Amen- Celia Farber. I understand where you are coming from. I wish some of your readers who replied to this article would reread your article again. I wish they would actually think about what you wrote and why you wrote it. I couldn't agree more with your sentiment. I, for one, do not believe you are condoning evil or saying evil should not be held accountable. That would be a gross misunderstanding of what you propose in your article. Thank you and keep up the good work.
But the ordinary people are feeding evil. Paying taxes, using banks, working for government, "honoring" the troops, all this is feeding evil. Should we be treating them the same as though their delusions are causing no harm? Just to keep them from being depressed? I don't want anyone to be depressed but maybe it's the right response to this killing culture.
Even if we actually read, some of us will still be unable to actually think about what she wrote and why she wrote it. Unable to understand, even to apprehend, where is coming from.
So we have no chances to agree — with the agreement that, like yours, could never be out-agreed — with her sentiment; we are probably bound to keep misunderstanding as grossly as we already have: and that is as predictable as you keeping understanding every future post by her as finely as you understood this one.
And all of this while you need read only once the articles, unlike us, to whom the wise would also recommend at least a re-read.
Yes. There is no need for rudeness, ever. Online, the Mark of the Troll is ad hominem rudeness. I do think one of the most corrosive and damaging forces in the world, though, is spite. When considering whether I want to pursue a friendship or any other relationship with someone, rudeness and spite are the two things that say no, nope. Sure, there are the obvious things, like serial killers and being tremendously invested in things that I do not like or find, um, unnerving, like aggressive driving, but most things that are negatives for me are forms of rudeness. Political ranting, making fun of someone, things like that. but it is absolutely true - someone who is rude to wait staff is someone to avoid. When someone feels free to be rude, I feel that they will also feel free to cause harm in some way.
I worked in Japan quite a lot, and it was actually very nice to be able to explain to folks here that I was not bowing subserviently to Japanese people - the "bowing" is really, at least IMO, saying we are starting a social transaction of some sort. We are acknowledging each other's presence, we are saying hello, I am in your lovely shop. My answer to anyone who apologised for not speaking English very well was that no, I apologise for being in your country and not speaking Japanese. I was only confronted with rudeness once, when a woman sort of pushed ahead of me in line to the cash register (we were all buying beer), and the others in line and the cashier were horrified. She was gestured back where she had been. I still regret that I was so rattled that I did what I now think was a bit of a rude thing under the circumstances - I bowed to her and gestured to her to go ahead and be next. That was likely worse than all the other people in line shaking their heads.
Covid really brought out the simmering rudeness in a surprising number of people. It was, honestly, dangerous and shrill behavior from the jab enthusiasts and from, say, those who brayed that Ivermectin was horse paste that was astonishing to me. The Covid-related hateful responses from people were quite illuminating, even worse, in a way, than the rude divisiveness from those who differ politically. Maybe it is fear or uncertainty , I do not know.
So true what you said about covid. It brought out mob behavior, tribal mentality and the safety in numbers delusion of the hoi polloi. A fine example of what can go wrong in a "democracy".
Not just in a “democracy”. It can happen in any society that is wrapped up in fear and serious “personal ideologies” that “if you’re not on my team” you certainly must be part of the “opposing team”.
While what you write is of a polite community that in general is a good way to live our best lives in the best communities, don't mistake nice, civil people for being opponents of totalitarianism. Quite the opposite. Nice people support totalitarianism. By their unflinching obedience to authority. And desire to not offend, to remain civil. To obey is the civil thing to do. Society stays nice and peaceful that way. But not very free. A nice, polite and civil society and freedom do not go together. I assert that they are mutually exclusive.
Nice people are the most likely to become participants in the banality of evil. The truly wicked are, thankfully few in number. Not enough to enable society-wide evil. It's the good people. Who obey. Who are polite. Try to be caring and considerate. Nice. Give grace.
All of those positive attributes and characteristics. Turned and used against others. To commit evil. The predator class has studied human psychology, knows how to use our niceness against us.
If you obeyed, wore a mask in the supermarket, restaurant, mall, airport, school. Work. If you obeyed, just wore masks to be "nice" and not scare granny even though *you* knew better then *you* participated in the banality of evil.
Think back to how masking first came about in 2020. To be nice. "To show you cared. To protect Grandma, even though you knew you were safe. The nice thing to do. And authorities said so. Those in power wouldn't dare abuse the trust of the population in a crisis. That would be bad and wrong. And most people aren't bad people doing wrong things. Those who we see in power appear to be nice, just like us. Even if they're wrong they must have a reason to say and do what they say and do. And to make demands of us. Can't have leaders in power we can't trust, they know that, they'd never blow the trust of the people. Only bad people do that, not our leaders. And since we're a nation of law and order we must obey laws and orders, that's how things work. Disobeying laws and orders is what criminals do. And we're not criminals. We're nice, law-abiding people."
And THAT'S who, where and why the world suffers under authoritarian rule. Because we are so very nice, trusting and obedient. Predators and authoritarians (but I repeat myself) know this, love them some very nice, trusting and obedient populations to rule. Easiest prey to turn into subjects.
Which is why the saying, "Be ungovernable" exists. American DNA is to be rebellious, sometimes rude and offensive, having the freedom to offend is paramount for free societies. Which is why there's been a long drumbeat to criminalize "offensive" speech and behaviors. Not anything that actually results in harm, just hurt feelings criminalized. Making it the law to be "nice" people who don't offend anyone's feelings. How subjects are created. And become a self-enforcing population. Of "nice" people."
We see the fruits of being "nice" indulging mental illness in the trans community. And now if you don't go along with their delusions they get angry, violent, murderous. The transinsanity once indulged has become the transmafia. It doesn't help them. It does hurt society. Being "nice" and "polite" indulging delusions doesn't end well. Especially when the laws demand we indulge the delusional, to be "nice."
