First, let me apologize fo the delay.  The Iran War and a prolonged power outage kept me from getting these out.  Mea Culpa and all that.

The topic of this chapter is the relative morality of avoiding the issue of resisting evil.  The central point is that Tolstoy and the "Jesus is My Boyfriend" or "Love is all" Christian Church posit that only your own morality and actions matter.  You cannot influence others by any way other than reason and that you cannot and should not condemn or judge the actions of others as evil or wrong, as they do not concern you.  While that sounds right on the surface, "Judge not lest you be judged", on a big enough scale, its allows evil to win.

Ilyin states that the idea of non-resistance to evil under any circumstances is juvenile at best.  It's not rooted in reality because evil does indeed exist and evil acts are perpetuated against good people.  The idea that evil acts don't really affect anyone other than the person doing them is intellectually dishonest.  There is always a victim.

The general puprose of humanity is to always improve ourselves and to always expand our abilities, according to Ilyin.  I agree with this, as I think training is important.  

Ilyin warns that people who write or teach others in response to this quest for self-improvement inherent in us all have a responsibiltiy to actually study and learn about things, rather than just express their own opinions, infected by their own biases.  He points out that these opinions are often wrong.  People who think too highly of themselves tend to pontificate their own, incorrect, opinions as fact.

A great point he makes here is that in order to properly define evil (or love, really), one must see & experience it personally, rather than just think about it in the abstract.  I agree, as anyone who has ever seen the evil men do upon other men will tell you that evil is real and needs to be opposed by strong men and women of virtue.  Otherwise, any discussion of good and evil is just an academic fallacy, presented as fact (the modern church). 

I want to expand on this idea for a second, with my own concurring ideas.  The modern church will tell you that you can never condemn others, especially another entire religion.  They will also tell you that the responsibility for protection has passed to the State, not to you, as a Christian.  However, the medeival church experienced firsthand the evil that Islam and her soldiers did upon Christians.  Their opinion was very different, and from that, when governments failed to act, the first Military Orders of Christ (THE KNIGHTS) were born.  A major historcal fallacy is that Kings and Queens knighted people.  In the modern world, I guess so, but originally, the CHURCH decided who earned the title of Knight.  While some Kings led Knights, the Knights represented the CHURCH and GOD, not the Nation-State.  They fought with the King, not for him, and this led to some spectacular disagreements.  This is coming full circle today, with Islam openly attacking both Christians and Jews once again (still).

Note:  God believes in ONE religion, and it is not Islam.

Ilyin points out that Tolstoy, and in our case the modern church, excuse evil acts as errors, mistakes, weaknesses, passions, and the like, rather than as a manifestation of evil.  They say that a good person must ignore these acts in others and be concerned only with themselves.  They constantly warn against judging or condemning any sin, rather insisting on "loving the sinner".  This is NOT Biblical.  This avoids the issue (hence "FLIGHT" in the Chapter title).  The effect of this leads to a great quote in the chapter: "Virtue enjoys its love and vice freely unleashes its evil will into the world."  Based.

Tolstoy insists that his position is reason and that any disagreement with it is "false".  That sure sounds like the modern left arguing about literally anything, doesn't it?  People believe things that aren't true and refuse to even give life to any argument that fails to confirm their bias.  It doesn't make them right, it just makes them FEEL that they are right.  You cannot reason with that.

Ilyin says that thinking only of ourselves and being concerned only with our own actions & "doing good", rather than stopping the march of evil is self-centered and gives no consideration to the greater good.  This reminds me of the meme with the guys on their knees in front of the executioner saying "at least we didn't give them a reason, right?"  This is a classic formulation of the "Main Character Theory", where you are the main character in a movie and everyone else is just an extra.  It's a logical fallacy.

The problem, according to Ilyin, is that when faced with a national evil (a communist revolution in his case - and ours) this type of person is only concerned with the image of how they responded to the situation as virtuous or not, hence "non-resistance" and the meme, yet again.  Rather than doing anything effective to stop the wider evil, they get to point out that they are better than their oppressors because they didn't resort to "violence" - despite violence being exactly what was needed and expected (even by God).

Ilyin illustrates this point with the example of being a witness to a riotous mob raping a child, while you have a gun in your hand.  Tolstoy, and the modern church, would tell you that violence is evil and not justified.  Ilyin asks, what will God say or expect you to do.  The answer is in Proverbs 24:11 (Rescue those being led away to death; hold back those staggering toward slaughter) and James 4:17 (If anyone, then, knows the good they ought to do and doesn’t do it, it is sin for them).

I know what I would do, and I hope you would too.

Leave your thoughts below.

Man, another banger of a chapter.  Let's dig right in.

