The cultural script of “Mother knows best” is powerful—so powerful that it can override a person’s own instincts, experiences, and even evidence of harm. However, that phrase was never meant to be a universal truth. It was meant for mothers who were actually acting in good faith, with wisdom, humility, and love. When a mother is not acting in your best interest, the old saying becomes a trap rather than a comfort. The myth says that mothers are always selfless, that mothers always want what is best for their children, and that mothers are incapable of envy, resentment, or sabotage. However, real human beings—mothers included—carry unresolved trauma, insecurity, jealousy, fear of losing control, resentment toward their children’s opportunities or independence. When those wounds go unexamined, they can distort maternal behavior in ways that are deeply damaging. Narcissistic parents envy and compete with their children’s attractiveness, athletic or intellectual abilities, and other sorts of favorable attention that their children attract. Narcissistic parents make negative comparisons to put their children down. They might compare a child to a sibling, friend, cousin, or even themselves—going on about how spoiled, inferior, or lucky their child is compared to them when they were young. Such behavior stems from the same jealousy and envy that motivates competition. Sadly, many children of narcissists struggle for years or for a lifetime with shame and low self-worth. #RandolphHarris 1 of 17

It is important to pay attention to signs that mother is not acting in your best interest. These patterns often show up when a mother feels threatened by her child’s growth, success, or autonomy. One sign is subtle sabotage. When your mother is always undermining your confidence, planting seeds of doubt about your decisions, and discouraging opportunities that would help you grow, your mother may be manipulating you so she can control her child with guilt, threats, and belittling. Some mothers shame their children with name-calling, criticism, undermining, blame, and withholding love. Frequently, they project onto their children their feelings of unworthiness and negative traits, such as attention-seeking or selfishness; characteristics which they disown. At the same time, they ignore, deny, and criticize their children’s feelings and needs, sometimes punishing them for expressing normal emotions, claiming they are too sensitive or weak. Parents often punish by withholding love, creating constant insecurity of self and self-esteem, which can be traumatizing and physical. One of the most painful—and least acknowledged—forms of family betrayal is when a parent aligns with their children’s enemies. This form of betrayal cuts deeper than ordinary conflict because it violates the basic expectation that a parent should protect their child, not align with people who wish them harm. This is not “normal conflict.” It is a sign of a profound role reversal in which the parent’s emotional needs override their protective instincts. #RandolphHarris 2 of 17

Several psychological dynamics can push a parent into this kind of betrayal, such as envy and competition. If a parent feels threatened by their child’s independence, success, confidence, relationships, or reputation, they may gravitate toward people who confirm their negative narrative about the child. If a parent feels insecure or criticized, they may seek validation from anyone—even the child’s adversaries—because it temporarily soothes their ego. Some parents offload their own guilt, shame, or failures by projecting them onto the child. Aligning with the child’s enemies becomes a way to reinforce the projection. Like all narcissists, narcissistic parents are prone to brag about themselves, their achievements, their family, and their children. Do not expect narcissistic parents to be involved with their children’s hobbies, goals, or interests unless it is also their goal or interest. They will not take pleasure in their children’s accomplishments or attractiveness except to the extent that it reflects well upon them. If the child is becoming independent, the parent may: join forces with people who undermine the child, spread misinformation, create alliances that keep the child “in their place.” This is about control, not care. Parents who engage in this pattern often share private information with people who dislike their children. Gossip or exaggerate the child’s mistakes, encourage others to “teach the child a lesson,” validate outsiders’ hostility, participate in smear campaigns, use third parties to pressure, shame, or isolate the child. This is not concern. It is collusion. #RandolphHarris 3 of 17

This kind of betrayal can create deep mistrust, hypervigilance, confusion about loyalty and safety, difficulty forming secure relationships, a sense of being unprotected in the world, and emotional shock (“How could my own parent do this?”) It is not just hurtful—it is destabilizing. Why does it feel so unthinkable? Because it violates the core expectation of parenthood. A parent should never join forces with someone who wants to harm their child. The lack of unconditional love, acceptance, and emotional connection in childhood leaves a void. Until the children of narcissists accept their narcissistic parents’ limitations and begin to love themselves, they are never free of suffering. They relive the emotional abandonment of their childhood and seek self-worth, validation, and lovability in relationships with abusive and/or emotionally unavailable partners, including drug addicts and narcissists. They may contribute to the problem by reacting as they did as a child to their parents. They continually find fault with themselves because conditional love is all they have ever known. This can lead to lifelong misery because external validation never heals internal shame and emptiness. Healing requires recovery from the codependence and shame acquired in childhood to feel entitled to love and appreciation. Narcissists deny reality and live inside a fantasy world that protects their fragile ego. They distort, renationalize, twist facts, and delude themselves to avoid anything that may chip their armor, which can be so thick that no amount of evidence or argument can get through. Their memories are often faulty, and self-deception can convince them that their altered reality is true. #RandolphHarris 4 of 17

Abusers, addicts, and narcissists typically use these defense mechanisms to disown their unacceptable feelings, thoughts, or qualities and assign them to others, either mentally or verbally. The projector says, “It is not me, it is just you!” In doing so, you become the target of a narcissist’s projection: you are the one who is “selfish,” “weak,” and “worthless.” Coping strategies reflect emotional maturity, and projection is considered a primitive defense because it distorts or ignores reality in any attempt to preserve a weak ego. It is reactive without forethought and used by children. When employed by adults, it indicates arrested emotional development. Low self-esteem and shame impair narcissists’ ability to accept responsibility for mistakes and negative feelings. Projecting allows narcissists to accuse others of being the source of the pain and shame they bear make someone else feel the way they do inside. Rather than suffer self-judgment, projection provides a temporary respite from their negative impulses and traits, which they find too uncomfortable to acknowledge. It preserves feelings of innocence and esteem rather than guilt and shame, or at the very least, it preserves a narcissist’s sense of security in maintaining their façade of infallibility. Externalization is like projection in that it is blaming others for your problems rather than taking appropriate responsibility for them, like addicts who blame their drinking or drug use on their partners or job supervisor. Thus, externalizing also makes you feel like a victim.  #RandolphHarris 5 of 17

