Derek: 00:01

For this episode, I am doing a repeat from season nine, and I thought this episode would be particularly pertinent to play following our last episode, which was on the False Prophet of Government. I think it's gonna be the perfect episode because it explores the real world rationale of a conservative Christian embroiled in moral compromise in his governmental position. It's gonna show you straight from the horse's mouth how Christians come to justify and rationalize evil as good and how the kingdoms of the Earth often come to garner unwavering Christian allegiance over the uncompromising kingdom of God. In this episode, I will uncover consequentialism, which is a pet issue of mine that you can hear a lot more about if you listen to season two of this podcast. This is gonna be a good episode here to tuck away and maybe relisten again, in just a little bit when we start to dig into morality and truth not too too long from now.

Derek: 01:02

The episode is gonna go especially well with our discussion of Augustine's work called online, which is set to be episode 55 or so in this season. Now as I didn't create this episode specifically for this season on propaganda and truth, I wanna give you a few things to listen out for and highlight before we begin the episode since I'm not able to really pull those things out there since it wasn't directed at, this particular topic. Nevertheless, it goes hand in hand with it. First, I want you to listen out for one of the justifications that there, there's given for participation in evil. James Olsen, the the main character here, the the individual who's gonna be justifying his governmental service, is going to give you a number of justifications for why he chose what he did and why he was able to continue in his mind being a good Christian and a good American.

Derek: 01:59

Now one of the reasons, that he thinks it's important to keep us, meaning Americans safe, at all costs or most costs, is specifically because he's protecting against the threat of totalitarianism and Marxism. And this idea of Marxism has been a bugaboo for a long, long time. As as far as I was able to find, it was first initiated at least in the late eighteen hundreds, not very long after Marx at all, against Native Americans who weren't working like good little slaves. Right? They were farming their parcels of land, and some of them weren't too happy about that.

Derek: 02:41

Standing Bear being very representative of this. And you can go look up Standing Bear and his Supreme Court case and all that stuff, and it's really fascinating. But these Native Americans who had mostly probably not ever heard of Marx, is they're they're labeled Marxists because they won't comply with, changing their whole way of life and living within the confines of what the US government dictates they should. And because they wouldn't accept their lot in life and change their cultural practice, They were Marxist, and they threatened the good of the nation. This this thing that, James Olsen is gonna say, we can't have a threat to our nation.

Derek: 03:24

Of course, the good of the nation here meant that The US, and really meaning the white landowners, could take land and dispose of Native Americans unimpeded. What's really interesting is that as you go through history, you're gonna find this this bugaboo of Marxism, rise again and again and again. It happened when laborers protested about working conditions and fair wages in the late eighteen hundreds through the the early nineteen hundreds. It happened when we had influxes of immigrants and a culture that became more focused on war with sedition laws targeting communists among other groups. It happened during the civil rights era when blacks were seeking equal rights.

Derek: 04:05

Right? Martin Luther King Junior was a Marxist, and then he was called such, and and that wasn't just a defining term. That was something that, that lumped him into this this great evil. So just think about that. Oppressed Native Americans who were stolen from the exploited working and lower classes, black Americans during the heyday of lynching, immigrants, which included many World War two Jews who were turned away by the alien and sedition laws.

Derek: 04:36

I mean, surely, you can see a common theme here. Right? Olsen is gonna justify tyrannical acts of state, like torture, kidnapping, assassinations, and laws like the Patriot Act because those things protect against totalitarianism and Marxism. When you throw in US actions outside of the borders of The United States, all the coups, the assassinations, the invasions that it's run around the world, you can see that what Olson ends up doing is actually defining the evil of totalitarianism as good because it's his brand of totalitarianism, and it protects his interests and his people, his group. Now that right there highlights not only a major problem with consequentialism, that you can always redefine an evil as good, but also a major area of propaganda throughout US history, the bugaboo of Marxism.

Derek: 05:30

Sure. We could discuss how Marxism has done great evil in countries around the world, how it's been wielded horrendously, and whether or not it could even ever lead to good things. That that's a different discussion, though. But Marxism, at least in The States, has often been at the forefront of fighting for the oppressed groups who were being exploited by a totalitarian government. Marxism was usually on the side of justice in US history.

