Root of Modern Evil: The Open Society and Its Enemies

The Open Society and Its Enemies by Karl Popper, published in 1945, is the root document for the 80+ years of Open Society ideologues and their mission to eradicate near all of the virtues and high points of Western civilization.

For a summation of each section of the book, go to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Open_Society_and_Its_Enemies. Be sure to scan to the bottom to the Paradox of Tolerance.

The paradox of tolerance is a philosophical concept suggesting that if a society extends tolerance to those who are intolerant, it risks enabling the eventual dominance of intolerance; thereby undermining the very principle of tolerance.

This is the intellectual bedrock of cancel culture and open hostility to freedom of expression and free speech. Kindred to this take on open hostility to free speech is the Pyramid of Hate concept. At it's pinnacle point is genocide, and next tier down are extremely felonous violent crimes all agree are unacceptable. Yet the next tiers below are not crimes in any traditional sense, yet outlawed in this schema because they are seen to be the context and engine to get to genocide.

The intellectual thesis of Open Society and Its Enemies started in 1945, and snowballed into an avalanche of believers in the roles of academics, managerial-class, media editors and writers. Existing for decades as an elite club that shared writings to each other and excalated the rhetoric to various new phrases such as penetration is rape (illegalizing heterosexual intercourse) to the post-George Floyd stage of being openly violent to Asians because they are not poor enough or dark skinned enough.

This ideological force, this consensus, this orthodoxy, explains the perverse norms of the last few decades.

• Why isn't the Islamic dominance in slave trade taught in schools? Answer: The existence of this consensus.
• Why are community college websites often displaying a Muslim female in a hijab? Answer: The existence of this consensus.
• Why do the same people who favor images of women in hijabs denounce hetero-centric Christians as the greatest of all their nightmares: The Handmaid Tale? Answer: The existence of this consensus.

We could go on with the asymmetries to the dozens or hundreds of examples. The root is a simple one. Open Society and Its Enemies started the quest to prevent another Hitler, and lumped all of Western, Greco-Roman, and Judeo-Christian cultural pieces into a thesis that all these pieces are a causality of Hitler. Ever since 1945 this Open Society has been in a totalitarian quest to extinct all those cultural pieces along with the ethnicities associated with them.

With the landslide election results of the 2024 presidential election, we have a chance to take every form of oxygen from the Open Society. The money flows to NGOs, the employment of it's believers and their allies in schools, media, and state social services. All of it can be dried up, methodically. From George Soros to the millions of adherents, it can be dismantled with defunding, deportations and arrests. Be proud when you help extinct this ideology and it's people, if you are white, hetero or a successful Asian they were openly aiming to extinct you.

The horrorific logic and agenda of this "thesis" is told in the original book title -The Open Society and it's enemies. AND IT'S ENEMIES. The thesis had a militant outlook from the start, anyone that disagrees with it is an enemy. It's militant intolerance is built in before even the first page.

Turn the other Cheek

"Turn the other Cheek" is a phrase lifted from the words of Jesus and lives in popular jargon. Speaking for myself and my own foolshness, for most of my life I lifted this phrase out of the Bible and tried to view it and apply it as a standalone pure absolute and timeless call to action. When I would do this, it was combined with my rejection of the whole thing. Because it seemed like a plan for misery and doing nothing good. It seemed like a strategy for intentional self-abuse, and losing every social game there is.

I was being foolish, even perverse, maybe even evil, by pulling the phrase out into a context free void and applying it to any and every hypothetical context my pseudo-intellectual mind could come up with. I was corrupting the words of Jesus into a strawman argument. In all seriousness I look back on those years as being influenced by an evil spirit. Because I had taken an easy thing to understand and be edified by, and instead turned it into something to be mocked.

I have a friend that does not mock the words, yet he does something that misuses the words. He lifts the words out and applies them to martial arts, war, tactics and so forth. I don't think Jesus meant for this to be the application, and while my friend's intent is to revere the words, the misapplication puts the wisdom of the original words into some form of corruption.

Here are the words of Jesus:

You have heard that it was said, ‘An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.’ But I say to you, Do not resist the one who is evil. But aif anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also. And if anyone would sue you and take your tunic, let him have your cloak as well. And if anyone forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles. 42 Give to the one who begs from you, and do not refuse the one who would borrow from you.

To me, a correct application of the above is in the central message of I Peter. There may be more applications, and nuanced places one could go from the verses quoted above, yet I believe I Peter sensibly applies the teaching of Jesus the Messiah.

The book of 1 Peter was written to a group of Christians scattered throughout the northern regions of Asia Minor (modern-day Turkey). Specifically, Peter addresses his letter to the "elect exiles of the Dispersion in Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia" (1 Peter 1:1).

This audience likely consisted of both Jewish and Gentile converts to Christianity who were facing various forms of hardship and persecution for their faith. Peter wrote to encourage them in their suffering, to remind them of their new identity and hope in Christ, and to exhort them to live lives that would honor God in the midst of a hostile world.

The early Christian believers in Asia Minor, to whom 1 Peter was written, likely endured a range of hostilities stemming from their new faith in a society that often viewed Christianity with suspicion and animosity. These hardships could have included:  

• Social Ostracism and Rejection: As Christians differentiated themselves from the prevailing social and religious norms, they likely faced isolation from family, friends, and the wider community. Their refusal to participate in traditional Roman religious practices, such as emperor worship and pagan festivals, would have marked them as "different" and potentially disloyal citizens.  
• Verbal Abuse and Slander: They may have been subjected to ridicule, insults, and false accusations due to their beliefs and practices, which were often misunderstood or deliberately misrepresented. Some common slander included accusations of atheism (for not believing in Roman gods), cannibalism (due to misinterpretations of the Eucharist), and incest (likely stemming from their practice of referring to each other as brothers and sisters in Christ).
• Economic Hardship: Their faith could have led to economic disadvantages. Fellow citizens might have refused to trade with them, employ them, or conduct business, leading to loss of income and potential poverty.   Legal and Political Pressure: While widespread, systematic persecution across the entire Roman Empire was not constant during the time 1 Peter was likely written (mid-60s AD), local officials or hostile individuals could have instigated legal troubles. Simply being identified as a Christian could be enough to face accusations and penalties.  
• Physical Threats and Violence: Although the letter doesn't primarily focus on extreme physical persecution like imprisonment or execution (as seen later under emperors like Nero), the possibility of localized violence, harassment, and beatings from angry mobs or individuals cannot be ruled out. Peter's emphasis on enduring suffering patiently suggests that his readers were facing real and tangible hardships.  
• Domestic Strife: Christian converts within households could have faced opposition and mistreatment from non-believing family members, including spouses or parents.

It's important to note that the level and intensity of these hostilities likely varied depending on the specific location, social context, and the attitudes of local authorities and the general populace in the different regions of Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia. Peter's letter aimed to provide guidance and encouragement on how to navigate these challenging circumstances with faith and integrity.