The reason the United States has the globalists conniving and tinkering in ways they don't bother doing in the rest of the world is that we've been described as "ungovernable." No doubt you've seen bumper stickers, tee-shirts and memes with words to that effect, "be ungovernable." It's our "ugly American" rudeness and incivility that is the basis of our ungovernability.
The more we try to conform with European and Asian sensibilities, as most of the educated, privileged class try to model in their effete manners and mannerisms, the lure of playing by Marques of Queensberry rules in public debates and battles the more freedom is lost. Not wanting to appear rude and selfish, the mark of a "good statesman" today is negotiation and compromise, noble lies to the unsophisticated commoners to 'reframe' authoritarian control as protecting freedom, all for a 'greater good.' Is why the needle of human governance has gone only one direction the better part of the last century - towards authoritarian/totalitarian police state surveillance command and control. In what ways are we more free today than a century ago? Porn? Drugs? Atheism? Expanded access to vices is hardly synonymous with more freedom. Depravity 'freed' from God is another sure path into totalitarianism; it begs for rulers to save us from our depraved selves.
Balance. But if society must lean in one direction or the other, uncivil freedom or civil slavery may it lean towards uncivil freedom.
Caring about self to the point of incivility is rational and fiercely protective of freedom. Becoming so domesticated into civility that we care more about being welcome in polite society makes us easy to enslave. Only when our would-be rulers fear that we won't be civil are they restrained. Incivility. Is an asset. In truth it's how we stay free.
ALL of that being said, that doesn't mean we go around and intentionally try to be rude. if we are trying to persuade others who've bought off on the lies and become banally evil, being rude and uncivil isn't going to get us anywhere. Many of us who refused to go along with the evil lost our cool a lot in 2020-2022 at the height of the evil. And weren't very persuasive. Is when I discovered the work of David Charalambous, his "Reaching People" videos sometime in 2021:
We have to be more strategic if we want to persuade others. Empathy. Narrative. Without anger. Even righteous anger isn't very persuasive outside a small group of the already converted.
As with all things the ideal is found in balance between civil and uncivil. But if it has to be one or the other, uncivil and free or civil and enslaved I will choose uncivil exactly ten out of ten times.
“The more we try to conform with European and Asian sensibilities, as most of the educated, privileged class try to model in their effete manners and mannerisms, the lure of playing by Marques of Queensberry rules in public debates and battles, the more freedom is lost.”
Somehow, the now widespread 1960s triumph of cultural Marxism and Romanticism and atheism and “liberalism” (with all of its “well-meaning” “nice” intent) over conservatism and traditionalism and acknowledgement of deep human sin and evil and God (highest good), has brought us here, to limitless “tolerance” (due to the worry of offending the now never-ending/ever-expanding shape-shifting victimized “other”) As a result, due to our need (now enforced everywhere with ever-expanding surveillance state technology) to appear “nice,” we are now not more free, but less free. We are now imprisoned by government thought and speech and scientist police, who deem they know highest good, who deem that God is dead while ironically at the same time, elevating themselves to the status of "God." All in a day's work for these bastards.
I frankly believe that conformism (which is innate, and impossible to uproot in at least 80% of the social species we are part of), and kindness (which is mistaken for its superficial and-or inauthentic, as well as far more spread in society, clones, such as "politeness", and "niceness" but, in its original meaning, is to be sympathetic and helpful) separate people by lines independent of each other.
There are kind, and stone-hearted, conformist and non-conformists, from what I have observed about humankind.
You would choose uncivil because you have never experienced or seen (although they exist, on this planet) pre-civil "society", and its life.
All that you say about the nature of man, conformist, kindness in all its varieties being innate is true. It's also true that man is fallen, that men with power become corrupt, with absolute power becoming absolutely corrupt.
And while man has experienced civil "society" in some lands for periods in history they prove to be fleeting. The "good" emperor/king/republic is followed by "bad" ones.
It is because man's fallen nature will have those who aspire to power use their knowledge that 80% are conformist and use deception to gain power. But lack the wisdom, character and ethos to hold it without abusing it. Possessing the Ring, the Sword that holds great power any weaknesses and flaws in those holding it are exposed, be they predators, immature, insecure, gullible, or trusting of the rent-seekers in the governance who have their agendas, who are predators.
These are topics of debates about society and man going back to the dawn of "civilization." Plato, Aristotle, Socrates, Sun Tzu, etc. In Egyptian, Chinese, Japanese, kingdoms. And there is the Eternal Cycle, hard times create strong men, strong men create good times, good times create weak men, and weak men create hard times.
I would choose uncivil - if we are incapable of balance, which is infinitely preferable - over civil if there could only be one. Because I know the cycle. And that incivility is the best immune system to becoming slaves. Being ungovernable is the only way to not be governed. Which itself is another word for 'ruled.' Were an anarcho-voluntaryism model of shared human existence be possible the prospects for tyranny would diminish. Absolute power to corrupt absolutely would be impossible.
As unlikely as that is to come about being ungovernable is the next best option. And that means the 20% who are not conformists shouldn't 'just be nice' and do what they're told so as not to offend. Freedom is worth fighting for. And be under no illusion, freedom must always be fought for. It is never given.
Thank you for sharing that. I am better for having read that. Much like when I read the work of Charalambous, seeing and knowing of a way that is elevating my better self is much easier than being my better self. That is the work that is hard to do without first doing many of the things presented by the author and from Scripture.
The part that I find most difficult to arrive at within my being is this:
"It is the kind of love that walks willingly to a cross for people who hate you."
From a very young age, having taken a fascination with all things 20th-century war, murderous tyranny, I vowed I would never allow myself to be herded onto a cattle car. That I would never peacefully walk to my own murder, that I would rather die on my feet fighting than live on my knees or submit to an executioner's blade.