Derek: 05:57

And the second thing I want you to prepare for is for the moral compass that we're gonna uncover in this episode. This is gonna be really important for when we get into discussions of morality and whether or not we can justify an evil, like lying, for some perceived greater good. I think this episode, Olsen really tips his hand as to how morality works for a consequentialistic nationalist, and that's really what I think he is. He's he would say he's not. Right?

Derek: 06:26

But he is. And there's a point at which Olsen justifies waterboarding and torture and says that we shouldn't judge guys making these tough decisions because they're trying to keep us safe. And when they were doing these things, they weren't explicitly illegal. Yeah. I mean, we'd probably argue that they were, but there was enough gray that they could, deceive themselves or or say that that they weren't really doing illegal things because they skirted the line of legality.

Derek: 06:54

But then Olson says something to the extent that, you know, if if they didn't want us to do this, if Obama didn't want us, want us to do this, then, you know, don't criticize us for for skirting legality and and doing stuff to keep people safe. Just tell us not to do it. Say it's not legal anymore, and we won't do it. Fine. Tell us, and we won't cross the line.

Derek: 07:17

Now that just blew me away. I mean, Olsen is saying that if the president of The United States took the means of torture off the table, he would submit to that restriction even if he personally thought that he could bring a greater good about by implementing it. I mean, WTF. As a Christian, if God has taken something off the table like lying, torturing, and killing enemies, or whatever else, ought we not to adhere to that even more so than if the president takes it off? If God takes something off his list and the president doesn't take it off his list, ought we just say, well, you know, the president didn't take it off, so I guess it's still okay to do.

Derek: 07:56

I can justify it as good. Why in the world is Olson taking so much of his time to justify means that God has taken off the table while being so quick to comport with what the president restricts, or at least give lip service to how much he would value it if the president took it off the table? I think it's because Olson shows us that the earthly kingdom truly does come before God's kingdom. He can try to explain himself away all he wants, but that's just what it boils down to, and quite clearly so. And there's one quote that Olsen brings up, which I think highlights this so succinctly.

Derek: 08:33

He quotes Nathan Hale, when he says, every kind of service necessary to the public good becomes honorable by being necessary. So if it's a service that does good for the public, then it's necessary. And if necessary, therefore, it's honorable. Now the irony of using this quote after railing against the threat of Marxism is awfully ironic. Doesn't Marxism focus on the group?

Derek: 08:59

And doesn't Marxism justify all that it does based on the necessity for the good of the group? Olson is no less socially oriented and totalitarian than the Marxist that he thinks he's fighting against. But that's how consequentialism always plays out, as does the polarization of propaganda. Being discipled in the kingdom of God is meant to split that difference. I don't have allegiance to any state, to any party, to any system, to any outcome.

Derek: 09:28

My allegiance is to a good God whose will is for me to live out through good means and leave the ends in his hands. I'll defend this position more in our next section, but for now, just observe how evil is justified here and how the greatest evils are often justified on behalf of one's nation. Welcome back to the Fourth Way podcast. We are starting to draw our season on government to a close, which feels really good to me. But I feel like even though I've made a pretty compelling case for how Christians should view government, that this betrothal to government, this betrothal to pragmatic systems is is so ingrained in us that, I just feel like I've emphasized it so much that maybe listeners are going to think that what I'm saying is hyperbole.

Derek: 10:46

I can hear a lot of people saying right now, sure. Because humans are fallen. All systems are going to have flaws, but we don't have to assent to moral compromise when participating in government. I get that. I I understand that pushback.

Derek: 11:03

But, yeah, that that's that's extremely idealistic. And, you know, this coming from the the exact same people who speak of pacifists as being idealists. Nevertheless, I understand that that I am going to have to deal with this kind of pushback, people who think this kind of thing. I've made a a very comprehensive case, this season about as comprehensive as as I can make it at this point. No but I don't think that there's there's anything as powerful as maybe getting information straight from the source.

