That's an interesting metaphor. In the movie, the agents could hijack any person inside the Matrix and use them, and it seems like there is a spirit or mind-virus (or whatever it is) that similarly hijacks these cancel culture warriors, regardless of the era or context in which they appear. The cancel culture warriors may have different names and faces and personal histories, but it's like they're organic portals for the same spirit.
This "anathematizing" by power possessing people who feel insulted reminds me of chapter 11 of Beelzebub's Tales, "A Piquant Trait of the Peculiar Psyche of Contemporary Man," where Beelzebub explains what could happen to his grandson Hassein if ever it is discovered that he called us three brained beings 'slugs.' As Mullah Nassr Eddin puts it, at best "you wouldn't have recovered your senses before the next crop of birches."
I'd forgotten, but that reminds me of another example from BT:
“This particularity of the learned beings of the Earth of new formation is called ‘pecking to death.’
“As this honest Austro-Hungarian learned being then began making his elucidating experiments not as all the learned beings of the Earth of new formation had in general become mechanized to do, he was, according to the custom there, very meticulously ‘pecked to death.’
“And this process of the pecking to death of this poor Mesmer was then so effective that it has already passed by its own momentum to the learned beings of the Earth from generation to generation.
“For instance, all the books now existing there on the question of this hypnotism – and of such books there are thousands there – always begin by saying that this Mesmer was nothing more nor less than a rogue with an itching palm and a charlatan of the first water, but that our ‘honest’ and ‘great’ learned beings very soon saw through him and prevented his doing any kind of mischief.
“The more the learned beings of recent times of this peculiar planet are themselves personally, in the sense of ‘idiotism,’ ‘squared,’ the more they criticize Mesmer and say or write concerning him every possible kind of absurdity to bring him into contempt.
“And in doing this, they criticize exactly that humble and honest learned being of their planet, who, if he had not been pecked to death would have revived that science, which alone is absolutely necessary to them and by means of which alone, perhaps, they might be saved from the consequences of the properties of the organ Kundabuffer."
And this:
"certain ordinary beings there ... acquired in their common presences ... the inherency of what is called ‘psychopathy’ and ‘parasitism’ ... and become, as it were, authorities for all the trifling details of the new religious teachings which have already arisen in the mentioned way, and begin, as it is said, ‘to-peck-like-crows-at-a-jackal’s-carcass,’ that totality, already ‘pecked’ from the very beginning without this, of what had been spoken and indicated by the genuine Sacred Individuals, intentionally actualized from Above."
The malicious are mostly motivated by a mixture of envy and insecurity. Truly confident are not threatened by anyone who is not actively frustrating them or denying them resources or attention.
The malicious are empowered by the indifference of the majority, who see no reason to assist the singular or exceptional who are the ones most likely to attract the hostility of the malicious in the first place. Evolutionary psychologists would be able to explain it all better than I.
The sheer intensity of the fear and hatred displayed by many of these ... cancel enthusiasts ... is difficult to understand. But if you can channel sheer terror into some form of rage, you can achieve that level of intensity. It's not clear to me that all of these extreme antagonists are full-blown psychopaths, but certainly that level of fear lies behind this sort of behavior. If it does not fuel it directly, it must certainly provoke it.
In more commonplace propaganda duels, the question of who is lying can be difficult to answer. In theory, both "sides" could be lying, if they were BOTH being provoked by false data supplied by some undisclosed third party.
Isn't the message here that every Thesis must have it's Antithesis ?
They spiral around, feeding off each others energy, alternately attracting and repelling, until they collapse together, fuse into one, then split into two and continue the Yin & Yang spiral again.
Every ChrisChan must have it's A-log.
If you are not aware of the above reference, you may (or may not) be fortunate. It's a tragic, often bizarre and obscene tale that is still being played out right now in (nearly) real time.
I think it's also very educational. The life and times of 17th century mystics is no doubt interesting and perhaps even relevant to our 21st century predicament, but ChrisChan IS the 21st century.
My mystic self could not help but realize that the decline and fall of Christian Weston Chandler runs on a neatly parallel track to the decline and fall of the Christian West. A case of Nominative Determinism perhaps ?