However, narcissists are not the only people who project and blame. You might think to yourself, “He hates me,” when you hate him or think he is being controlling or judgmental; in other words, you remain blind to your own similar shortcomings or uncomfortable feelings because you are projecting them onto someone else. When it comes to understanding projecting, it is essential to understand that shame has two faces: one with an inflated ego and one that is depressed. When the devalued self is feeling inferior, shame manifests by idealizing others. This is what partners do when they are attracted to and idealize a narcissist. When a person is feeling superior and defending against shame, the grandiose self devalues others by projecting its disowned flaws and negative self-concept. Both devaluation and idealization are commensurate with the severity of shame and associated depression. Shame can make people fluctuate between the superior and inferior positions, but grandiose and vulnerable narcissists are more-or-less static in their respective positions, regardless of reality. Projection can be crazy-making, especially if you experience it for a long time. When you are vulnerable or have impaired self-esteem and weak boundaries or are sensitive about a specific issue, such as your looks, parenting, or intelligence, there is no filter. You introject the projection. Because internally you agree, it sticks like a magnet. Then you react to the shaming and compound your relationship problems. Doing so validates and augments the abuser’s authority, control, and ideas about you. You are sending the message that your partner has power over your self-esteem and the right to approve you. When there is a prohibition against doing something, a dialogue will result whenever the person starts to do it. The inner parent becomes active and says, “No!” in a hard script, “Watch out!” in a threatening one, or “Why do you want that?” in a soft one—usually whatever an actual parent would say in real life. The energy that the inner child had mobilized to do it is then taken over by the inner parent and is used by him to restrain the immaturity. The more the inner child had mobilized to put into it, the more energetic the mature self can become by appropriating this energy. #RandolphHarris 6 of 17

Envy is an unpleasant social emotion that arises when we compare ourselves with others in terms of their characteristic and belonging, and we perceive that they surpass us. This emotion of discomfort arises because the result of this upward comparison reveals our shortcomings. Envy is, therefore, a self-conscious emotion indicating a negative self-evaluation, or an inferior self-image with respect to others. The expansive type needs people for the confirmation of his power and of his spurious values. He also needs them as a safety valve for his own self-hate. However, since he has easier recourse to his own resources and greater support for his pride, his needs for others are neither as impelling nor as comprehensive as they are for the self-effacing type. The nature and magnitude of these needs account for basic characteristics in the latter’s expectations of others. While the arrogant-vindictive type primarily expects evil unless he has proof to the contrary, while the truly detached type expects neither good nor bad, the self-effacing type keeps expecting good. On the surface, it looks as though he had an unshakable faith in the essential goodness of humanity. And it is true that he is more open, more sensitive to likable qualities in others. However, the compulsiveness of his expectations makes it impossible for him to be discriminating. He cannot, as a rule, distinguish between genuine friendliness and its many counterfeits. He is too easily bribed by any show of warmth or interest. In addition, his inner dictates tell him that he should like everybody, that he should not be suspicious. Finally, his fear of antagonism and possible fights makes him overlook, discard, minimize, or explain away such traits as lying, crookedness, exploiting, cruelty, and treachery. #RandolphHarris 7 of 17

When confronted with the unmistakable evidence of such trends, he is taken by surprise each time; but even so, he refuses to believe in any intent to deceive, humiliate, or exploit. Although he often is, and still more often feels, abused, this does not change his basic expectations. Even though by bitter personal experience he may know that nothing good could possibly come to him from a particular group or person, he still persists in expecting it—consciously or unconsciously. Particularly when such blindness occurs in someone who is otherwise psychologically astute, his friends or colleagues may be flabbergasted by it. However, it simply indicates that the emotional needs are so great that they override evidence. The more he expects of people, the more he tends to idealize them. He has not, therefore, a real faith in mankind but a Pollyanna attitude which inevitably brings with it many disappointments and makes him more insecure with people. What does he expect of others? In the first place, he must feel accepted by others. He needs such acceptance in whatever form it is available: attention, approval, gratitude, affection, sympathy, love, and pleasures of the flesh. To make it clear, just as in our civilization, many people feel worth as much as the money they are “making,” so the self-effacing type measures his values in the currency of love, using the word here as a comprehensive term for the various forms of acceptance. He is worth as much as he is liked, needed, wanted, or loved. Furthermore, he needs human contact and company because he cannot stand being alone for any length of time. As if he were cut off from life, he feels easily lost. #RandolphHarris 8 of 17