Derek: 11:40

So I can argue philosophically, theologically, all that I want. But until you kind of are able to to see things in action straight from the horse's mouth, it it's not gonna be nearly as meaningful. So conveniently for me this season, I came across something just the other day, which I think is going to help you see that the criticism that I have levied this season so far, and and a lot of Christian anarchists levy, this idea that, you know, moral compromise is horrendous and inevitable when you join government. I I think that I came across something that is gonna show you from the real world that this isn't hyperbole, but it's absolutely 100% accurate and realistic. The other day, I came across an interview done by Al Moller, who is a major player in the Southern Baptist Convention, which is the largest, I think, Protestant denomination in The States at this point, and is the the second largest Christian denomination in The States next to the Catholic church, which is not Protestant, of course.

Derek: 12:55

So Moller and the SBC are very representative of evangelicalism and Protestantism in The States. In, in this particular interview, which is entitled Spy Craft and Soul Craft, Mueller interviews James m Olson. And Olson is a man who is a Christian, along with his wife, and both of them served in the CIA for a number of years. Mueller spends a lot of the interview discussing with Olsen what some of the big moral issues were that he had to deal with and how Olsen worked through those ideas as a Christian. The interview is is a gold mine in terms of uncovering so much of of what we've talked about this season in regard to the way that government calls Christians to moral compromise, as well as revealing the consequentialism that we've talked about, I mean, in a whole season, as well as through lots and lots of different episodes.

Derek: 13:54

So I'll put a link to the interview in the show notes, and, I'll be because I'll be jumping around from quote to quote, and you might like to see where it is in the context of the whole interview. I'll also be discussing Olsen's book a little bit, because after I heard this interview, I, I definitely went and and read his book called Fair Play, and we'll we'll be discussing a bit of his book as well. So let's jump in. To set the stage for, the first extended quote from, Olsen and Moller, when I was reading Olsen's book, one of the one of the first things that stuck out to me was, and this is not a direct quote, but, Olsen said that, like, he lied, cheated, and stole every day of his career, which is probably a little bit hyperbolic, but maybe not really. Probably did at least one of those things every day of his career, you know, because you're participating in in lies all the time.

Derek: 14:57

And this hearkens back to an interview I did with, with Zach Johnson this season, where he was talking about, hey. Look, you you get into other moral issues too, which he found. Because when he declared that he was, a conscientious objector, but he's in the air force, and he's like, well, they they tried to move me around to some different positions. But he's like, you know, the the position I found myself in, it's like, well, I'm get for counterintelligence, I'm part of our job is we have to figure out how do we lie to our allies and our enemies. We don't want our allies to know our full strength, but we want them to know a little bit, and we don't want our enemies to know things.

Derek: 15:34

So now my job is just lying all the time. So how do you how do you deal with that as a Christian? So Olsen is, he's gonna come face to face with this. And, of course, Olsen is gonna have a little bit different of a take than I would or, Zach Johnson had. And and Olsen is going to essentially, justify this.

Derek: 15:57

He's going to see that, absolute morality or he refers to veritatis splendour, I think, is what he calls it, which is kind of some Catholic teaching on, at least certain certain aspects of absolute morality. And he's gonna say, look. That's that's just idealistic. Because, it doesn't it doesn't protect you. It doesn't get you the results that you want.

Derek: 16:22

Yeah. He he'll deny consequentialism as as I think you'll see in one of the quotes. So, let let's just get into, his his interview here. Let me read what he says. So this is, first of all, from Al Mohler.

Derek: 16:37

Quote, you acknowledge in both of your books that spy craft or espionage will invoke some serious moral questions. And in your first book, Fair Play, The Moral Dilemmas of Spying, you actually set out so many of these explicitly, and I think with a lot of intellectual honesty. One of the things that you acknowledge is that it comes down to whether or not one will do spy craft or not. You write, I will concede that spying is a dirty business. But my question is this, what's the alternative?

Derek: 17:05

No intelligence? Should we abstain from lying, cheating, deceiving, and manipulating, and do without the intelligence they produce? Should we unilaterally discontinue espionage and con covert action operations overseas? Should we put all our trust in overt sources of information, diplomacy, and the peaceful arts and hope our enemies will not take advantage of us? Is that the real world?

Derek: 17:28

Would that be safe? Well, you raised that question. End quote. So Olsen's gonna reply to that. Right?

Derek: 17:37

Direct quote from his book. He's like, how how do we avoid doing all these bad things? Because if we didn't do these bad things, these things that people deem bad, it wouldn't be good for national security. So here's Olsen's reply. I did raise the question.