To do as Christ did in that respect is not in me. I can think of a number of things to challenge that assertion. Not the least of which is Christ's knowledge that he was the Son of God. I imagine that changes things for how one would approach their death at the hands of those who hate you. While I am one of God's creations, as we all are, I don't know or believe that I am the Son of God. I know his love for me is infinite. And I know that his grace will need to be extended to welcome me into his Kingdom. My acts as a fallen man will need a lot of forgiveness.
But I don't think I can reconcile notions of walking to my death for people who hate me with my values and beliefs as I vowed as a child, having read what happens to the peacemakers in a world that's gone mass murderous.
I know of the Christians being thrown to the lions for not disavowing their Christian faith. And how they could've saved their lives had they done so, choosing not to, their faith wasn't open for negotiation, their mortal lives not worth living had they rebuked God and Christ. Speaking their truth, not speaking lies to save their own skin. I admire them, as a truth-speaker, and having paid a high price many times in my life for speaking my truth. Though not the ultimate price, I've often asked myself if I would pay it for my truth. And having once sworn an oath to obey orders that could lead to my death for my nation I've answered in the affirmative. Obviously I was never asked to pay that price. But I agreed to.
That was as a fighter. Which is in accordance with my early vow to self. Fighting to my death against those who hate me. Not walking peacefully to it. An army of a tribe, people, nation that would walk peacefully to their deaths at the hands of those who hate them would never prevail. The great battles of the Old and New Testaments were not fought by men who walked peacefully to their deaths at the hands of those who hated them. They fought to their deaths. Which is often the price for freedom. And truth. And Love. Of our friends, family and legacies. That they might know freedom and truth.
Some of the eastern faiths, particularly those found in India produce many believers and a society built by believers who will not fight for their freedom and truth. "It is God's will" is a common refrain for those who would accept their fate, their misfortune. The British and other conquerors who have controlled that part of the world have noted how easy they are to enslave, conquer because of their mindset. Obviously they have an army, and will repel invaders, protect their borders. The warrior caste, including many Sikh's will rise to be their fighters. It's in their blood.
Some of us share that blood. There are times in history that call the warriors to rise and prevail. For the peacemakers to make peace. That is my nature. If that isn't considered Christ-like then I am consigned to my fate of not being Christ-like. But the people of Scripture have always needed the warriors to protect them from men who hate them. Who won't walk peacefully to their deaths at the hands of their haters. Speaking their truth until they are stricken down in battle. Not in gas showers, not on crosses. And God-willing, the warriors will be welcome into his Kingdom even though they weren't Christ-like in their acts. As it always has been. As it always is. As it will always be.
Man is fallen. God knows this. Christ knows this. And God uses each of us as is his will, each of us created for his divine purposes. Mine is to be a fighter for truth, for freedom, for God. That line from the otherwise important and insightful link does not resonate in my heart. My love for the truth, for freedom, for God will not walk willingly to a cross for people who hate me, many hating God. My love for the truth, for freedom, for God will have me fight them to my death. Though it would be preferable to help them love freedom, truth, God instead, that we all should live.
You've pierced the heart of a great irony: "But the people of Scripture have always needed the warriors to protect them from men who hate them." We in the US are blind to the violent work done to allow us our safe little enclaves to march for peace.
I am somewhere in the middle of the commenters here. I do not think it is rude to speak truth to the poorly informed. Isn't this how we teach our young? My husband and my son both had careers ended because of their refusal to take the poison. Isn't that a direct attack and don't those who have complied even in small ways aid the enemy? I cannot know the psychological health of every person I come into contact with. I will not attack but I will correct the lie if it is spoken in my presence.
I get what you're saying. I think you can distinguish between rudeness and cruelty in terms of actual real world effects and consequences on other people. Cruelty and hate seem pretty deeply connected with each other, more so than rudeness and hate.
20 million +++++ dead from the Covid jab and you want us to turn the other cheek???
I am a Christian but I believe God gave us intelligence to work out how to STOP these people and PREVENT THEM FROM EVER DOING THIS TO HUMANITY AGAIN!!
In fact we have a responsibility to make them accountable for their murderous actions! To lie down and do nothing makes us culpable for the next time it happens!!!
I read and interpreted the intent of that essay differently than you.
For me this call to civility is directed toward those who were genuinely duped and had nothing to gain during covid and now are paying a heavy price for their misjudgment.
Don't kick them when they're down already.
The psychopaths are the ones deserving of our wrath.
Mcsweeny is instigator of the Center for Countering Digital Hate (CCDH), a pro-censorship charity and campaign group co-founded in 2018 by Keir Starmer’s Chief of Staff, Morgan McSweeney. The political advisor is here ascribed quasi-magical powers, such that “no political operative in the Western hemisphere is more in demand than Starmer’s ‘Rasputin’, regularly hailed as a genius.”
I TRULY like your comment. I am not a devout person but I reflect often in these times on Matthew 18:6 where Jesus said that it was better that a man be thrown into the sea, tied to a heavy millstone, than for that person to cause a child to stray away from goodness. In my view Jesus was saying "Evil begets evil" and the best way to stop it is to end the life of those who do evil. I have written to whitehouse.gov multiple times to promote that our laws should have this as the foundation. Humanity should not have to accommodate evil.
Evil should face a painless ending via a sedative and an injection or gas. All of the words in the world cannot change the world so that evil does not happen.
As my WWII Marine Dad, who saw an incredible amount of death and suffering, taught us: "Don't argue with evil. Stop them." I want such a principle to be in the law.
I don’t think she is saying that at all. So as a Christian myself I want to be polite as much as I can no matter what. I hope you will not lie down and do nothing for anything you believe. Just stand up politely.
Psychopathic behavior... crimes... does not justify more psychopathic behavior in response. It is not a question even of "rising above it"... By acting in an honorable and merciful way, we are righting what is out of whack, insisting upon our humanity.