Painful as this feeling is, it can still be tolerable as long as his self-abuse keeps within limits. As soon, however, as self-accusations or self-contempt becomes acute, his feeling lost may grow into a nameless terror, and it is exactly at this point that the need for others becomes frantic. This need for company is all the greater since being alone means to him proof of being unwanted and unliked and is therefore a disgrace, to be kept secret. It is a disgrace to go alone to the movies or on vacation, and a disgrace to be alone over the weekend, even when others are sociable. This is an illustration of the extent to which his self-confidence is dependent upon somebody caring for him in some way. He also needs others to give meaning and zest to whatever he is doing. The self-effacing type needs someone for whom to sew, cook, or garden, a teacher for whom he can play the piano, patients or clients who rely on him. Besides all this emotional support, however, he needs help and plenty of it. In his own mind, the help he needs stays within most reasonable limits, partly because most of his needs for help are unconscious and partly because he focuses on certain requests for help as though they were isolated and unique: help in getting him a job, in speaking to his landlord, going shopping with or for him, lending him money. Moreover, any wish for help of which he is aware appears to him eminently reasonable because the need behind it is so great. However, when in analysis, we see the total picture, his need for help actually amounts to the expectation that everything will be done for him. Others should supply the initiative, do his work, take the responsibility, give meaning to his life, or take over his life so that he can live through them. When recognizing the whole scope of these needs and expectations, the power which the appeal of love has for the self-effacing type becomes perfectly clear. It is not only a means to allay anxiety; without love, he and his life are without value and without meaning. Love, therefore, is an intrinsic part of the self-effacing solution. In terms of the type’s personal feelings, love becomes as indispensable for him as oxygen is for breathing. #RandolphHarris 9 of 17

Naturally, he carries these expectations also into the analytic relationship. In contrast to most expansive types, he is not at all ashamed to ask for help. On the contrary, he may dramatize the needs and his helplessness and plead for help. However, of course, he wants it his own way. He expects, at bottom, a cure through “love.” He may be quite willing to put effort into the analytic work, but, as it turns out later, he is prompted by his hungry expectation that salvation and redemption must and can come only from without (here from the analyst)—through being accepted. He expects the analyst to remove his feelings of guilt by love, which may mean by sexual love in the case of an analyst of the opposite gender. More often, it means in more general ways, signs of friendship, special attention, or interest. As always happens in neurosis, needs turn into claims, which means that he feels entitled to having all these goods come to him. The need for love, affection, understanding, sympathy, or help turns into: “I am entitled to love, affection, understanding, sympathy. I am entitled to have things done for me. I am entitled not to the pursuit of happiness but to have happiness fall into my lap.” It does almost without saying that these claims—as claims—remain more unconscious than in the expansive type. For the growth of autonomy, a firmly developed early trust is necessary. An individual must be sure that his faith in himself and in the world will not be jeopardized by the violent wish to have his choice, to appropriate demandingly, and to eliminate stubbornly. Only parental firmness can protect him against the consequences of his as yet untrained discrimination and circumspection. #RandolphHarris 10 of 17

However, his environment must also back him up in his wish to “stand on his own feet,” while protecting him against the now newly emerging pair of estrangements, namely, that sense of having exposed himself prematurely and foolishly which we call shame or that secondary mistrust, that “double take,” which we call doubt—doubt in himself and doubt in the firmness and perspicacity of his trainers. Shame is an infantile emotion insufficiently studied because in our civilization, it is so early and easily absorbed by guilt. Shame supposes that one is completely exposed and conscious of being looked at—in a word, self-conscious. One is visible and not ready to be visible; that is why in dreams of shame, we are stared at in a condition of incomplete dress, in night attire, “with one’s pants down.” Shame is early expressed in an impulse to bury one’s face or to sink, right then and there, into the ground. This potentiality is abundantly utilized in the educational method of “shaming” used so exclusively by some primitive peoples, where it supplants the often more destructive sense of guilt. The destructiveness of shaming is balanced in some civilizations by devices for “saving face.” Shaming exploits the increased sense of being small, which paradoxically develops as the individual comes to understand his size and power. Too much shaming does not result in a sense of propriety but in a secret determination to try to get away with things when unseen, if, indeed, it does not result in deliberate shamelessness. There is an impressive American ballad in which a murderer, to be hanged on the gallows before the eyes of the community, instead of feeling mortally afraid or totally shamed, begins to berate the onlookers, ending every salvo of defiance with the words, “God damn your eyes.” #RandolphHarris 11 of 17

Many people, when shamed beyond endurance, may be in a mood (although not in possession of either the courage or the words) to express defiance in similar terms. There is a limit to an individual’s endurance in the face of demands which force him to consider himself, his body, his needs, and his wishes as evil and dirty, and to believe in the infallibility of those who pass such judgment. Occasionally, he may turn things around, because secretly oblivious to the opinions of others, and consider as evil only the fact that they exist: this chance will come when they are gone or when he can leave them. The psychiatric danger of this stage is, as it is at all other stages, the potential aggravation of the normative estrangement to the point where it will cause neurotic or psychotic tendencies. The sensitive individual may turn all his urges to discriminate against himself and thus develop a precocious conscience. Instead of willfully appropriating things in order to test them by repetitive investigation, he will become obsessed by his own repetitiveness and will want to have everything “just so,” and only in a given sequence and tempo. By such an obsessiveness and procrastination, or by becoming a stickler for ritualistic repetitions, the individual then learns to gain power over his superiors in areas where he could not find large-scale mutual regulation with them. Such a hollow victory is how compulsion neurosis develops. #RandolphHarris 12 of 17