Derek: 17:55

It is something I've thought a lot about because my life was a paradox in many ways. Because on one hand, the most important things to me in my life were my country, my family, my honor, and my faith. But on the other hand, I spent my entire CIA career lying, cheating, stealing, manipulating, deceiving. So that's the issue that I wanted to deal with. Can those two points be reconciled?

Derek: 18:18

Can a man of faith conduct himself in such a way that he is engaging in those things? When Meredith and I, my wife was also in the CIA, by the way, when we launched into this career, we had to make an upfront racialization. We had to say, alright. As people of faith, we know that we will be doing things we would not ordinarily be doing, the lying and cheating and so forth. But we sincerely believe that we're doing these things for a greater good, for the legitimate defense of our country.

Derek: 18:49

And I can tell you that throughout our career, even though we engaged in some things that sometimes bordered on, we did not see any conflict between what we were doing and our faith or our moral code. We devoted our lives, doctor Mueller, to protecting our country against totalitarian, evil, oppressive, atheistic communism, and we thought that we were on the right side of that. And so we had no qualms about doing what we had to do for our country. If we're going to defend our country against the evils that are out there, we can't go out there with our hands tied behind our back. We've got to fight tough.

Derek: 19:23

And that's the issue. How tough is too tough? When do we cross the line? When do we betray those values that we're fighting so hard to defend? When do we become them?

Derek: 19:34

And that's kind of the point that we had to discuss throughout the book. Yes. I think that's accurate. That's the way I saw it. And I do believe that the just war theory does apply to us in intelligence community.

Derek: 19:46

If it could be morally acceptable, as Aquinas said, to kill in legitimate defense of our country, it seems to me that it should be morally acceptable as well to lie, cheat, steal, manipulate course, and legitimate defense of our country. Okay. Let's pause here. So this this brings to mind a couple of things. I mean, number one, again, Olsen is going to say that, and I'm sorry.

Derek: 20:11

But before I I kinda start attacking Olsen, I do wanna say something positive first. I I do appreciate how Olsen is very open and upfront about his moral reasoning. I disagree with him 100%, but, I like that he does not compartmentalize, things, but he admits what his morality, produces, or or what his reasoning is. Because I and I think part of that is because he was thrust into a situation where he does value his faith, but he also does value, protection. And I don't think he's he's just purely self interested trying to protect himself.

Derek: 20:53

I I really do think he's trying to protect the people of The United States and the lifestyle that we have here. Like, he's trying to protect our country. I just think that, his moral system I mean, it undermines the morale Christian morality, and it also undermines the Christian kingdom, this idea that, you know, they're we're a borderless nation. And so he's willing to take advantage of of other people just because they're in a different border. And and that's throwing off this Christian ideal of borderless nations, and it's objectifying people.

Derek: 21:26

So I I really disagree with it. But I appreciate that he he takes it head on. And, a lot of the the conservative Christians here, stateside, they're not going to do that. They're gonna, you know, dismiss and say, well, no. You know?

Derek: 21:41

And they're they're just gonna obfuscate or whatever you call it. And I like that he he's honest. He's open. He's upfront, because we can have a conversation where we disagree, and we we battle that out. So I appreciate that about him.

Derek: 22:00

So to what he said. I mean, first of all, he's gonna say that he's not a consequentialist, but 100 I don't know how you say you're not when you say, you know, what's the alternative, if I don't do these things? And that that's a consequentialist ethic. He's saying, I have to do these things because they work. He also uses the term, you know, it's the greater good.

Derek: 22:20

Well, that's that's a consequentialist ethic right there when you when you see words greater good. That's ends justifying the means. Right? I'm willing to do a bad thing so that good things may come. A a better thing in my perception may come.

Derek: 22:33

Right? He's assuming his perception, justifies him to do these bad things, but, you know, somebody in a different country, their perception doesn't justify them to do the same things back to us. And then another tip-off here is gonna be where, you know, he talks about Aquinas' just war theory. And, yeah, I have problems with that too. So I think I think if you base something off of Aquinas' just war theory, you've got you've got problems.

Derek: 23:00

But so let let's just let's just explore what he says. He says, you know, according to Aquinas' just war theory, it's okay to, kill in defense of our country. So it should be morally acceptable as well to lie, cheat, steal, manipulate course, and legitimate defense of our country. And I I think Olson is right, and that's a problem with, like, Aquinas. If I can kill somebody for my country, why can't I lie to somebody for my country?