Mr. Harrison Koehli, as a gentleman and scholar of ponerology you will find a great deal to consider in the life and times of ChrisChan. He has been called the most heavily documented person in history. This is probably true, we know more of his life than of any president or movie star you care to name and vastly more than what we know of Napoleon or Caesar.
This data has been digitally documented, archived, analyzed, critiqued, dissected and digested and then analyzed and dissected all over again. All the way through his life runs a vein of pathological ponerology like a ribbon of purest shit.
All of this is available to you now for only the price of an internet connection (and of course many, MANY hours of your precious life).
But be warned, it's a deep and dark rabbit hole, and as the Cyber Gods warn us
This assertion of some sort of innate polarity in the mental plane assumes (it seems to me) that any thesis or antithesis could be shown to be equally true or false. However, if the thesis is found workable and the antithesis is not, then it seems to me there would be an imbalance in favor of the more workable thesis.
What seems more true to me is that there is a real violent antagonism in a few beings to workable truths that help people and improve life. They have become totally "inverted" and feel compelled to rage against truth, workability, improved human ability and happiness.
I was excited to dive into Bohme after hearing a lecture about him by Manly P. Hall.
Unfortunately there is little in the way of practical techniques, which is what is sorely needed. A no nonsense empirical guide. For that, funny enough, I've found it helpful to turn to science to learn about heartbeat resonance, brainwave states and so on.
Love it, Harrison. You put it brilliantly. And indeed, maybe we should rejoice if we can attract some Hochstetter dude. But as you said, also jealously guard our sanity against such trolls.
As for Böhme, I started reading "Way to Christ" (original German), and I found some things very straight-forward, but most is, let's say, a bit cryptic :) The oldfashioned German doesn't help of course, so maybe the English translation is more readable if it is done by people who understand Böhme's teaching.
Paulist Press has a more modern English translation, I think. Versluis also has a little book of the "essential" Boehme of about 50 pages. Looks like a good distillation in readable English. Will let you know how they are after I get to them!
The article made me think about something... what happens when one vehemently defends something that is undoubtedly a truth as it is and you see the object of that truth being distorted and used for selfish, ideological purposes by others?
That is, suppose there is a written work that carries a clear and consistent message, and then that message is twisted to fit the ideological vision. You know that this is wrong, that they are lying. Then you go and denounce the lie. You know it is deliberate disinformation.
Doesn't that make you a potential Hochstetter?
I have already seen several times discussions where someone uses third party works to adjust it to their opinion and use it as propaganda and even a kind of emotional blackmail. An example is the Ukrainian-Russian conflict where pro-Ukrainian adherents have used works of fiction that without the consent of the original author to show their support or make the characters in that work to be in favor of one side or the other. You know that this is a distortion, a lie and does not reflect the intentions of the original author.
Then the following dynamic occurs and when the followers of the author see that the work is used for ideological or political purposes, things totally alien to the author's idea, and make the complaint. Those who distort the work use the tactic of treating as unimportant or mocking the denouncers, making them look like a maniac Hochstetter.
What to do then when you see that the lie is obvious and you denounce it?
I think these are two different things. It's possible to criticize someone, even harshly, without being a Hochstetter. Hochstetter himself, for example, could have simply written an article: "Why Hendershot is Wrong and Possibly Even Lying" and left it at that. But even then, he should have first put in every effort to give Hochstetter the benefit of the doubt and actually test his motor.
There's also an element in "punching down". Most often the people with Hochstetters are going against the majority in some way. It's hard to imagine Fauci having a Hochstetter, for example. He may have plenty of critics, even swarms of them, but the dynamic doesn't seem to work on someone who is entrenched in the mainstream, or who might even help create and maintain it. The Hochestetters are designed to maintain the status quo and take out anyone who can potentially upset the apple cart.
But let's say you find some flat-earther on YouTube and decide they're either wrong, or even intellectually dishonest. You post a comment. Then you post more comments, then you comment on all their videos, and all videos mentioning them. Then you find all their other social media and start doing the same there. Then you dox them, etc., etc. That's entering Hochstetter territory. It goes beyond just denouncing what may be perceived as a lie and starts becoming an obsession. But funnily enough, I don't think flat-earthers get their own Hochstetters (though I'm willing to be proven wrong on that one).