The most common sign of excessive defensiveness is frequent experiences of threat. If other people must be careful about what they say or do in your presence, it can signify that they sense the grasp of your identity is frail indeed. If you are easily upset by criticism or frightened by your anger or sensuality, it may signify that you are trying to live up to some glorified image. The time to grow—to begin to let go of one’s present self-concept—is evidenced by boredom, failure, and anxiety. These experiences signify that you and your real self have changed, but that your self-structure has not. You are impersonating an identity that, up to yesterday, may have been authentic and life-giving. Now, however, it is not. To start a growth episode is frightening, but it need not be terrifying. All it means is that you may have to suspend your usual activities and relationships in order to get a fresh perspective on your own possibilities and the possibilities of changing some aspects of your life. If you meditate or retreat to a quiet place from time to time, the chances are that you change aspects of your activity and your self-structure more or less frequently. If, however, you are “locked into” various roles, and a fixed way of being yourself, the experience of threat may be more acute when it happens, and the prospect of change more frightening. If your present identity is not sustaining a rewarding and health-engendering life, and you do not see ways to grow and change, then it might be valuable to find a personal counselor or psychotherapist. Conversations with a professional person can frequently lead to growth-producing changes that are neither drastic nor destructive. #RandolphHarris 13 of 17

God’s revelation in Jesus Christ, God’s revelation of His love, precedes all our love towards Him. Love has its origin not in us but in God. Love is not an attitude of men but an attitude of God. “Herein is love, not that we loved God, but that he loved us, and sent his Son to be the propitiation for our sins” (I John 4.10). Only in Jesus Christ do we know what love is, namely, in His deed for us. “Hereby perceive we the love of God, because he laid down his life for us” (I John 3.16). And even here there is given no general definition of love, in the sense, for example, of its being the laying down of one’s life for the lives of others. What is here called love is not this general principle but the utterly unique event of the laying down of the life of Jesus Christ for us. Love is inseparably bound up with the name of Jesus Christ as the revelation of God. The New Testament answers the question, “What is love?” quite unambiguously by pointing solely and entirely to Jesus Christ. He is the only definition of love. However, again, if we were to derive a general definition of love from our view of Jesus Christ and of His deed and His suffering, it would be a complete misunderstanding. Love is not what He suffers. Love is always He Himself. Love is always God Himself. Love is always the revelation of God in Jesus Christ. When all our ideas and principles relating to love are concentrated in the strictest possible manner upon the name of Jesus Christ, this must, above all, not be allowed to reduce this name to a mere abstract concept. This name must always be understood in the full concrete significance of the historical reality of a living man. And so, without in any way contradicting what has been said so far, it is only the concrete action and suffering of this man Jesus Christ which will make it possible to understand what love is. The name Jesus Christ, in which God reveals Himself, gives the explanation of itself in the life and words of Jesus Christ. For, after all, the New Testament does not consist in an endless repetition of the name of Jesus Christ, but that which this name comprises is displayed in events, concepts, and principles which are intelligible to use. #RandolphHarris 14 of 17

And so, too, the choice of the concept of “love,” is not simply arbitrary; this concept acquires an entirely new connotation in the New Testament message, yet it is not entirely without connection with what we understand by “love” in our own language. Certainly, it is not true to say that the biblical concept of love is a particular form of what we have already, in general, understood by this word. Precisely the opposite turns out to be the case, namely, that the biblical concept of love, and it alone is, the foundation, truth and the reality of love, in the sense that any natural thought about love contains truth and reality only in so far as it participates in this its origin, that is to say, in the love which is God Himself in Jesus Christ. Therefore, love is the reconciliation of man with God in Jesus Christ. The disunion of men with God, with other men, with the world and with themselves, is at an end. Man’s origin is given back to him. Love is the name for what God does to man in overcoming the disunion in which man lives. This deed of God is Jesus Christ, is reconciliation. And so love is something which happens to man, something passive, something over which he does not himself dispose, simply because it lies beyond his existence in disunion. Love means the undergoing of the transformation of one’s entire existence by God; it means being drawn in into the world as it lives and must live before God and in God. Love, therefore, is not man’s choice, but it is the election of man by God. #RandolphHarris 15 of 17

Only too soon personal experience and the experience of others teaches how far most men’s lives are from being what a man’s life ought to be. All have great moments. They see themselves in the magic mirror of possibility which hope holds before them while the wish flatters them. However, they swiftly forget this sight in the daily round of things. Or perhaps, they talk enthusiastic words, “for the tongue is a little member and boasteth great things.” However, talk takes the name of enthusiasm in vain by proclaiming loudly from the housetop what it should work out in silence. And in the midst of the trivial details of life, these enthusiastic words are quickly forgotten. It is forgotten that such a thing was said of this man. It is forgotten that it was he himself who said it. Now and then, perhaps, memory wakens with horror, and remorse seems to promise new strength. However, alas, this, too, lasts only for a good-sized moment. All of them have intentions, plans, resolutions for life, yes, for eternity. However, the intention soon loses its youthful strength and fades away. The resolution is not firmly grounded and is unable to withstand opposition. It totters before circumstances and is altered by them. Memory, too, has a way of failing, until by common practice and habit, they learn to draw sympathy from one another. If someone proclaims the slender comfort that excuses yield, instead of realizing how treacherous is such sympathy, they finally come to regard it as edifying, because it encourages and strengthens indolence. Now, there are men who find it edifying that the demand to will one thing be asserted in all its sublimity, in all its severity, so that it may press its claim into the innermost fastness of the soul. #RandolphHarris 16 of 17