Derek: 23:30

Right? Why can't I steal, manipulate course, manipulate, deceive, whatever? Why can't I cheat? I should be able to. Right?

Derek: 23:41

My problem with Olsen's list is, I assume Olsen would say, if I were to ask Olsen and again, this is speculation, but I'm I'm pretty sure I know what he would say. Okay, Olsen. Let's see. Would you ever James Bond it with some other woman, for the better for for the greater good of your country? You can save a couple thousand lives, so go, go be unfaithful to your wife.

Derek: 24:09

You know, it's part of the spy game. And I think you draw the line there. No. No. No.

Derek: 24:13

You can't fornicate. You can't commit adultery for for the course of, your country, even if that saved thousands of lives. There's, when when you get into some of his explicit scenarios in his book, one of the ones that stuck out to me. It was it was so interesting, like, how how people justified doing certain actions in SpyCraft, but not others, and how they kind of changed back and forth. It's it's a really good book, because it gives you lots of real life scenarios, and and you get to hear a lot of different people react to those scenarios.

Derek: 24:48

And, it's just fascinating. But one of the ones that I think everybody was unanimous on, was, no. It's not okay to, obtain a child prostitute, an underage girl for for somebody, like, for a diplomat that you're trying to court. It's it's not okay to do that. And you're kinda like, well, Olsen, if I if I can kill somebody, if I can, lie to somebody, if I can cheat or steal, why would why would obtaining one child prostitute for this diplomat that maybe I save thousands of lives?

Derek: 25:30

What's one child prostitute to thousands of lives? Sure. The child prostitute thing, that's terrible. I hate that. It's horrible.

Derek: 25:38

But that's one life that you're sacrificing. And you're not even sacrificing your life. You're just sacrificing one traumatic experience so I can save thousands of lives. Why like, his his moral his moral boundaries are just, like, he just he doesn't realize it, but he's he's just picking and choosing the things that he doesn't think are big deals. And, he he's choosing where he can compromise and and where he can't, and it's arbitrary.

Derek: 26:11

Because there are other scenarios where obtaining a an older prostitute, everybody's like, oh, yeah. Yeah. That that would be fine. As long as she's not exploited, you know, go ahead and obtain her. Well, what would happen if if, Olsen was in a different country?

Derek: 26:27

A country where, you know, you've got a 12 year old girl. But there, there's no such thing as as, child, underage sexuality. And you could obtain it legally, and it's not against their like, with their intelligence agency, if there were Christians there, they might be okay with with procuring an underage girl according to, to Olsen's moral ideology, if you're a Christian in that culture. So what you find is when you depart from from objective morality, you end up getting this this subjective morality where it it doesn't make sense why you compromise on some things and not others. It's just it's arbitrary.

Derek: 27:10

It's subjective. And this hearkens back to Augustine's, you know, books, his works. We did some episodes online and against lying. And, when Augustine has this guy come to him and say, hey. Look.

Derek: 27:23

Can I can I lie to, to these, these heretics to try to entrap them and catch them in their their heretical acts? And Augustine's like, no. You can't do that. That's against the character of God. He's like, you wouldn't go fornicate with them to say, well, I can catch a hair sick if I fornicate with them.

Derek: 27:45

So if you can't fornicate with them, you don't lie. And and, I mean, it's the same thing here. I think Augustine's argument would would hold. Now I think Augustine then is inconsistent with with his his whole killing, you know, his his justification of killing. Nevertheless, even there, Augustine could say, well, killing isn't inherently wrong.

Derek: 28:09

It's not something that's against the character of God, whereas lying would be. I definitely recommend you go back and listen to some of those episodes, as well as the season on consequentialism to kind of, get more of an idea of what what problems I think Olsen has going on here. Alright. So let's get into, the next quote that I'm gonna have, where Al Mohler, asks a question. Mohler says, I agree that spy craft is an honorable thing to do, but you're not merely saying that the end justifies the means.

Derek: 28:43

And Olsen replies, well, it's close. And I don't wanna be labeled a utilitarian, but a lot of the means that we use. Let's take some examples. Targeted killings, waterboarding, blackmail, seduction are ugly things in the abstract. But have they saved lives?