I think it's anyone's duty (who honors truth) to denounce lies where they see them. The liar may try to frame you as the crazy one, but that's just par for the course. If you're criticism resonates with enough people, that will probably get you a Hochstetter, someone who will devote particular attention to you to make sure no one listens to your criticism.
Some may not be able to see the difference, but I think the flavors are like salt vs. sugar.
Wow! What a cool article. Yes, I have seen the Hochsetter effect in action. Dr Stephen Porges, creator of Polyvagal Theory, has his own arch-Hochsetter, for example. The Weinstein's (Bret and Eric) both have theirs. I like your advice, I think it is good, make fun or laughing at them seems an anti-dote - they will definitely not like it at the least. And your post itself is now a tool in the arsenal, people suffering from Hochsetter's can now name them as such: e.g. "You are such a Hochsetter <link to your post>" :-) The name of Boehme and your description of him, reminded me of another Bohm (David, not sure it is pronounced the same), a modern day mystic quantum physicist. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CvL4uNA4U-k
While I agree with the last quote by Langan, "If you don't act against the evil committed against you, then God assumes that you like evil or are at least willing to tolerate it, and treats you accordingly," how do I reconcile that with:
" But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also.
40: And if any man will sue thee at the law, and take away thy coat, let him have thy cloke also.
41: And whosoever shall compel thee to go a mile, go with him twain.
42: Give to him that asketh thee, and from him that would borrow of thee turn not thou away.
43: Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbour, and hate thine enemy.
44: But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you;"
I'd say that the context in which the Gospel saying is true is that in which the wrath of others is transformed into love, which is one way to "act against" evil. (This is an "advanced technique", so to say. It's not as simple as just literally turning the other cheek to be slapped again.) Also, acting against evil does not necessarily mean an eye for an eye. It means first recognizing that it IS evil, and finding the best response to it, i.e. one that doesn't make you evil in the process. In other words, not being a weak pushover, but being creative about maintaining one's own goodness while taking the sting out of the evil directed towards oneself. One can't be controlled by evil if you're chill enough not to take the bait, and at the same time expose them for others to see what they really are. At least, those are my midnight thoughts on the matter.
I think that is a brilliant reply. The question is when to "stand up" for righteousness and justice with a fight, or to still show love despite the evil done unto you. I have came across two stories depicting each scenario, the first by Solzhenitsyn:
And how we burned in the camps later, thinking: What would things have been like if every Security operative, when he went out at night to make an arrest, had been uncertain whether he would return alive and had to say good-bye to his family? Or if, during periods of mass arrests, as for example in Leningrad, when they arrested a quarter of the entire city, people had not simply sat there in their lairs, paling with terror at every bang of the downstairs door and at every step on the staircase, but had understood they had nothing left to lose and had boldly set up in the downstairs hall an ambush of half a dozen people with axes, hammers, pokers, or whatever else was at hand?... The Organs would very quickly have suffered a shortage of officers and transport and, notwithstanding all of Stalin's thirst, the cursed machine would have ground to a halt! If...if...We didn't love freedom enough. And even more – we had no awareness of the real situation.... We purely and simply deserved everything that happened afterward.
and another by a youtube comment I just came across:
I just came from Church where the person preaching the sermon told the story of a Christian woman who was married to a Hindu husband in North India, and she would have the habit of getting down on her knees to untie her husband's shoelaces whenever he arrived home. One day while she was doing this the man was furious because of a bad day at work and took it out on his wife by kicking her so violently she fell and hit her head on a wall. She soon noticed she was bleeding from her head and wrapped a towel around it. She then got back down on her knees to untie her husband's shoelaces. He asked her why she put up with a "wild beast" like him, and she answered "it isn't me, but Jesus in me." Some time later this man became a Gospel preacher in India.
It would be interesting if the former scenario, where Solzhenitsyn is describing the USSR and its injustice, had another proposal: to overcome the guard's evil with love, although many would say this is a great injustice to not fight. Or, it is interesting to imagine in the latter scenario what the outcome would have been if the woman "stood up" for herself with a fight. Perhaps the man's evil would have never been overcome with love. And perhaps the guards would have been even more forceful leading to an even worse outcome.
I am struggling with when exactly to be more forceful to stand up for myself and others (perhaps in governmental/political affairs) and when exactly to turn the other cheek (perhaps in more personal situations). I guess praying for wisdom and guidance would help.