Others find it edifying that a wretched compromise should be made between God, the claim, and the language used. There are men who find it edifying ig only someone will challenge them. However, there are also the sleepy souls who regard it as not only pleasing, but even edifying, to be lulled to sleep. This is indeed a lamentable fact; but there is a wisdom which is not from above, but is earthly and fleshly and devilish. It has discovered this common human weakness and indolence; it wants to be helpful. It perceives that all depends upon the will, and so it proclaims loudly, “Unless it wills one thing, a man’s life is sure to become one of wretched mediocrity, of pitiful misery. He must will one thing regardless of whether it be good or bad. He must will one thing for therein lies a man’s greatness.” Yet it is not difficult to see through this powerful error. As to the working out of salvation, the holy Scripture teaches that sin is the corruption of man. Salvation, therefore, lies only in the purity with which a man wills the Good. That very earthly and devilish cleverness distorts this into a temptation to perdition; weakness is a man’s misfortune; strength the sole salvation: “When the unclean spirit is gone out of a man, he walketh through dry and empty places but finds no rest. Then he turns back again and now he brings with him” that unclean cleverness, the wisdom of the desert and the empty places, that unclean cleverness—that now drives out the spirit of indolence and of mediocrity “so that the last stage become worse than the first.” #RandolphHarris 17 of 17

Everything that happens to us has merit, whether we recognize the significance of it or not. Everything in our lives ultimately leads us somewhere. However, to envy anyone for the things which they have is not a noble thing to do. Envy is the cause of much trouble and should be avoided. However, we cannot help, at times, thinking that we would like to have some of these things which others possess and which, for some reason or other, we do not have. Then, again, there is much truth in the fact that if we envy someone else, we may, by that envy, be spurred on to do greater work so that we may acquire them. It is not harmful, in this way, to look around and find someone to envy—or we might say, to emulate. Such reflections on envy remind us that it is not merely a moral inclination but a distinct emotional state, one that engages the deeper mechanisms of human feeling. To understand its force, we must consider the broader principles governing emotion itself. The fundamental proposition, respecting Emotion generally, may be expressed in these words: The state of Feeling, or the subjective consciousness which is known to each person by his own experience, is associated with a diffusive action over the system, through the medium of the cerebral hemispheres. In other words, the physical fact that accompanies and supports the mental fact, without making or constituting that fact, is an agitation of all the bodily members more immediately allied with the brain by the nervous communication. The organs first affected, by a wave of nervous influence emanating from the brain, are the moving members. Some of these are more readily agitated than others—for example the features of the face; which therefore constitute the principal medium of the expression of feeling. However, observation shows that all parts of the moving system are liable to be affected by an emotional wave: while a very important series of effects is produced upon the secreting and excreting apparatus of the body. #RandolphHarris 1 of 17

The coincidence of a state of mental excitement with bodily agitation is one of the most common experiences of human nature. In children, with whom no influence is as yet at work to suppress the free play of emotion, the coincidence may be produced invariable. Every stimulus, whether of pleasure or of pain, animates the features, the vocal organs, and the whole moving system. In pain, the lachrymal section is profusely poured out. So constant is the accompaniment of bodily excitement with mental, that the one is always looked upon as sufficient evidence of the other. In advancing years, there is a process of education, as well as an exercise of the will, tending to check and suppress the bodily manifestations of feeling, especially those of a more violent nature; but in cases where the suppressive influence is suspended, or where the strength of the passion breaks through the artificial barriers, the characteristics of infancy are reproduced in all their fullness. The observed agreement of bodily agitation with states of pleasure or pain is borne out by noting that the two rise and fall together in degree or intensity. Exactly as we increase a pleasurable or painful stimulus, we find the diffused expression of the bodily organs becomes more energetic. The hardly perceptible smile rises to the animated distension of all the features, and at last convulses and agitates every member into ecstatic violence. A link of causation is in this way shown to exist between feeling and bodily activity; so that in cases where no bodily excitement is shown, we presume either that the feeling is too weak to produce an effect sufficient to catch the eye of a beholder, or that some restraining power is at work. It must be in the nature of a state of emotion to cause the brain to diffuse or transmit currents to the various muscles and secreting organs; although up to a certain point of strength these do not show any sensible agitation. As soon as the agitation becomes apparent, we find it growing stronger with each addition to the moving cause. Everyone knows in their own consciousness that extreme intensity of the feeling itself, and that even on occasion where nothing is allowed to appear to others, there is nevertheless a diffused flutter and thrill accompanying any state of acute excitement. #RandolphHarris 2 of 17

Recognizing envy as one instance of the broader emotional life, we may now observe how any feeling, once awakened, exerts its influence upon the whole system. As soon as the agitation becomes apparent, we find it growing stronger with each addition to the moving cause. Envy can become so strong that it overpowers a person and turns them into a different being than they typically are. To further highlight this illustration, it is well-known fact that in the heat of battle, wounds are for a time unfelt. The engrossment of the brain and bodily system is so entire that the stimulus of a sharp wound is unable to diffuse itself, and consciousness or feeling is not produced. So when the attention is strongly fixed upon one object, other impressions falling upon the senses have no effect; the sensory organ is excited, but the free diffusion through the brain and over the system is obstructed by the bent already imparted to the nervous currents. On this fact is founded one of many devices for alleviating pain, which is to engage the attention on some new class of objects. Whatever the impression be that determines the general attitude of the bodily framework, the same impression prevails in the inner consciousness. When the attention is released from something that has strongly occupied it, the recent impressions made on the sense begin to become conscious; as when a person gives no heed to words addressed to him, and after a minute or two suddenly wakes up to their import. From these examples, we may observe how envy can so completely possess the brain, the body, and the emotional nature that one becomes, for the time, incapable of perceiving another being as an object of affection. The passion gathers such force that the love which once existed can no longer penetrate the hardened armor of jealousy, and the mind, thus clouded, mistakes its own agitation for just cause of resentment. Yet, when the envied person is removed from one’s immediate sphere, the tumult often subsides; and in the stillness that follows, remorse awakens. One then begins to recall, with painful clarity, the love that had been offered and to feel the weight of guilt for having been insensible to it. #RandolphHarris 3 of 17