About Toscanini, it surprised me that Shostakovich uses that as an example of what he was saying about rude people.
I like Toscanini. Italians oftentimes have that type of exhibitionism that ends up in accidental slapstick humor. I laugh at such developments, especially with top-notch superstars of whatever profession. But I get it when Dimitri says "poor musicians." Yeah, that makes sense. They don't want to look like clowns in a circus. It's supposed to be beautiful. However, Toscanini utterly destroyed Ravel's bolero, forever. He made it into a cheap sexual joke, and I think Ravel would have thanked Toscanini because it seems that Ravel hated his bolero, precisely because it made him feel ashamed as a composer. Of course, the public understands music differently than composers and directors and musicians, that's like a curse they have to endure.
Now, I who live in the other extreme of the Narcissism spectrum —which some psychologist recently dubbed "Echoism" without success— was thinking, as I read the exhortations in this post, "have I done something wrong?"
I examine my commenting-conscience, and perhaps I'm still too focused on the virus thing. It's a puzzle that does not cater to everyone. But I used to be the one who called out people for being rude and demanded compassion, when I used to "debate" with commenters in that puzzling subsphere of substack. I stopped talking to them long ago. I told to myself "don't reason with activists, they are like oxen that only move in one direction, with difficulty."
Just in case, I apologize if I have been rude lately, or flooding the comment section. It was not my intention to be rude to anyone.
I was also surprised by the Toscanini mention. I really like some classical music, which I have listened to all of my life--not I cannot claim to have any authority or insight into whether or not a particular symphony is interpreted correctly or conducted well (I simply have an ear, but I am not a classical musician. I know enough to know that I don't know enough and that is all). But still, I have a Toscanini recording that I really really like (not Ravel but Mozart). It's from the late 30s and it is a recording of a piece that I have heard in numerous different recordings. So, I am left wondering. Am I really wrong, and have I missed something--or did Shostakovich have a pecadillo about Toscanini? Toscanini certainly has his detractors. And I'll even commit the heresy of confessing that part of what I like is the warm radio broadcast tone. So, yeah, I'm at least middle brow mixing sentiment with artistry. Still, as someone who has never been much interested in Shostakovich's symphonies (or symphonies in general) I find myself more and more intrigued by the man.
Incidentally, as you likely know, I think Celia's main concern is the health of our souls. She suggests we contemplate and look after that as a fundamental component of our personal and cultural well being. It is a call to arms much needed. I certainly can't think of an instance where you have been rude in the comments or flooded the comments. Playful you are, sometimes, but not rude.
Yes..the SOUL is the heart of the matter here. We are all “souls inhabiting a human body” this time around, (and likely many times prior as well). Can we learn to speak to each other’s soul in a kind and caring way?
Is it rude to absorb knowledge, roll it around to fit together to form a cohesive view, self reflect, and express that revelation? If not rolling that ball over others attempted absorption and formulations, I think not. Did I just describe rudeness as play-do or bowling? Sometimes the mind is a scary thing.
This is very beautiful, Celia. Kindness, graciousness towards others... is civilized behavior, which in turn is crucial to civilization itself. Rudeness is, I'm afraid, the behavioral equivalent of blue hair and slovenly dress ...which phenomenon I have been recently pondering deeply. We are now daily confronted to ever so many seemingly trivial demonstrations of contempt toward the harmony of community. The question of dress is to me very important. It is also a form of respect and acknowledgement of a shared divinity. Beautiful manners are a way of signaling one's recognition of Divinity in other people. You are absolutely right: we who know this must endeavor to acknowledge this Divinity as often... and humbly... as possible. It's the starting point for everything else.
You are 100% right, dress seems to have gone the wayside just like manners & rudeness evident by diners in a fine restaurant who show up in sweats, ripped clothing, scantily clad clothing, etc.
I never leave comments. This post is important. It's the underlying reason why I never leave comments and have withdrawn from in-person truth groups. I've also never lost a dear friend in these crazy times. There's more to love about people than their views. As Celia says: "who cares" about the differences if there is enough love, care and humanity in a connection. Thank you.
Amen- Celia Farber. I understand where you are coming from. I wish some of your readers who replied to this article would reread your article again. I wish they would actually think about what you wrote and why you wrote it. I couldn't agree more with your sentiment. I, for one, do not believe you are condoning evil or saying evil should not be held accountable. That would be a gross misunderstanding of what you propose in your article. Thank you and keep up the good work.
But the ordinary people are feeding evil. Paying taxes, using banks, working for government, "honoring" the troops, all this is feeding evil. Should we be treating them the same as though their delusions are causing no harm? Just to keep them from being depressed? I don't want anyone to be depressed but maybe it's the right response to this killing culture.
Even if we actually read, some of us will still be unable to actually think about what she wrote and why she wrote it. Unable to understand, even to apprehend, where is coming from.
So we have no chances to agree — with the agreement that, like yours, could never be out-agreed — with her sentiment; we are probably bound to keep misunderstanding as grossly as we already have: and that is as predictable as you keeping understanding every future post by her as finely as you understood this one.
And all of this while you need read only once the articles, unlike us, to whom the wise would also recommend at least a re-read.
I recently subscribed to a new substack put out by a guy I have followed for years on youtube.
https://aliveandintelligent.substack.com/p/first-know-peace-then-make-it
Peacemakers are not pushovers, but use charity, grace and truth to bring about peace in an active way. Not trying to avoid making waves.
“If you want peace, yours is the responsibility to obtain it.”