I agree with Ilyin's preposition that the main issue is the spiritual admissibility of resistance to evil through physical compulsion and suppression, or force.  Even now, when we are faced with the collapse of western society, people keep givng me all the reason why they shouldn't resist evil in their presence.  We see people get attacked in public and almost always, perfectly capable men just stand around watching, because "I don't want to get sued" or "I might go to jail'.  In this chapter, Ilyin specifically calls out these people.

Ilyin lays out several conditions that must be met before the use of force to resist evil can be met, and I think they are very good.

First, the person must present true evil.  The evil human will must be expressed via an external act; either against you or another person.  The main problem Ilyin complained about in 1925 is the one we face today: Defining evil in people as an ailment, delusion, weakness, accident, or mistake is an evasion of the issue and absolves the wrongdoer of any responsibility.  That's our entire modern society.  I saw a video today of adults pelting NYPD officers with snowballs with no consequences.  Shameful.

Second, we must perceive the evil accurately.  We have to call it out for what it is.  Correctly perceiving evil does NOT mean accepting it - it simply means knowing it when we see it.  Most people under-play evil or evil motives.  Others just simply prefer not see it right in front of them - straight denial.  Too many people hide behind their "faith" and claim that wicked actions and wickedness can't define people - it's just a wrong done "in the moment".  As a society, we frequently turn our backs on evil, losing all right to fight it or even comment on it, because we allowed it to go on.  

Ilyin points out that only those who have see evil and resisted or rejected it before can fight it.  Those who haven't risk being morally harmed by it.   Also, he points out that anyone who has ever justified it has been morally affected by it and can't make proper judgments.  

It's worth noting that Ilyin mentions Matthew 18:6 here, mentioning the infamous millstone.

Third, according to Ilyin, in order to use force to resist evil, you must have a genuine love for good. In order to know evil, we must know good and to resist evil, we must have a preference for good.  The rigteous defender must hate the idea of evil defeating good.  Most people are simply indifferent, having a preference for good, but not really caring if evil actually wins.  There is a great quote from page 56 on this: "The true resistance to evil cannot be reduced to simply assigning blame; and cannot be exhausted by simply rejecting it; no, it puts before the person the question of life & death; demanding from him an answer, whether or not he live under the yoke of the conquering evil, and if so, how exactly he will live as if this victory had not occurred."  Man, hits me right in the chest, as I feel exactly this came way.  You see, I CANNOT live under the conditions the left wants to me under.  CAN NOT.

Fourth, to resist eil you must have a sense of justice (Ilyin calls it "a rigorous attitude toward the world process") and a decisive spirit.  In other words, the capacity to make a quick decision that justice if the right thing, right now.

Fifth, force must be the only thing that will work to stop or prevent the imminent evil act.  We must be beyond the capacity to prevent it via words or argument.  It has to be the only way to resolve it at that point.  Ilyin points out that the biggest failure here is the attitude that it is "none of my business". 

Ilyin ends this chapter on a strong note, pointing out that evil must be opposed and stopped.

This book gets better each time I read it and I find more and more that we are in an existential war with evil forces.

Let me know your thoughts below.

I know that I said we'd do two chapters, but Chapter 7, On Force and Evil, is so full of important points, that I felt we needed to delve into that one a little deeper.

It begins with the idea that most feel that the use of force on others is inherently evil because we are compelling someone rather than appealing to their will via clarity & love and doing so against their consent.  This doesn't actually make it evil though if it is done through the lens of spirituality and love (for example, because it is the right thing to do).

Some people, according to Ilyin, affirm their independence by pursuing evil deeds and possess a dead soul.  Love is dyting inside these people, despite their claims.  We aren't fighting spirituality when we resist such people (as Tolstoy and modern Christian Pastors say), but actually ANTI-SPIRITUALITY.  We're counteracting malice, not love.  That's the key difference.

If we don't physically resist them first, our appeals from clarity and love will only irritate them and drive them further into a frenzy.  I want to unpack this in light of yesterday's shooting in Rhode Island, because that was truly evil.  The left, and the trans movement, demands that we not only accept, but SUPPORT the evil idea that God makes mistakes.  When this man came out to his family as trans, he DEMANDED that they abandon their beliefs and become supportive of him.  When they didn't, and then they ATTEMPTED TO APPEAL TO HIM FROM LOVE AND CLARITY, it drove him into such a frenzy that he tried to kill them all.  This case from yesterday validates EXACTLY what Ilyin said in this paragraph 100 years ago.  You need to understand that trying to convince these people that they are wrong will only push them to more violence.  I'm not saying we shouldn't try, but I am saying you need to be ready for the physical consequences of it.

The bigger point Ilyin makes, and it's just as valid today, is that they cannot see past their instant gratification and anger towards any who would interfere with it until they are physically compelled to stop.  A guy robbing you isn't listening to you.  A trans shooter firing at random people in the mall doesn't care about Scripture quotes.