Some individuals are particularly susceptible to jealousy, and under the sway of the repetition‑compulsion, they are driven to relive, as a present reality, what has long been repressed. The earlier neurosis does not vanish; it merely returns in altered form, emerging as a fresh transference neurosis. This compulsion to repeat arises from the repressed element in the unconscious, which presses for expression whenever the person perceives a threat—whether real or imagined—in another individual or situation. Yet envy, though rooted in such deep psychological mechanisms, may still be moderated by deliberate reflection. We may cure much of it in ourselves by considering how trivial, burdensome, or ill‑suited are the things for which we envy our neighbor, or by recognizing that we already possess goods equal to those we covet. If I envy another’s greatness, I may recall that he lacks my quiet; I may even suspect that he envies me as much as I do him. And when I examine his perfections with exactness and balance them against my own, I often find that my condition is no less tolerable than his. Indeed, though many indulge envy, very few would truly exchange their lot for that of the person they resent, once all circumstances are weighed. We ought therefore to guard ourselves against every appearance of envy, for it is a passion that always implies a sense of inferiority wherever it resides. The envious person suffers precisely at those moments that ought to bring him pleasure, for another’s joy becomes his torment. The relish of his life is inverted; and the objects which administer the highest satisfaction to those who are exempt from this passion give the quickest pangs to persons who are subject to it. All the perfections of their fellow-creatures are odious. Youth, beauty, valor, and wisdom are provocations of their displeasure. #RandolphHarris 4 of 17

What a wretched and apostate state this is to be offended with excellence, and to hate a man because we prove him! The condition of the envious man is the most emphatically miserable; he is not only incapable of rejoicing in another’s merit or success, but lives in a world wherein all mankind are in a plot against his quiet, by studying their own happiness and advantage. He who holds himself down, shrinking in stature lest he make any expansive motion, unwittingly prepares the very soil in which his envy takes root and festers. Moreover, he feels subdued by an ever-alive readiness to accuse and despise himself; he also feels easily frightened and spends a good deal of his energies in assuaging all these painful feelings. This developmental crisis is evoked by the necessity to manage encounters. A new sense of estrangement is awakened along with the awareness of new dependences and new familiarities. Envy is a type of infantile simplicity. It is a sense of “hallowed presence” which remains basic in neurotic adults in our society who have a desire for safety. Their reaction is often to unknown, psychological dangers in a world that is perceived to be hostile, overwhelming, and threatening. Such a person behaves as if a great catastrophe were almost always impending, id est, he is usually responding as if to an emergency. His very security rests upon being the center of attention, upon having and being “the best,” and upon looking down with condescension upon others, their belongings, and their accomplishments. This type of neurotic adult may be said to behave as if he were actually afraid of a spanking, or of his mother’s disapproval, or of being abandoned by his parents, or having his food taken away from him. It is as if his childish attitudes of fear and threat reaction to a dangerous world had gone underground, and, untouched by the growing-up and learning processes, were now ready to be called out by any stimulus that would make a child feel endangered or threatened. #RandolphHarris 5 of 17

The neurosis in which the search for safety takes its clearest form is in the compulsive-obsessive neurosis. Compulsive-obsessives try frantically to order and stabilize the world so that no unmanageable, unexpected, or unfamiliar dangers will ever appear. They hedge themselves about with all sorts of ceremonials, rules, and formulas so that every possible contingency may be provided for and so that no new contingencies may appear. They resemble the brain‑injured patients described by Goldstein, who preserve their equilibrium only by avoiding everything unfamiliar and by arranging their restricted world with such meticulous order that nothing unpredictable can intrude. When this defensive rigidity appears in psychologically intact individuals, it may manifest as attempts to control, diminish, or socially demote others—undermining their standing, damaging their reputation, devaluing their achievements, or even terminating a life—in order to preserve a sense of superiority and maintain a tightly ordered inner world. Envy then becomes a pathological need for omnipotent control. Pathological controls must be established to serve as a basis of comparison. This is due to the dread of losing one’s audience, and certainly, that they will leave unless he can continuously establish his dominance, and the only way he can do that is by keeping others down, making them look bad and bragging about his importance and material objects. Even when a person is no longer in his circle, a person suffering from the pathological need for omnipotent control will still try to destroy one he truly believes is better than him. They try to arrange the world so that anything unexpected (dangers) cannot possibly occur. If, through no fault of their own, something unexpected does occur, like someone they envy finding success, they go into a panic reaction as if this unexpected occurrence constituted a grave danger. #RandolphHarris 6 of 17

Each successive stage and crisis has a special relation to one of the basic institutionalized endeavors of man for the simple reason that the human life cycle and human institutions have evolved together. The relation between them is twofold: each generation brings to these institutions the remnants of infantile needs and youthful fervor, and receives from them—as long as they, indeed, manage to maintain their institutional vitality—a specific reinforcement of childlike vitality. If one can overcome envy, it becomes possible to pierce the universal amnesia that conceals the frightening aspects of childhood. In relinquishing envy, we loosen the defenses that keep those early terrors unexamined. Yet we may also gratefully acknowledge that the principal glory of childhood survives into adult life: the capacity for wonder, for spontaneous joy, and for a trust in life that, though often obscured, is never wholly extinguished. Trust, then, becomes the capacity for faith—a vital need for which man must find some institutional confirmation. Religion, it seems, is the oldest and has been the most lasting institution to serve the ritual restoration of a sense of trust in the form of faith while offering a tangible formula for a sense of evil against which it promises to arm and defend man. Childlike strength as well as a potential for infantilization are suggested in the fact that all religious practices include periodic childlike surrender to the Power that creates and re-creates, dispensing earthly fortune as well as spiritual well-being; the demonstration of smallness and dependence by reduced posture and humble gesture; the confession in prayer and song of misdeeds, misthoughts, and evil intentions and the fervent appeal for inner reunification by divine guidance. #RandolphHarris 7 of 17