Good stories, Camden. On the last bit, that's pretty much what Lobaczewski recommends. In situations where we lack the data to know for sure, we must rely on our inner voice. Another option is to have a group of people you trust to discuss things with and get their perspectives.
Hold steady Dr Malone - don't despair, please! You are our stern and much appreciated and needed. If and when it gets too bad, take a break, come north to our place and I will learn how to make cinnamon buns while you are here! They won't be perfect, but it will be cold, so they will taste good! I think those that set out to 'change the spin' can see a true heart - then, realizing that it isn't their own, feel they must 'dirty' it in the eyes of others... none of those people matter. We are all here, born into this time for a reason. I'd say you have found yours and should know God is behind you all the way. Don't doubt, hold true - go out amongst the horses and breathe deep. They too can see a true heart!
Just a heads up that Dr. Malone might not see this comment, BirdyB. If you're a paid subscriber, you can head over to his substack here, where there's a better chance he'll see it:
An aspect that you have missed, that now seems to be among us, is that it is possible to persecute people with electromagnetic weapons and with microscopic electro-mechanical implants in the body. If one falls afoul of people in possession of this technology, it makes the solution you propose impossible.
Could be. It assumes that such technologies are widespread and effective enough to work. Maybe they aren't very effective. Maybe they're effective on some or most on whom they're used. But maybe, also, there are means of counteracting such things.
The Agent Smiths of the Matrix have always been there, it seems.
That's an interesting metaphor. In the movie, the agents could hijack any person inside the Matrix and use them, and it seems like there is a spirit or mind-virus (or whatever it is) that similarly hijacks these cancel culture warriors, regardless of the era or context in which they appear. The cancel culture warriors may have different names and faces and personal histories, but it's like they're organic portals for the same spirit.
This "anathematizing" by power possessing people who feel insulted reminds me of chapter 11 of Beelzebub's Tales, "A Piquant Trait of the Peculiar Psyche of Contemporary Man," where Beelzebub explains what could happen to his grandson Hassein if ever it is discovered that he called us three brained beings 'slugs.' As Mullah Nassr Eddin puts it, at best "you wouldn't have recovered your senses before the next crop of birches."
I'd forgotten, but that reminds me of another example from BT:
“This particularity of the learned beings of the Earth of new formation is called ‘pecking to death.’
“As this honest Austro-Hungarian learned being then began making his elucidating experiments not as all the learned beings of the Earth of new formation had in general become mechanized to do, he was, according to the custom there, very meticulously ‘pecked to death.’
“And this process of the pecking to death of this poor Mesmer was then so effective that it has already passed by its own momentum to the learned beings of the Earth from generation to generation.
“For instance, all the books now existing there on the question of this hypnotism – and of such books there are thousands there – always begin by saying that this Mesmer was nothing more nor less than a rogue with an itching palm and a charlatan of the first water, but that our ‘honest’ and ‘great’ learned beings very soon saw through him and prevented his doing any kind of mischief.
“The more the learned beings of recent times of this peculiar planet are themselves personally, in the sense of ‘idiotism,’ ‘squared,’ the more they criticize Mesmer and say or write concerning him every possible kind of absurdity to bring him into contempt.
“And in doing this, they criticize exactly that humble and honest learned being of their planet, who, if he had not been pecked to death would have revived that science, which alone is absolutely necessary to them and by means of which alone, perhaps, they might be saved from the consequences of the properties of the organ Kundabuffer."
And this:
"certain ordinary beings there ... acquired in their common presences ... the inherency of what is called ‘psychopathy’ and ‘parasitism’ ... and become, as it were, authorities for all the trifling details of the new religious teachings which have already arisen in the mentioned way, and begin, as it is said, ‘to-peck-like-crows-at-a-jackal’s-carcass,’ that totality, already ‘pecked’ from the very beginning without this, of what had been spoken and indicated by the genuine Sacred Individuals, intentionally actualized from Above."
The malicious are mostly motivated by a mixture of envy and insecurity. Truly confident are not threatened by anyone who is not actively frustrating them or denying them resources or attention.
The malicious are empowered by the indifference of the majority, who see no reason to assist the singular or exceptional who are the ones most likely to attract the hostility of the malicious in the first place. Evolutionary psychologists would be able to explain it all better than I.