Yes. There is no need for rudeness, ever. Online, the Mark of the Troll is ad hominem rudeness. I do think one of the most corrosive and damaging forces in the world, though, is spite. When considering whether I want to pursue a friendship or any other relationship with someone, rudeness and spite are the two things that say no, nope. Sure, there are the obvious things, like serial killers and being tremendously invested in things that I do not like or find, um, unnerving, like aggressive driving, but most things that are negatives for me are forms of rudeness. Political ranting, making fun of someone, things like that. but it is absolutely true - someone who is rude to wait staff is someone to avoid. When someone feels free to be rude, I feel that they will also feel free to cause harm in some way.
I worked in Japan quite a lot, and it was actually very nice to be able to explain to folks here that I was not bowing subserviently to Japanese people - the "bowing" is really, at least IMO, saying we are starting a social transaction of some sort. We are acknowledging each other's presence, we are saying hello, I am in your lovely shop. My answer to anyone who apologised for not speaking English very well was that no, I apologise for being in your country and not speaking Japanese. I was only confronted with rudeness once, when a woman sort of pushed ahead of me in line to the cash register (we were all buying beer), and the others in line and the cashier were horrified. She was gestured back where she had been. I still regret that I was so rattled that I did what I now think was a bit of a rude thing under the circumstances - I bowed to her and gestured to her to go ahead and be next. That was likely worse than all the other people in line shaking their heads.
Covid really brought out the simmering rudeness in a surprising number of people. It was, honestly, dangerous and shrill behavior from the jab enthusiasts and from, say, those who brayed that Ivermectin was horse paste that was astonishing to me. The Covid-related hateful responses from people were quite illuminating, even worse, in a way, than the rude divisiveness from those who differ politically. Maybe it is fear or uncertainty , I do not know.
So true what you said about covid. It brought out mob behavior, tribal mentality and the safety in numbers delusion of the hoi polloi. A fine example of what can go wrong in a "democracy".
Not just in a “democracy”. It can happen in any society that is wrapped up in fear and serious “personal ideologies” that “if you’re not on my team” you certainly must be part of the “opposing team”.
"Either you're with us or against us" --GW (they-hate-our-freedom) Bush
While what you write is of a polite community that in general is a good way to live our best lives in the best communities, don't mistake nice, civil people for being opponents of totalitarianism. Quite the opposite. Nice people support totalitarianism. By their unflinching obedience to authority. And desire to not offend, to remain civil. To obey is the civil thing to do. Society stays nice and peaceful that way. But not very free. A nice, polite and civil society and freedom do not go together. I assert that they are mutually exclusive.
Nice people are the most likely to become participants in the banality of evil. The truly wicked are, thankfully few in number. Not enough to enable society-wide evil. It's the good people. Who obey. Who are polite. Try to be caring and considerate. Nice. Give grace.
All of those positive attributes and characteristics. Turned and used against others. To commit evil. The predator class has studied human psychology, knows how to use our niceness against us.
If you obeyed, wore a mask in the supermarket, restaurant, mall, airport, school. Work. If you obeyed, just wore masks to be "nice" and not scare granny even though *you* knew better then *you* participated in the banality of evil.
Think back to how masking first came about in 2020. To be nice. "To show you cared. To protect Grandma, even though you knew you were safe. The nice thing to do. And authorities said so. Those in power wouldn't dare abuse the trust of the population in a crisis. That would be bad and wrong. And most people aren't bad people doing wrong things. Those who we see in power appear to be nice, just like us. Even if they're wrong they must have a reason to say and do what they say and do. And to make demands of us. Can't have leaders in power we can't trust, they know that, they'd never blow the trust of the people. Only bad people do that, not our leaders. And since we're a nation of law and order we must obey laws and orders, that's how things work. Disobeying laws and orders is what criminals do. And we're not criminals. We're nice, law-abiding people."
And THAT'S who, where and why the world suffers under authoritarian rule. Because we are so very nice, trusting and obedient. Predators and authoritarians (but I repeat myself) know this, love them some very nice, trusting and obedient populations to rule. Easiest prey to turn into subjects.
Which is why the saying, "Be ungovernable" exists. American DNA is to be rebellious, sometimes rude and offensive, having the freedom to offend is paramount for free societies. Which is why there's been a long drumbeat to criminalize "offensive" speech and behaviors. Not anything that actually results in harm, just hurt feelings criminalized. Making it the law to be "nice" people who don't offend anyone's feelings. How subjects are created. And become a self-enforcing population. Of "nice" people."
We see the fruits of being "nice" indulging mental illness in the trans community. And now if you don't go along with their delusions they get angry, violent, murderous. The transinsanity once indulged has become the transmafia. It doesn't help them. It does hurt society. Being "nice" and "polite" indulging delusions doesn't end well. Especially when the laws demand we indulge the delusional, to be "nice."
The reason the United States has the globalists conniving and tinkering in ways they don't bother doing in the rest of the world is that we've been described as "ungovernable." No doubt you've seen bumper stickers, tee-shirts and memes with words to that effect, "be ungovernable." It's our "ugly American" rudeness and incivility that is the basis of our ungovernability.
The more we try to conform with European and Asian sensibilities, as most of the educated, privileged class try to model in their effete manners and mannerisms, the lure of playing by Marques of Queensberry rules in public debates and battles the more freedom is lost. Not wanting to appear rude and selfish, the mark of a "good statesman" today is negotiation and compromise, noble lies to the unsophisticated commoners to 'reframe' authoritarian control as protecting freedom, all for a 'greater good.' Is why the needle of human governance has gone only one direction the better part of the last century - towards authoritarian/totalitarian police state surveillance command and control. In what ways are we more free today than a century ago? Porn? Drugs? Atheism? Expanded access to vices is hardly synonymous with more freedom. Depravity 'freed' from God is another sure path into totalitarianism; it begs for rulers to save us from our depraved selves.
Balance. But if society must lean in one direction or the other, uncivil freedom or civil slavery may it lean towards uncivil freedom.