At best, all of this is highly stylized and thus becomes suprapersonal; individual trust becomes a common faith, individual mistrust a commonly formulated evil, while the individual’s plea for restoration becomes part of the ritual practice of many and a sign of trustworthiness in the community. When religion loses its actual power of presence, then, it would seem, an age must find other forms of joint reverence for life which derive vitality from a shared world image. Only a reasonably coherent framework provides the faith which is transmitted by the mothers to the infants in a way conducive to the vital strength of hope, that is, the enduring predisposition to believe in the attainability of primal wishes in spite of the anarchic urges and rages of dependency. The shortest formulation of the identity gain of earliest childhood may well be: I am what hope I have and give. For some, the promises of celibacy and obedience made in life can be said to relieve them of their burdens which they are not ready to assume. Sometimes, it takes a kind of shock therapy for God to change one’s mind. Others have said that Christ himself spoke. The spiritual part of the experience can also be an intra-psychic one. Martin Luther, for instance, records that something in him made him pronounce a vow before the rest of him knew what he was saying. His friends’ conviction that he was acting under God’s guidance was based on nothing but their impressions of the genuineness of his inner life. For some, celibacy provides a divine preservation tied to personal sacrifice.  God is sustaining their life in recognition of their vow of celibacy. Although some individuals disparage celibacy out of ignorance or envy, the practice itself belongs to a long and well‑established tradition in which human life is interpreted through the framework of sacred commitment. Within this tradition, celibacy functions not as a denial of life but as a structured mode of meaning‑making, providing containment, purpose, and a sense of continuity with a larger spiritual order. For men who have embraced celibacy in earnest, even an ordinary thunderstorm may be interpreted as a direct intervention of Providence, directed toward them with deliberate intent. Such individuals exhibit a form of conviction that is not merely doctrinal but existential, and they stand as honest representatives of an earlier moral epoch—one in which personal vows, divine agency, and the ordering of one’s life under a sacred mandate were experienced with an immediacy seldom encountered in the modern mind. #RandolphHarris 8 of 17

One cannot examine the psychological life of the individual without eventually confronting the larger question of how personal ethics relate to the structures of collective life. For if private convictions, vows, and defenses shape the individual’s conduct, we must ask what relation such ethical formations bear to the sphere of political action. Now then, what relations do ethics and politics actually have? Have the two nothing whatever to do with one another, as has occasionally been said? Or is the reverse true: that the ethic of political conduct is identical with that of any other conduct? Occasionally, an exclusive choice has been believed to exist between the two propositions—either the one or the other proposition must be correct. However, is it true that any ethic of the world could establish commandments of identical content for erotic, business, familial, and official relations; for the relations to one’s wife, to the greengrocer, the son, the competitor, the friend, the defendant? Should it really matter so little for the ethical demands on politics that politics operates with very special means, namely, power backed by violence? Do we not see that the Bolshevik and the Spartacist ideologists bring about exactly the same results as any militaristic dictator, just because they use these political means? In what but the persons of the power-holders and their dilettantism does the rule of the workers’ and the soldiers’ councils differ from the rule of any power-holder of the old regime? In what way does the polemic of most representatives of the presumably new ethic differ from that of the opponents which the criticized, or the ethic of any other demagogues? In their noble intention, people will say. Good! However, it is the means about which we speak here, and the adversaries, in complete subjective sincerity, claim, in the very same way, that their ultimate intentions are of lofty character. “All they that take the sword shall perish with the sword,” and fighting is everywhere fighting. Hence, the ethic of the Sermon on the Mount. #RandolphHarris 9 of 17

By the Sermon on the Mount, we mean the absolute ethic of the gospel, which is a more serious matter than those who are fond of quoting these commandments today believe. This ethic is no joking matter. The same holds true for this ethic as has been said of causality in science: it is not a cab, which one can have stopped at one’s pleasure; it is all or nothing. If trivialities are not to result, this is precisely the meaning of the gospel. Hence, for instance. It was said of the wealthy young man, “He went away sorrowful: for he had great possessions.” The evangelist commandment, however, is unconditional and unambiguous: give what thou hast—absolutely everything. The politician will say that this is a socially senseless imposition as long as it is not carried out everywhere. Thus, the politician upholds taxation, confiscatory taxation, outright confiscation; in a word, compulsion and regulation for all. The ethical commandment, however, is not all concerned about that, and this unconcern is its essence. Or, take the example, “turn the other cheek”; This command is unconditional and does not question the source of the other’s authority to strike. Except for a stain, it is an ethic of indignity. This is it: one must be saintly in everything; at least in intention, one must live like Jesus Christ, the apostles, St. Francis, and their like. Then this ethic makes sense and expresses a kind of dignity; otherwise, it does not. For if it is said, in line with the acosmic ethic of love, “Resist not him that is evil with force,” for the politician, the reverse proposition holds, “thou shalt resist evil by force,” or else you are responsible for the evil winning out. He who wishes to follow the ethic of the gospel should abstain from strikes, for strikes mean compulsion; he may join the company unions. Above all things, he should not talk of “revolution.” After all, the ethic of the gospel does not wish to teach that civil war is the only legitimate war. #RandolphHarris 10 of 17