Derek: 29:02

Have they been for a greater good? By waterboarding Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, how many American lives did we save? How many terrorist attacks did we thwart? By killing Osama bin Laden, assassinating him extra judicially, didn't we, in effect, render justice? Didn't we prevent anything that he was planning to do in the future?

Derek: 29:22

Now a lot of people objected to those acts, and I understand why. But as I point out in the book, and you cited that, what if we had not engaged in those activities? What if we'd refrained from collecting that intelligence? Where would we be? And I think that's an unacceptable alternative.

Derek: 29:39

I believe that when we go out there, we've got to have the tools at our disposal to match the evil forces that we're fighting against. So Olsen doesn't wanna be called a utilitarian, but he's a utilitarian. I mean, I just there's there's absolutely no escaping it. Now the again, I I appreciate his his candidness, but, that's just what it is. He's a consequentialist.

Derek: 30:06

He's a utilitarian. And the the goal of this episode isn't to bash, James Olsen. The goal is to say, like, Olsen is just telling you what the reality of government is. You go into government. This is what you do.

Derek: 30:25

The ends justify the means. Like, your job in government is to figure out, how far can I morally compromise to get the greatest good out of this? Because moral compromises are required. Now Olsen tries to justify those and say, well, they were actually good things because it accomplished a a better thing. The the result was better than the act was bad.

Derek: 30:54

But that's what government is. That that's what it is. This is reality straight from the horse's mouth. I wanna read you just, one more quote that kind of gets at this, this, you know, consequentialism, utilitarianism aspect, and and kinda cement that in, and then move on to a final part. So here's the quote.

Derek: 31:19

It's really unfair after the fact, I think, for people sitting back in Washington to say, you went too far. You should not have kidnapped that person. You should not have waterboarded that person. Because it's easy to say, and our people were doing this with the best of intentions, waterboarding is nasty. I hate the fact that we had to do it, but it's easy to take the moral high ground and say, we're not gonna do that.

Derek: 31:43

And, of course, the Obama administration decreed that we would not do it anymore. That's fine. Tell us we won't cross the line. But we have to realize that when we refrain from activities like that, and I would contend as my good friend and colleague, Jose Rodriguez, wrote in his book, Hard Measures, that waterboarding these three people did save lives. And these people were not permanently harmed, the ones who were waterboarded.

Derek: 32:05

And so that's kind of a horrible calculus that you have to make weighing the lesser of evils. But I take the position that in an extreme case with preferably judicial oversight, we should not take enhanced interrogation off the table. If we have an imminent threat to our country, lives are at stake. We know the information could be extracted that can save those lives, and that enhanced interrogation is the only way to get it. That's a horrible position to have to state, and I'm not proud of it.

Derek: 32:32

But I believe that in the greater good, you can make that case. So, again, Olsen here is uses the words, you know, lesser of evils, greater good. Hands down, consequentialism, utilitarianism. So then after this, Mueller is like, yeah. I I agree with you, but I I'm a little bit disturbed because I feel like, well, then can't you end up justifying everything?

Derek: 33:03

And, Olsen asked him a question. He says, well, let me ask you. Do you think that waterboarding is bad, but it doesn't kill? And Mueller kind of chews this over, and he's like, yeah. I mean, I guess, I mean, like, killing is really the worst thing that you can do.

Derek: 33:19

Right? So if we justify killing and we know that killing is right, or can be right, then how do I not justify these things? And and they get into this, in their minds, murky territory. And and I get that because I I was there for sure. And, it was it was actually this sort of thinking which made me realize, hey.

Derek: 33:41

Look. I've I've gotta make a choice. I got I've gotta choose either killing is bad, or a lot of things can be justifiable. And so one of the, one of the the situations the the clincher for me was when I realized, okay, I love old World War two movies, Nazi Germany. I would kill a Nazi in a heartbeat to to, just because Nazis were terrible.

Derek: 34:13

They were killing lots of people. I'd kill a Nazi in a heartbeat to save people. Yet, the place that I get my haircut, it's right next to a Five Guys, and on the other side of it is a Planned Parenthood. And you'd see people protesting, and you'd see women who are walking in, who I know were going to get abortions. If abortion is the modern day holocaust, there's a, quote, Nazi doctor in that abortion clinic as I speak getting ready to murder.