Caring about self to the point of incivility is rational and fiercely protective of freedom. Becoming so domesticated into civility that we care more about being welcome in polite society makes us easy to enslave. Only when our would-be rulers fear that we won't be civil are they restrained. Incivility. Is an asset. In truth it's how we stay free.
ALL of that being said, that doesn't mean we go around and intentionally try to be rude. if we are trying to persuade others who've bought off on the lies and become banally evil, being rude and uncivil isn't going to get us anywhere. Many of us who refused to go along with the evil lost our cool a lot in 2020-2022 at the height of the evil. And weren't very persuasive. Is when I discovered the work of David Charalambous, his "Reaching People" videos sometime in 2021:
https://reachingpeople.net/presentations/
We have to be more strategic if we want to persuade others. Empathy. Narrative. Without anger. Even righteous anger isn't very persuasive outside a small group of the already converted.
As with all things the ideal is found in balance between civil and uncivil. But if it has to be one or the other, uncivil and free or civil and enslaved I will choose uncivil exactly ten out of ten times.
Well said. Great observations.
I especially resonate with this sentence:
“The more we try to conform with European and Asian sensibilities, as most of the educated, privileged class try to model in their effete manners and mannerisms, the lure of playing by Marques of Queensberry rules in public debates and battles, the more freedom is lost.”
Somehow, the now widespread 1960s triumph of cultural Marxism and Romanticism and atheism and “liberalism” (with all of its “well-meaning” “nice” intent) over conservatism and traditionalism and acknowledgement of deep human sin and evil and God (highest good), has brought us here, to limitless “tolerance” (due to the worry of offending the now never-ending/ever-expanding shape-shifting victimized “other”) As a result, due to our need (now enforced everywhere with ever-expanding surveillance state technology) to appear “nice,” we are now not more free, but less free. We are now imprisoned by government thought and speech and scientist police, who deem they know highest good, who deem that God is dead while ironically at the same time, elevating themselves to the status of "God." All in a day's work for these bastards.
I frankly believe that conformism (which is innate, and impossible to uproot in at least 80% of the social species we are part of), and kindness (which is mistaken for its superficial and-or inauthentic, as well as far more spread in society, clones, such as "politeness", and "niceness" but, in its original meaning, is to be sympathetic and helpful) separate people by lines independent of each other.
There are kind, and stone-hearted, conformist and non-conformists, from what I have observed about humankind.
You would choose uncivil because you have never experienced or seen (although they exist, on this planet) pre-civil "society", and its life.
All that you say about the nature of man, conformist, kindness in all its varieties being innate is true. It's also true that man is fallen, that men with power become corrupt, with absolute power becoming absolutely corrupt.
And while man has experienced civil "society" in some lands for periods in history they prove to be fleeting. The "good" emperor/king/republic is followed by "bad" ones.
It is because man's fallen nature will have those who aspire to power use their knowledge that 80% are conformist and use deception to gain power. But lack the wisdom, character and ethos to hold it without abusing it. Possessing the Ring, the Sword that holds great power any weaknesses and flaws in those holding it are exposed, be they predators, immature, insecure, gullible, or trusting of the rent-seekers in the governance who have their agendas, who are predators.
These are topics of debates about society and man going back to the dawn of "civilization." Plato, Aristotle, Socrates, Sun Tzu, etc. In Egyptian, Chinese, Japanese, kingdoms. And there is the Eternal Cycle, hard times create strong men, strong men create good times, good times create weak men, and weak men create hard times.
I would choose uncivil - if we are incapable of balance, which is infinitely preferable - over civil if there could only be one. Because I know the cycle. And that incivility is the best immune system to becoming slaves. Being ungovernable is the only way to not be governed. Which itself is another word for 'ruled.' Were an anarcho-voluntaryism model of shared human existence be possible the prospects for tyranny would diminish. Absolute power to corrupt absolutely would be impossible.
As unlikely as that is to come about being ungovernable is the next best option. And that means the 20% who are not conformists shouldn't 'just be nice' and do what they're told so as not to offend. Freedom is worth fighting for. And be under no illusion, freedom must always be fought for. It is never given.
Peacemakers are not pushovers. https://aliveandintelligent.substack.com/p/first-know-peace-then-make-it
Thank you for sharing that. I am better for having read that. Much like when I read the work of Charalambous, seeing and knowing of a way that is elevating my better self is much easier than being my better self. That is the work that is hard to do without first doing many of the things presented by the author and from Scripture.
The part that I find most difficult to arrive at within my being is this:
"It is the kind of love that walks willingly to a cross for people who hate you."
From a very young age, having taken a fascination with all things 20th-century war, murderous tyranny, I vowed I would never allow myself to be herded onto a cattle car. That I would never peacefully walk to my own murder, that I would rather die on my feet fighting than live on my knees or submit to an executioner's blade.
To do as Christ did in that respect is not in me. I can think of a number of things to challenge that assertion. Not the least of which is Christ's knowledge that he was the Son of God. I imagine that changes things for how one would approach their death at the hands of those who hate you. While I am one of God's creations, as we all are, I don't know or believe that I am the Son of God. I know his love for me is infinite. And I know that his grace will need to be extended to welcome me into his Kingdom. My acts as a fallen man will need a lot of forgiveness.
But I don't think I can reconcile notions of walking to my death for people who hate me with my values and beliefs as I vowed as a child, having read what happens to the peacemakers in a world that's gone mass murderous.
I know of the Christians being thrown to the lions for not disavowing their Christian faith. And how they could've saved their lives had they done so, choosing not to, their faith wasn't open for negotiation, their mortal lives not worth living had they rebuked God and Christ. Speaking their truth, not speaking lies to save their own skin. I admire them, as a truth-speaker, and having paid a high price many times in my life for speaking my truth. Though not the ultimate price, I've often asked myself if I would pay it for my truth. And having once sworn an oath to obey orders that could lead to my death for my nation I've answered in the affirmative. Obviously I was never asked to pay that price. But I agreed to.