Boehme seems to have been a rather wise man!
His advice, and yours, is valuable.
The sheer intensity of the fear and hatred displayed by many of these ... cancel enthusiasts ... is difficult to understand. But if you can channel sheer terror into some form of rage, you can achieve that level of intensity. It's not clear to me that all of these extreme antagonists are full-blown psychopaths, but certainly that level of fear lies behind this sort of behavior. If it does not fuel it directly, it must certainly provoke it.
In more commonplace propaganda duels, the question of who is lying can be difficult to answer. In theory, both "sides" could be lying, if they were BOTH being provoked by false data supplied by some undisclosed third party.
Isn't the message here that every Thesis must have it's Antithesis ?
They spiral around, feeding off each others energy, alternately attracting and repelling, until they collapse together, fuse into one, then split into two and continue the Yin & Yang spiral again.
Every ChrisChan must have it's A-log.
If you are not aware of the above reference, you may (or may not) be fortunate. It's a tragic, often bizarre and obscene tale that is still being played out right now in (nearly) real time.
I think it's also very educational. The life and times of 17th century mystics is no doubt interesting and perhaps even relevant to our 21st century predicament, but ChrisChan IS the 21st century.
My mystic self could not help but realize that the decline and fall of Christian Weston Chandler runs on a neatly parallel track to the decline and fall of the Christian West. A case of Nominative Determinism perhaps ?
Mr. Harrison Koehli, as a gentleman and scholar of ponerology you will find a great deal to consider in the life and times of ChrisChan. He has been called the most heavily documented person in history. This is probably true, we know more of his life than of any president or movie star you care to name and vastly more than what we know of Napoleon or Caesar.
This data has been digitally documented, archived, analyzed, critiqued, dissected and digested and then analyzed and dissected all over again. All the way through his life runs a vein of pathological ponerology like a ribbon of purest shit.
All of this is available to you now for only the price of an internet connection (and of course many, MANY hours of your precious life).
But be warned, it's a deep and dark rabbit hole, and as the Cyber Gods warn us
"That which has been seen cannot be un-seen"
Nope, wasn't familiar with ChrisChan. Read a bit now. Don't think I'll be reading any more! LOL
This assertion of some sort of innate polarity in the mental plane assumes (it seems to me) that any thesis or antithesis could be shown to be equally true or false. However, if the thesis is found workable and the antithesis is not, then it seems to me there would be an imbalance in favor of the more workable thesis.
What seems more true to me is that there is a real violent antagonism in a few beings to workable truths that help people and improve life. They have become totally "inverted" and feel compelled to rage against truth, workability, improved human ability and happiness.
>Every ChrisChan must have it's A-log.
I coughed up my tea.
The universe truly revolves around Chris and his quest for Becoming.
I was excited to dive into Bohme after hearing a lecture about him by Manly P. Hall.
Unfortunately there is little in the way of practical techniques, which is what is sorely needed. A no nonsense empirical guide. For that, funny enough, I've found it helpful to turn to science to learn about heartbeat resonance, brainwave states and so on.
Sounds like Versluis's next conversation book with Faas will get into some practical stuff.
Love it, Harrison. You put it brilliantly. And indeed, maybe we should rejoice if we can attract some Hochstetter dude. But as you said, also jealously guard our sanity against such trolls.
As for Böhme, I started reading "Way to Christ" (original German), and I found some things very straight-forward, but most is, let's say, a bit cryptic :) The oldfashioned German doesn't help of course, so maybe the English translation is more readable if it is done by people who understand Böhme's teaching.
Paulist Press has a more modern English translation, I think. Versluis also has a little book of the "essential" Boehme of about 50 pages. Looks like a good distillation in readable English. Will let you know how they are after I get to them!
The article made me think about something... what happens when one vehemently defends something that is undoubtedly a truth as it is and you see the object of that truth being distorted and used for selfish, ideological purposes by others?
That is, suppose there is a written work that carries a clear and consistent message, and then that message is twisted to fit the ideological vision. You know that this is wrong, that they are lying. Then you go and denounce the lie. You know it is deliberate disinformation.
Doesn't that make you a potential Hochstetter?