A great point Ilyin makes that we could all benefit from is that thinking that you can appeal to these people with facts and logic is both spiritually and psychologically naive.  People will not listen to facts that discount their worldview.  If you don't believe me, talk to a Q fan or climate changer about objective reality for like 2 minutes (or a sad ham about the reality that even the FCC doesn't care).  Stop thinking that memes and a clever Twitter reply game is going change hearts and minds (or souls).

The villain expresses his dissent with fury.  Not resisting him forcefully from the outset only makes it worse.  He will be more furious the next time.

Ilyin does an interesting exercise here about body language.  We use body language during conversations to convey sympathy and show that we are kind.  Therefore, the opposite attitudes can also be expressed through body language.  You can immediately tell if someone is intending violence or hate, by their body language.  Ilyin was out there dispensing Tactical Wisdom before it was cool.

On that same note, the villians use their bodeis to do evil, and we can use our bodies, through physical resistance to that evil, to express our disapproval and rejection.  It is a sign of our "resolute, wilful resistance to forbidden behavior".  Ilyin had a great way with words.

Failing to physically resist an evil physical act (an assault, shove, violence) is silent encouragment and complicity.  This is us turning "silence is violence" back on them.  If you allow someone to harm an innocent in front of you, it becomes easier for others to decide to harm innocents.  Instead, if every time a thug pushed an old lady on a train they got knocked out by a righteous protector, people would think twice before shoving others.

Here's a great Ilyin quote on this that I am thinking of having made into a wall hanging here at the Camp: "...And seeing the futility of Spiritual and verbal compulsion, he cannot, dares not, should not refrain from external suppression" (use of physical force).

Followed by: "For if the body of man is not above a man's soul and not more sacred than his spirit, it is not at all an inviolable sanctuary for malice or an unapproachable refuge for vicious passions".  BANGER.

He also points out that to failing to resist is moral prejudice ("we are above that"), spiritual cowardice ("I don't want to go to jail/be sued"), weakness, and sentimental superstition ("the Church says we cannot be violent because Jesus said turn the other cheek").  All of these attitudes lead to the non-resistance of evil.  Ilyin calls this spiritual desertion, betrayal, collaboration, and self-defilement.  He's right.

Here's a great illustration by him from the bottom of page 47 and top of page 48: "He is right who pushes the first-time explorer away from a cliff's edge, who will rip poison from the clutches of a hardened suicidal, who will strike the hands of the aiming revolutionary in time, who will knock down the arsonist at the last minute, who will expel blasphemous & disgraceful people from the temple, who will rush with arms at a crowd of soldiers raping a girl, who will bind the deranged and tame the possessed villain."  The reference to the revolutionary was about an attempt on the life the Tsar, but applies equally here.  Oh, and the one about the temple - that is 100% what should have happened inside that Minnesota church.

Ilyin has a pair of great quotes about the use of force to resist evil:

1. "Acts which faithfully and courageously manifest a spiritual separation between the villain and non-villain."
2. "Are they a betrayal of God's work on Earth? No, but faithful and dedicated service to Him."

The modern church could learn from #2, because that is an argument I get alot.

Here's a great quote on the motivation of those who use force for good versus those who do so for evil: "But he seems to say to the compelled: 'behold, you control yourself inattentively, erroneously, insufficiently, badly, and stand on the eve of a fatal precipice from which there is no turning back', or: 'you humiliate yourself, you rave madly, you trample on your spirituality, you are possessed by the breath of evil, ruin, and death, - stop, for here is the limit!".  I love "for here is the limit".

Here's a few more banger quotes to illustrate the case for force against evil:

1. "The attacker attacks, the suppressor deflects."
2. "The attacker demands obedience to himself, whereas he who compels requires obedience to the spirit and it's laws."

Physical compulsion against a bad guy and malicious violence against an innocent are not the same. They should not be confused as the same.

Ilyin pointed out that to gain a root, evil puts on a mask and pretends to be virtue, much like in our modern society.  "Evil finds entry to the soul much easier when it creeps and pilfers than when it attacks or destroys; it is more appropriate for evil to wear a mask than to reveal it's hideousness at the outset."  This is the LGBTQ movement and Drag Queen story hour.  They didn't start with "we're coming for your kids" - they started with "love is love" and "we just want to be equal".  The evil came later, after it was already entrenched.  As Ilyin put it they "praise evil,  reproach good, lie, slander, flatter, propagandize, and agitate."  Does any of that sound familiar?

Ilyin points out that once they are in charge, they immediately begin to issue orders and prohibitions, exile enemies, compel people by threats, offer goodies to their faithful, and appeal to everyone's bad instincts (envy/greed).

Friends, this is where you are TODAY.  This chapter was incredibly thought provoking.

Let me know your thoughts.