That was as a fighter. Which is in accordance with my early vow to self. Fighting to my death against those who hate me. Not walking peacefully to it. An army of a tribe, people, nation that would walk peacefully to their deaths at the hands of those who hate them would never prevail. The great battles of the Old and New Testaments were not fought by men who walked peacefully to their deaths at the hands of those who hated them. They fought to their deaths. Which is often the price for freedom. And truth. And Love. Of our friends, family and legacies. That they might know freedom and truth.
Some of the eastern faiths, particularly those found in India produce many believers and a society built by believers who will not fight for their freedom and truth. "It is God's will" is a common refrain for those who would accept their fate, their misfortune. The British and other conquerors who have controlled that part of the world have noted how easy they are to enslave, conquer because of their mindset. Obviously they have an army, and will repel invaders, protect their borders. The warrior caste, including many Sikh's will rise to be their fighters. It's in their blood.
Some of us share that blood. There are times in history that call the warriors to rise and prevail. For the peacemakers to make peace. That is my nature. If that isn't considered Christ-like then I am consigned to my fate of not being Christ-like. But the people of Scripture have always needed the warriors to protect them from men who hate them. Who won't walk peacefully to their deaths at the hands of their haters. Speaking their truth until they are stricken down in battle. Not in gas showers, not on crosses. And God-willing, the warriors will be welcome into his Kingdom even though they weren't Christ-like in their acts. As it always has been. As it always is. As it will always be.
Man is fallen. God knows this. Christ knows this. And God uses each of us as is his will, each of us created for his divine purposes. Mine is to be a fighter for truth, for freedom, for God. That line from the otherwise important and insightful link does not resonate in my heart. My love for the truth, for freedom, for God will not walk willingly to a cross for people who hate me, many hating God. My love for the truth, for freedom, for God will have me fight them to my death. Though it would be preferable to help them love freedom, truth, God instead, that we all should live.
You've pierced the heart of a great irony: "But the people of Scripture have always needed the warriors to protect them from men who hate them." We in the US are blind to the violent work done to allow us our safe little enclaves to march for peace.
That is a style that reminds me of a great actor -who went on to become a Navigator leader in London ,for a while .
While gentle - reason cant work with asininity ,stratergy works retro-actively ,by showing the centre of miasma(s) is topological ,ie no centre .
I am somewhere in the middle of the commenters here. I do not think it is rude to speak truth to the poorly informed. Isn't this how we teach our young? My husband and my son both had careers ended because of their refusal to take the poison. Isn't that a direct attack and don't those who have complied even in small ways aid the enemy? I cannot know the psychological health of every person I come into contact with. I will not attack but I will correct the lie if it is spoken in my presence.
Are you speaking in kindness or simple politeness? That’s all that’s needed.
My husband did too but truthfulness is not rudeness at all so you just keep on. 👍
https://shop.babylonbee.com/products/truth-hate-speech-t-shirt-1
Love it!
I get what you're saying. I think you can distinguish between rudeness and cruelty in terms of actual real world effects and consequences on other people. Cruelty and hate seem pretty deeply connected with each other, more so than rudeness and hate.
Beautifully said, Celia. Thank you.
Thank you, Ii's a good reminder to be nice, even when you don't have to be nice.
Anyone and Everyone can be rude, that's easy.
A kind word is never wasted. Walk away from mean people, they will learn.
Much (valuable) energy is wasted in retaliation. I'm still learning too.
The authors point is to support the wounded, not to push the knife in deeper.
20 million +++++ dead from the Covid jab and you want us to turn the other cheek???
I am a Christian but I believe God gave us intelligence to work out how to STOP these people and PREVENT THEM FROM EVER DOING THIS TO HUMANITY AGAIN!!
In fact we have a responsibility to make them accountable for their murderous actions! To lie down and do nothing makes us culpable for the next time it happens!!!
NO! I want people fighting on the same side to keep a spirit of good will and not tear each other down. That is all I am saying.
and, to me, you said it pretty plainly.
I read and interpreted the intent of that essay differently than you.
For me this call to civility is directed toward those who were genuinely duped and had nothing to gain during covid and now are paying a heavy price for their misjudgment.
Don't kick them when they're down already.
The psychopaths are the ones deserving of our wrath.
Its functionaries like VDLeyen that are significantly under fire .
Nothing to do with armchair diagnoses .
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2025/06/27/the-plot-against-morgan-mcsweeney/
That should signify that Sayer Ji is splitting up uk hypocrisy -albeit through irish ventriloquism .
VDL has billions uncovered against her wishes , psalm 2 applies directly .
https://unherd.com/newsroom/ursula-von-der-leyens-confidence-vote-threatens-the-eu/?tl_inbound=1&tl_groups[0]=18743&tl_period_type=3
VD is repugnant. VDL, beyond repugnant. I've never been a herd animal. Then maybe an UnHerd animal
Mcsweeny is instigator of the Center for Countering Digital Hate (CCDH), a pro-censorship charity and campaign group co-founded in 2018 by Keir Starmer’s Chief of Staff, Morgan McSweeney. The political advisor is here ascribed quasi-magical powers, such that “no political operative in the Western hemisphere is more in demand than Starmer’s ‘Rasputin’, regularly hailed as a genius.”
https://unherd.com/newsroom/inside-the-center-for-countering-digital-hates-plan-to-kill-x/
Sayer Ji's years long intl tort action against Starmer has resulted in this week's fall of Mcsweeny ,literally .
Thank you, I'll read it later today. The slayer prevails over the weeny.