I have already seen several times discussions where someone uses third party works to adjust it to their opinion and use it as propaganda and even a kind of emotional blackmail. An example is the Ukrainian-Russian conflict where pro-Ukrainian adherents have used works of fiction that without the consent of the original author to show their support or make the characters in that work to be in favor of one side or the other. You know that this is a distortion, a lie and does not reflect the intentions of the original author.
Then the following dynamic occurs and when the followers of the author see that the work is used for ideological or political purposes, things totally alien to the author's idea, and make the complaint. Those who distort the work use the tactic of treating as unimportant or mocking the denouncers, making them look like a maniac Hochstetter.
What to do then when you see that the lie is obvious and you denounce it?
I think these are two different things. It's possible to criticize someone, even harshly, without being a Hochstetter. Hochstetter himself, for example, could have simply written an article: "Why Hendershot is Wrong and Possibly Even Lying" and left it at that. But even then, he should have first put in every effort to give Hochstetter the benefit of the doubt and actually test his motor.
There's also an element in "punching down". Most often the people with Hochstetters are going against the majority in some way. It's hard to imagine Fauci having a Hochstetter, for example. He may have plenty of critics, even swarms of them, but the dynamic doesn't seem to work on someone who is entrenched in the mainstream, or who might even help create and maintain it. The Hochestetters are designed to maintain the status quo and take out anyone who can potentially upset the apple cart.
But let's say you find some flat-earther on YouTube and decide they're either wrong, or even intellectually dishonest. You post a comment. Then you post more comments, then you comment on all their videos, and all videos mentioning them. Then you find all their other social media and start doing the same there. Then you dox them, etc., etc. That's entering Hochstetter territory. It goes beyond just denouncing what may be perceived as a lie and starts becoming an obsession. But funnily enough, I don't think flat-earthers get their own Hochstetters (though I'm willing to be proven wrong on that one).
I think it's anyone's duty (who honors truth) to denounce lies where they see them. The liar may try to frame you as the crazy one, but that's just par for the course. If you're criticism resonates with enough people, that will probably get you a Hochstetter, someone who will devote particular attention to you to make sure no one listens to your criticism.
Some may not be able to see the difference, but I think the flavors are like salt vs. sugar.
💬 This friend had made a copy. The copy had made the rounds. 👌🔥
↑ Rhymes with ↓
🗨 Three may keep a secret, if two of them are dead 😉
____
💬 the proper opinions for the time of year 😅😂
I stole that last line from Michael McConkey, who stole it from Auden. ;)
Wow! What a cool article. Yes, I have seen the Hochsetter effect in action. Dr Stephen Porges, creator of Polyvagal Theory, has his own arch-Hochsetter, for example. The Weinstein's (Bret and Eric) both have theirs. I like your advice, I think it is good, make fun or laughing at them seems an anti-dote - they will definitely not like it at the least. And your post itself is now a tool in the arsenal, people suffering from Hochsetter's can now name them as such: e.g. "You are such a Hochsetter <link to your post>" :-) The name of Boehme and your description of him, reminded me of another Bohm (David, not sure it is pronounced the same), a modern day mystic quantum physicist. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CvL4uNA4U-k
Incidently, this year's physics Nobel went to a threesome of quantum physicists 🙂
There should be a kinda second-tier heart to hit on re-read 😊
While I agree with the last quote by Langan, "If you don't act against the evil committed against you, then God assumes that you like evil or are at least willing to tolerate it, and treats you accordingly," how do I reconcile that with:
" But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also.
40: And if any man will sue thee at the law, and take away thy coat, let him have thy cloke also.
41: And whosoever shall compel thee to go a mile, go with him twain.
42: Give to him that asketh thee, and from him that would borrow of thee turn not thou away.
43: Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbour, and hate thine enemy.
44: But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you;"
I'd say that the context in which the Gospel saying is true is that in which the wrath of others is transformed into love, which is one way to "act against" evil. (This is an "advanced technique", so to say. It's not as simple as just literally turning the other cheek to be slapped again.) Also, acting against evil does not necessarily mean an eye for an eye. It means first recognizing that it IS evil, and finding the best response to it, i.e. one that doesn't make you evil in the process. In other words, not being a weak pushover, but being creative about maintaining one's own goodness while taking the sting out of the evil directed towards oneself. One can't be controlled by evil if you're chill enough not to take the bait, and at the same time expose them for others to see what they really are. At least, those are my midnight thoughts on the matter.