Derek: 34:46

And I would never justify somebody going and bombing that clinic or killing that doctor. But I'd kill a Nazi in a heartbeat to save the life of a Jew or whoever else they're going to kill. There's there's a major dissonance there, and I I have yet to hear anything that's even close to convincing about the distinction between those two things. Because if abortion is the modern day holocaust, then I've got a Nazi right next to me when I, when I am getting my haircut, and I don't do anything about it. So either killing the German and killing the, the, abortion doctor are wrong, or they're both right.

Derek: 35:32

And, really, I should probably go and kill some abortion doctors to defend life. So I reckon that for me, it was more ludicrous to justify bombing an abortion clinic, than it was to say, you know what? I shouldn't kill the Nazi or the abortion doctor. Because anything in between those two options is inconsistent moral application. It's, it's hypocrisy.

Derek: 36:01

It's failing to it's refusing to acknowledge the logical conclusions of your system. And that's that's where Moler and Olsen are right here. Mueller is more wrestling through it. He's like, Yeah. I I feel like you can justify everything, but we know that it's okay to to kill because of just war.

Derek: 36:25

So I guess you're right, Olsen. I guess you know? And, if they're really wrestling with that. Olsen's kind of come to his conclusion. Mueller still vacillates a little bit, but that's the type of thing that, that you really need to to sift through to create this this dissonance that's going to get you to land where you need to land.

Derek: 36:49

Either you land with Olsen and say, yeah. We can pretty much justify anything, really, if if we can find a good that is big enough, to to negate the evil of the act that I'm gonna do. Or you come down on the side of of nonviolence. So there's there's another quote that I like that, that Olsen pulled out once or twice in in his book that I think summarizes maybe Olsen's, ideology here. And it was a quote from Nathan Hale, which Nathan Hale is the guy who was was caught for being a spy.

Derek: 37:25

And, you know, he said, my own something to the extent of, like, I just wish that I had more than one life to give for my country. Right? Well, Olsen pulls out another quote from Hale, that Hale used to justify his spying. Because apparently, spying used to be just, like, really looked down on. Like, oh, that's deception and, you know, that's that's not honorable.

Derek: 37:48

So Nathan Hale, before he made his decision to be a spy, to justify his being a spy, made this statement, quote, every kind of service necessary to the public good becomes honorable by being necessary, end quote. So in Olsen's mind, because, espionage, the lying, the cheating, the stealing, maybe the fornication, I don't I don't know where he lands on that. Procuring prostitutes, some bezel, like, what whatever. All these things. If they're necessary to the public good, which I guess is good for the greatest number of people, I I don't know.

Derek: 38:31

But because if an action is necessary to that good of the people, then it becomes honorable because it's necessary. From a Christian moral perspective, that's messed up Because Olsen is choosing to define good as in my physical well-being at this moment or, even economic freedom. So there there's a a point in in Olsen's book where he says that economics, or he agrees with the this idea that economics is national security. I forget which president, kinda said that and used it as a justification, for for war or violence, but Olsen, as far as I could tell, agrees with that. Economics is national security.

Derek: 39:17

So now we're talking about killing people, lying to people for the the good. Right? Because it's it's necessary for the good. And what makes something good? Well, economics is national security, so I can kill and lie in the name of economics because that's a public good.

Derek: 39:35

That's a security measure to, to maintain my economic standing and well-being, which ironically, we disagree with when, you know, Japan bombed us because we messed with their economics through sanctions. So is economics, you know, a call to war if we mess with somebody's economics? Is it, does it justify doing evil things? If so, does that work both ways? Or is that only if it's if it harms The United States, does it justify our immoral actions?

Derek: 40:12

Because our economics is a greater good. So I I think there's enough there for you to see the just moral issues, the just wasteland that is that that moral reasoning. It's it's consequentialist. It's utilitarian no matter how you wanna dress it up. And, yeah, I I think there's plenty there for you to to sift through that.

