in tears and everything. And you could help
Speaker 2: him there in Virginia in any way you can. It
Speaker 2: would be very good idea, because the last I've heard,
Speaker 2: he's not doing well. Obviously, none of us would be
Speaker 2: doing well in his position. So so even in this
Speaker 2: dying society, self defense, basic self not necessarily the fight
Speaker 2: against evil, an offensive fight against evil, as he says,
Speaker 2: but basic self defense, that's not going too that's not
Speaker 2: going to it's not going to help. Even if that
Speaker 2: guy did use his car as a weapon, he was
Speaker 2: a rifle was pointed at him, you know, he didn't.
Speaker 2: But you know it's clear right on video they were
Speaker 2: trying to get into the car, but none of that,
Speaker 2: all that was squashed. You could even have stuff on
Speaker 2: video and have it not work. But you know, compared
Speaker 2: to today, Elin is talking about a relatively healthy society.
Speaker 2: The virtue you have to have now to even do
Speaker 2: the basic right thing is so extraordinary that it's you know,
Speaker 2: you almost understand why. You know, for people who are
Speaker 2: just ignorant and don't know the truth and don't care,
Speaker 2: there are days where I envy them, because knowing the
Speaker 2: truth and acting on it is is leads to a
Speaker 2: very very very difficult life. So I know I went
Speaker 2: off this topic, but you but you know how I
Speaker 2: got there.
Speaker 1: Alrighty leh, Let's wrap this up, start a new chapter
Speaker 1: next episode. As I do at the end of every episode,
Speaker 1: I will remind everybody to go over to the show
Speaker 1: notes and go over to the descriptions on the video
Speaker 1: donates to doctor Johnson's work, and yeah, that's it.
Speaker 3: We'll be back in a few days.
Speaker 2: I appreciate it.
Speaker 3: Thank you, doctor Johnson.
Speaker 2: Appreciate you, all right, ma'am.