“On Resistance to Evil by Force” by Ivan Ilyin

Back cover blurb:

“Written in 1925 [in the context of the atrocities committed by the Jewish-led Bolshevists against tens of millions of Russians], “On Resistance to Evil by Force” is one of the most important tracts composed by white émigré philosopher Ivan Alexandrovich Ilyin. Responding to the pacifist pretentions of Count Leo Tolstoy, Ilyin mounts a tenacious defence of the Orthodox tradition of physical opposition to evil. As he explains, in the face of evil which can be contained by no other means, a forceful response is not only permissible, but becomes a knightly duty. Further, heroic courage consists not only in recognising this duty, but in bearing its heavy moral burden without fear.

In his own time, Ilyin penned this guide for the exiled Russian White Army in its continued resistance against the godless Bolsheviks, yet while the world has developed since the civil war which he lived through, Christians everywhere can still find great relevance in his words, for the same evil continues its designs through other means and under other names.

Translated here into English for the first time [in 2018 by K Benois], “On Resistance to Evil by Force” is destined to become a classic of Christian ethics.”

By way of introduction:

Matthew Raphael Johnson introduced me to Ilyin:

·                The Orthodox Nationalist - Ivan Ilyin on Democracy and Evil – TON 090121 – Matthew Raphael Johnson

https://www.radioalbion.com/2021/09/the-orthodox-nationalist-ivan-ilyin-on.html

·                Russian Nationalist Philosopher - Ivan Ilyin - Matthew Raphael Johnson

https://odysee.com/@InvincibleOrthodoxy:3/russian-nationalist-philosopher-ivan:c

(Edit: youtube channel has since been deleted)

(youtube channel has been shut down - see this video on Odysee …)

https://odysee.com/@InvincibleOrthodoxy:3/russian-nationalist-philosopher-ivan:c

Johnson at 21:23:

“One of the important central concepts in Ivan Ilyin's thinking is the definition of freedom.  The word ‘freedom’ in the West has been butchered to the point where it now almost means the opposite of what it originally was meant to be.  The word that we should use I think that would make better sense is ‘autonomy’ rather than freedom.  In the West there's a tendency to believe that freedom refers to the ability to do whatever you want, that there is a lack of external restraint and so it comes down to being able to act arbitrarily, having no reason to act the way you do, because there can be no causality-[…] it's freedom to do whatever you want, and that's somehow a good thing.”

_____

I was taken aback by the relevance of Ilyin’s writing to the current day evil behind the Covidian cult – a form of modern-day medical Bolshevism.

_____

Following are some passages.  I will let the reader apply their own thoughts, experience and interpretation …

From Chapter 2

“In fact, what would “non-resistance” [to evil] mean, in the sense of the absence of any resistance?  This would mean accepting evil: letting it in and giving it freedom, scope and power.  If under these conditions the uprising of evil occurred, and non-resistance continued, it would mean subordination to it, a surrender of the self to it, participation in it, and finally, turning oneself into its instrument, into its body, into its cesspool, its plaything, an absorbed element thereof.  It would be a voluntary self-corruption and self-infection at the start, and the active spread of infection among other people and their involvement in its coordination by the end.

[…]

Moreover, for however long there is a dislike in the soul or at least a vague disgust, then the person still resists: he, perhaps, does not rise up in any way, but he is still divided, he fights within himself and as a result, the very acceptance of evil fails him; even while completely passive externally, he resists evil internally, condemns it, is indignant, exposes it before himself, does not succumb to his fears and temptations, and even succumbing in part reproaches himself for it, gathers with the spirit, resents himself, turns away from it, and is purified in repentance, even when drowning, he resists and does not sink.

[…]

Therefore the non-resistor of evil sooner or later arrives at the need to assure himself that evil is not so bad and that it is not so definitively evil, that it has some positive features, that there are many of them, that they may even predominate.

[…]

And when aversion subsides and evil is no longer experienced as evil, then acceptance imperceptibly becomes total: the soul begins to believe that black is white, adapts to match, becomes black itself, and finds that it approves and enjoys, and, of course, this gives evil great pleasure.

This is the spiritual law: the non-resistor to evil is absorbed by it and becomes possessed.

[…]

Evil is first and foremost the spiritual inclination of man, inherent in each of us, as if for some, living within us there is a passionate desire to unbridle, to unleash the beast inside, a gravitation that always strives to expand its field and to overtake us completely.

[…]

It is clear that the more spineless and unprincipled the man is, the closer he is to this state and the more natural it is for him not to resist evil.

[…]

And it is natural that from non-resistance evil passion expands its dominance to fullness: chunks of passion, already ennobled, discard their garments of nobility and pour into a common rebellion; they no longer hold the line and barricade, but they themselves indulge in the former enemy and embrace evil with vivacity.  The evil obsession becomes total and draws the soul on its own paths, according to its own laws.  Obsessed with an evil passion, the non-resistor runs rampant because he himself has rejected all that restrains, directs and formulates: all his non-resisting force becomes the power of the most thunderous evil, and the breath of death feeds upon the cruelty of a most helpless demise.  This is why the end of his frenzy is the end of his psyche and bodily existence: insanity or death.

[…]

Such a decomposition of spirituality in the soul may emerge in a weak person in adulthood, but it can also begin in childhood …

[…]

A person who has been spiritually defective since childhood can even develop in himself a special mental structure, which, if superficially observed, can be mistaken for “character”, and special viewpoints that are then mistaken for “beliefs”.

In fact, he being unprincipled and spineless, remains always a slave to his bad passions, a prisoner of elaborate mental mechanisms that possess him and reign all-powerful in his life, devoid of spiritual dimension and divining the contours of his disgusting behaviour.  He does not resist his evil obsession as “will”, his instinctive scheming as “the mind”, the impulses of his evil passions as “feelings”.

Wrapping himself in anti-spiritual passions, he pronounces his nature in a corresponding anti-spiritual “ideology”, in which radical and comprehensiveness godlessness merges with his own excruciating sickness of the heart and complete moral idiocy.

Naturally, spiritually healthy people cause such a person only irritation and anger, and foment in him a sick love for power, in the manifestations of which flashes of megalomania inevitably alternate with outbursts of maniacal persecution.”

_____

End of quoted passages part 1. 

[I’ll leave you to insert the names or position descriptions of the various individuals who mistake their own defective mental structure for “character”, and special viewpoints for “beliefs”.  Could be a shopper, a neighbour, a politician or some sort of ‘expert’ – or even a family member.]

____

Continuing with Ilyin (Page 195 - Chapter 21) - some final thoughts by Ilyin:

“The fate of man is, in his life on earth, to confront the outbreak of uninvited evil.  It is impossible to avoid this fate; and thus there are only two possibilities: either to be dishonourable and turn away from this struggle, to dishonourably live through it by both blindness and cowardice, or the honourable path of accepting it, comprehending this acceptance as a service and remaining faithful to its vocation.“

[…]

… A strong man asserts his power precisely by the fact that he does not flee from the conflict into an allegedly virtuous passivity and does not close his eyes to his tragic nature, thus falling from cowardice into crookedness; a strong man sees the tragedy of his situation and goes out to meet it, enter it and eliminate it.”

[…]

“Anyone who, in the face of aggressive villainy, requires an “ideal” moral perfection in all outcomes and accepts nothing less, does not understand the central tragedy of life: this tragedy consists in the fact that there is no ideal outcome in such a situation.“