Derek: 40:38

But I do wanna to leave with with two things. I'll leave with, a more practical, pragmatic, realism check, and then we'll end with a, Christian Kingdom realism check. So one of, the first thing, you know, practically speaking, Olsen makes a big assumption. He makes a lot of big assumptions, but one of the big assumptions is that, the the government is out to protect our good, and that that they do that well. Yet, there are so many things, and and Olsen even reckon, brings up one thing that I I hadn't heard of before.

Derek: 41:18

HT Lingual, which is when the government, for, like, twenty years or something, was basically opening people's mail. But, you know, on top of HT Lingual, all of the other things that the the government has done in the intelligence sector, There were the Pentagon Papers that showed we fabricated, you know, the the reason that we got into war with with Vietnam. Like, we made that up so we could go to war with them. We had COINTELPRO when the government was spying on everyday citizens, like feminist groups, Martin Luther King Junior, trying to get him to commit suicide, sending him things in the mail, getting liberal professors, fabricating stories of, infidelity and breaking up marriages of liberal professors who were part of, like, anti war groups, nonviolent anti war groups. You know, all kinds of terrible things that that are uncovered in Cointel Pro.

Derek: 42:16

WikiLeaks, talking about how we're harming civilians in in our wars. Snowden, what the things that Snowden released about how the government, like, basically has all of our emails and phone records and things. I mean, it the the amount of evil that our government does, the the, the police state that it is, it's it's insane. But Olsen has this idea that the government is is like a father, like like a good father. It's almost like this, surrogate father for us.

Derek: 42:52

It's almost like like a god, like a second god, which justifies the evils that we do and which wants to take care of us. Like, it I don't know. It's it it just doesn't sit well with me, knowing what I know about who our government is and and our history. I mean, the CIA and the the assassinations that they're they're doing in all of these other countries, the the coups that they're, they're doing, the the, the tyrants that they're installing in Iran and Cuba and who knows where else. Just all of our international interactions.

Derek: 43:27

I mean, there's so much gross, wicked stuff going on externally as well as internally. And so for me to trust Olson and and his department and his and government institutions that they're making huge moral decisions that compromise objective morality. But then if I was gonna have anybody compromise objective morality to have them do it, there's no way. There's no way that I am going to to put my name on that and and put my name behind that as, you know, these people I trust to make moral compromises for me, because they care about my well-being. I just history tells us the opposite of that.

Derek: 44:10

And that leads into not only so that's that's more of a practical side of things. Like, history shows us that this just is illegitimate. But as a Christian, it's it's a million times more illegitimate that, for my economic interest, installing a tyrant in Iran and Cuba is good. We can overthrow their leaders. We can assassinate people.

Derek: 44:36

We can install somebody who we train to torture and make people disappear who are political enemies, like, because that's good for us. How as a Christian does that make sense? Okay. Maybe maybe what we did in Iran and Cuba and South America, maybe that was good for me. Maybe that was good for citizens of The United States.

Derek: 44:59

Maybe economically that was great. I don't know. Let's assume that it was. For me as a Christian, does that justify it? Like, when when Olsen defines what is good, he is defining what is good for American citizens because he's protecting American citizens.

Derek: 45:17

How is that even a a Christian perspective that I am going to do what is good for the people in my borders at the expense of people, just because they're they're across the ocean. They're they're behind some other arbitrary borders. It's it's not a Christian thing. It just isn't Christian. I mean, I don't think any of it is.

Derek: 45:39

The the moral justifications, the the killing, the lying, all that stuff. I don't I don't think you can have moral justifications for that. But what's just disgustingly unchristian is our willingness to sacrifice and objectify non Americans. That is not a a kingdom mindset because, if you're a Christian, we are all in the same Big K Kingdom, but it seems to me that Olsen and nationalists and patriots are willing to sacrifice brothers and sisters. Anyone, but especially brothers and sisters in the Big K Kingdom for their, idols and little K kingdoms.

Derek: 46:21

But don't take my word for it. Check out the, the interview with Olsen. Check out Olsen's book, Fair Play. It really is a a good book that gives you insight into things, even if you're gonna disagree with it it, you know, I don't wanna straw man it. And so go check it out for yourself.

Derek: 46:41

That's all for now. So peace. And because I'm a pacifist, when I say it, I mean it. This podcast is a part of the Kingdom Outpost Network. Please check out the links below to find other great podcasts and content related to nonviolence and kingdom living.