I think that is a brilliant reply. The question is when to "stand up" for righteousness and justice with a fight, or to still show love despite the evil done unto you. I have came across two stories depicting each scenario, the first by Solzhenitsyn:
And how we burned in the camps later, thinking: What would things have been like if every Security operative, when he went out at night to make an arrest, had been uncertain whether he would return alive and had to say good-bye to his family? Or if, during periods of mass arrests, as for example in Leningrad, when they arrested a quarter of the entire city, people had not simply sat there in their lairs, paling with terror at every bang of the downstairs door and at every step on the staircase, but had understood they had nothing left to lose and had boldly set up in the downstairs hall an ambush of half a dozen people with axes, hammers, pokers, or whatever else was at hand?... The Organs would very quickly have suffered a shortage of officers and transport and, notwithstanding all of Stalin's thirst, the cursed machine would have ground to a halt! If...if...We didn't love freedom enough. And even more – we had no awareness of the real situation.... We purely and simply deserved everything that happened afterward.
and another by a youtube comment I just came across:
I just came from Church where the person preaching the sermon told the story of a Christian woman who was married to a Hindu husband in North India, and she would have the habit of getting down on her knees to untie her husband's shoelaces whenever he arrived home. One day while she was doing this the man was furious because of a bad day at work and took it out on his wife by kicking her so violently she fell and hit her head on a wall. She soon noticed she was bleeding from her head and wrapped a towel around it. She then got back down on her knees to untie her husband's shoelaces. He asked her why she put up with a "wild beast" like him, and she answered "it isn't me, but Jesus in me." Some time later this man became a Gospel preacher in India.
It would be interesting if the former scenario, where Solzhenitsyn is describing the USSR and its injustice, had another proposal: to overcome the guard's evil with love, although many would say this is a great injustice to not fight. Or, it is interesting to imagine in the latter scenario what the outcome would have been if the woman "stood up" for herself with a fight. Perhaps the man's evil would have never been overcome with love. And perhaps the guards would have been even more forceful leading to an even worse outcome.
I am struggling with when exactly to be more forceful to stand up for myself and others (perhaps in governmental/political affairs) and when exactly to turn the other cheek (perhaps in more personal situations). I guess praying for wisdom and guidance would help.
Good stories, Camden. On the last bit, that's pretty much what Lobaczewski recommends. In situations where we lack the data to know for sure, we must rely on our inner voice. Another option is to have a group of people you trust to discuss things with and get their perspectives.
>empirical mystics
Great term.
Hold steady Dr Malone - don't despair, please! You are our stern and much appreciated and needed. If and when it gets too bad, take a break, come north to our place and I will learn how to make cinnamon buns while you are here! They won't be perfect, but it will be cold, so they will taste good! I think those that set out to 'change the spin' can see a true heart - then, realizing that it isn't their own, feel they must 'dirty' it in the eyes of others... none of those people matter. We are all here, born into this time for a reason. I'd say you have found yours and should know God is behind you all the way. Don't doubt, hold true - go out amongst the horses and breathe deep. They too can see a true heart!
Just a heads up that Dr. Malone might not see this comment, BirdyB. If you're a paid subscriber, you can head over to his substack here, where there's a better chance he'll see it:
https://rwmalonemd.substack.com/p/some-notes-on-the-tragicomic-attempt
Seems Mattias Desmet has his Hochstetter's in overdrive. https://mattiasdesmet.substack.com/p/some-notes-on-the-tragicomic-attempt/comments#comment-9532008 Harrison, I linked to this post in the comments there as I felt it was relevant for him. Dr Robert Malone replied that he has shared your post to his GETRR account!!!
Awesome! Thanks, Gary.
I'm not on GETTR but I managed to find the post, https://gettr.com/post/p1tc4ovdfcc
An aspect that you have missed, that now seems to be among us, is that it is possible to persecute people with electromagnetic weapons and with microscopic electro-mechanical implants in the body. If one falls afoul of people in possession of this technology, it makes the solution you propose impossible.
Could be. It assumes that such technologies are widespread and effective enough to work. Maybe they aren't very effective. Maybe they're effective on some or most on whom they're used. But maybe, also, there are means of counteracting such things.