I TRULY like your comment. I am not a devout person but I reflect often in these times on Matthew 18:6 where Jesus said that it was better that a man be thrown into the sea, tied to a heavy millstone, than for that person to cause a child to stray away from goodness. In my view Jesus was saying "Evil begets evil" and the best way to stop it is to end the life of those who do evil. I have written to whitehouse.gov multiple times to promote that our laws should have this as the foundation. Humanity should not have to accommodate evil.
Evil should face a painless ending via a sedative and an injection or gas. All of the words in the world cannot change the world so that evil does not happen.
As my WWII Marine Dad, who saw an incredible amount of death and suffering, taught us: "Don't argue with evil. Stop them." I want such a principle to be in the law.
Amen! 🙏
I don’t think she is saying that at all. So as a Christian myself I want to be polite as much as I can no matter what. I hope you will not lie down and do nothing for anything you believe. Just stand up politely.
Psychopathic behavior... crimes... does not justify more psychopathic behavior in response. It is not a question even of "rising above it"... By acting in an honorable and merciful way, we are righting what is out of whack, insisting upon our humanity.
What IS the truth about methylene blue?
I will second that!
Awesome post. Thank you for your reflection.
About Toscanini, it surprised me that Shostakovich uses that as an example of what he was saying about rude people.
I like Toscanini. Italians oftentimes have that type of exhibitionism that ends up in accidental slapstick humor. I laugh at such developments, especially with top-notch superstars of whatever profession. But I get it when Dimitri says "poor musicians." Yeah, that makes sense. They don't want to look like clowns in a circus. It's supposed to be beautiful. However, Toscanini utterly destroyed Ravel's bolero, forever. He made it into a cheap sexual joke, and I think Ravel would have thanked Toscanini because it seems that Ravel hated his bolero, precisely because it made him feel ashamed as a composer. Of course, the public understands music differently than composers and directors and musicians, that's like a curse they have to endure.
Now, I who live in the other extreme of the Narcissism spectrum —which some psychologist recently dubbed "Echoism" without success— was thinking, as I read the exhortations in this post, "have I done something wrong?"
I examine my commenting-conscience, and perhaps I'm still too focused on the virus thing. It's a puzzle that does not cater to everyone. But I used to be the one who called out people for being rude and demanded compassion, when I used to "debate" with commenters in that puzzling subsphere of substack. I stopped talking to them long ago. I told to myself "don't reason with activists, they are like oxen that only move in one direction, with difficulty."
Just in case, I apologize if I have been rude lately, or flooding the comment section. It was not my intention to be rude to anyone.
I was also surprised by the Toscanini mention. I really like some classical music, which I have listened to all of my life--not I cannot claim to have any authority or insight into whether or not a particular symphony is interpreted correctly or conducted well (I simply have an ear, but I am not a classical musician. I know enough to know that I don't know enough and that is all). But still, I have a Toscanini recording that I really really like (not Ravel but Mozart). It's from the late 30s and it is a recording of a piece that I have heard in numerous different recordings. So, I am left wondering. Am I really wrong, and have I missed something--or did Shostakovich have a pecadillo about Toscanini? Toscanini certainly has his detractors. And I'll even commit the heresy of confessing that part of what I like is the warm radio broadcast tone. So, yeah, I'm at least middle brow mixing sentiment with artistry. Still, as someone who has never been much interested in Shostakovich's symphonies (or symphonies in general) I find myself more and more intrigued by the man.
Incidentally, as you likely know, I think Celia's main concern is the health of our souls. She suggests we contemplate and look after that as a fundamental component of our personal and cultural well being. It is a call to arms much needed. I certainly can't think of an instance where you have been rude in the comments or flooded the comments. Playful you are, sometimes, but not rude.
Yes..the SOUL is the heart of the matter here. We are all “souls inhabiting a human body” this time around, (and likely many times prior as well). Can we learn to speak to each other’s soul in a kind and caring way?
wow. Thank you for your kindness, A.M.
Is it rude to absorb knowledge, roll it around to fit together to form a cohesive view, self reflect, and express that revelation? If not rolling that ball over others attempted absorption and formulations, I think not. Did I just describe rudeness as play-do or bowling? Sometimes the mind is a scary thing.
Excellent commentary on the invisible epidemic that's hiding in plain sight.
This is very beautiful, Celia. Kindness, graciousness towards others... is civilized behavior, which in turn is crucial to civilization itself. Rudeness is, I'm afraid, the behavioral equivalent of blue hair and slovenly dress ...which phenomenon I have been recently pondering deeply. We are now daily confronted to ever so many seemingly trivial demonstrations of contempt toward the harmony of community. The question of dress is to me very important. It is also a form of respect and acknowledgement of a shared divinity. Beautiful manners are a way of signaling one's recognition of Divinity in other people. You are absolutely right: we who know this must endeavor to acknowledge this Divinity as often... and humbly... as possible. It's the starting point for everything else.
You are 100% right, dress seems to have gone the wayside just like manners & rudeness evident by diners in a fine restaurant who show up in sweats, ripped clothing, scantily clad clothing, etc.
YES, restaurants where you pay $100/ couple and some bozo shows up in ripped pants and sneakers. . . and in church too.
Thank you for this, Celia. Hope to write more later, but for now, a bumper sticker I saw in a parking lot recently: http://tiny.cc/BeKind-TTB
ha! Good one.
sometimes the rudeness of reactions you get indicate you’re directly over the target … not sure behavioral censorship is the answer.
Celia, thank you for this beautiful message!
Did you post those links in the comments?
I seem to have missed them. Will look again:
re: the four amazing women at the vanguard of finding true antidotes — “I’ll post some of their links in the comments so you can find them.”
I never leave comments. This post is important. It's the underlying reason why I never leave comments and have withdrawn from in-person truth groups. I've also never lost a dear friend in these crazy times. There's more to love about people than their views. As Celia says: "who cares" about the differences if there is enough love, care and humanity in a connection. Thank you.
As my parents always said, “”it doesn’t cost anything to be kind.”