The pacifist who follows the gospel will refuse to bear arms or will throw them down; in Germany, this was the recommended ethical duty to end the war and therewith all wars. The politician would say the only sure means to discredit the war for all foreseeable time would have been a status quo peace. Then, the nations would have questioned, what was this war for? And then, the way would have been argued ad absurdum, which is now impossible. For the victors, at least for part of them, the war will have been politically profitable. And the responsibility for this rests on the behavior that made all resistance impossible for us. Now, as a result of the ethics of absolutism, when the period of exhaustion will have passed, the peace will be discredited, not the war. Finally, let us consider the duty of truthfulness. For the absolute ethic it holds unconditionally. Hence, the conclusion was reached to publish all documents, especially those placing blame on one’s own country. On the basis of these one-sided publications, the confessions of guilt followed—and they were one-sided, unconditional, and without regard to consequences. The politician will find that, as a result, truth will not be furthered but certainly obscured through abuse and unleashing of passion; only an all-round methodical investigation by non-partisans could bear fruit; any other procedure may have consequences for a nation that cannot be remedied for decades. However, the absolute ethic just does not ask for “consequences.” That is the decisive point. We must be clear about the fact that all ethically oriented conduct may be guided by one of two fundamentally differing and irreconcilably opposed maxims: conduct can be oriented to an “ethic of ultimate ends” or to an “ethic of responsibility.” This is not to say that an ethic of ultimate ends is identical with irresponsibility, or that an ethic of responsibility is identical with unprincipled opportunism. Naturally, nobody says that. #RandolphHarris 11 of 17

However, there is an abysmal contrast between conduct that follows the maxim of an ethic of ultimate ends—that is, in religious terms. “The Christian does rightly and leaves the results with the Lord”—and conduct that follows the maxim of an ethic of responsibility, in which case one has to give an account of the foreseeable results of one’s action. You may demonstrate to a convinced syndicalist, believing in an ethic of ultimate ends, that his action will result in increasing the opportunities of reaction, in increasing the oppression of his class, and obstructing its ascent—and you will not make the slightest impression upon him. If an action of good intent leads to bad results, then, in the actor’s eyes, not he but the world, or the stupidity of other men, or God’s will, who made them thus, is responsible for the evil. However, a man who believes in an ethic of responsibility takes account of precisely the average deficiencies of people; as Fichte has correctly said, he does not even have the right to presuppose their goodness and perfection. He does not feel in a position to burden others with the results of his own actions so far as he was able to foresee them; he will say: these results are ascribed to my action. The believer in an ethic of ultimate ends feels “responsible” only for seeing to it that the flame of pure intentions is not quelched: for example, the flame of protesting against the injustice of the social order. To rekindle the flame ever anew is the purpose of his quite irrational deeds, judged in view of their possible success. They are acts that can and shall have only exemplary value. However, even herewith the problem is not yet exhausted. No ethics in the world can dodge the fact that in numerous instances, the attainment of “good” ends is bound to the fact that one must be willing to pay the price of using morally dubious means or at least dangerous ones—and facing the possibility or even the probability of evil ramifications. From no ethics in the world can it be concluded when and to what extent the ethically good purpose “justifies” the ethically dangerous means and ramifications. Public debates often illustrate this dilemma. Some argue, for example, that permissive immigration policies are motivated by the ethically laudable aim of offering individuals from other countries the possibility of a better life. Yet the practical ramifications of such policies are contested. #RandolphHarris 12 of 17

Reports have documented criminal incidents involving certain migrant groups, including a widely publicized case in Aurora, Colorado, where alleged members of a Venezuelan gang were involved in armed home invasions and kidnappings within an apartment complex. There are also reports of violent crime, murder, and sexual assault increasing. As well as billions of dollars in fraud. Furthermore, the billions of dollars in costs to accommodate these people left American citizens victims of crime and caused them to go without the government services that they needed.  The decisive means for politics is violence. You may see the extent of the tension between means and ends, when viewed ethically, from the following: as is generally known, even during the war, the revolutionary socialists (Zimmerwald faction) professed a principle that one might strikingly formulate: “If we face the choice either of some more years of war and then the revolution, or peace now and no revolution, we choose—some more years of war!” Upon the further question: “What can this revolution bring about?” Every scientifically trained socialist would have had the answer: One cannot speak of a transition to an economy that, in our sense, could be called socialist; a bourgeois economy will re-emerge, merely stripped of the feudal elements and the dynastic vestiges. For this very modest result, they are willing to face “some more years of war.” One may well say that even with a very robust socialist conviction, one might reject a purpose that demands such means. With Bolshevism and Separatism, and, in general, with any kind of revolutionary socialism, it is precisely the same thing. It is, of course, utterly ridiculous if the power politicians of the old regime are morally denounced for their use of the same means, however justified the rejection of their aims may be. #RandolphHarris 13 of 17

Thus, the inconsistency of denouncing the old regime for employing means that the revolutionaries themselves do not hesitate to adopt is but one instance of a broader historical irony. The same divergence between moral intention and practical necessity that vitiates their political conduct also frustrates the very historical vocation which Marx, with such confidence, attributed to the proletariat. The revolutionary bourgeoisie seized power in 1789 because they already had it. At this period, legality, as Jules Monnerot says, was lagging behind the facts. The facts were that the bourgeoisie were already in possession of the posts of command and of the new power: money. The proletariat was not at all in the same position, having only their poverty and their hopes, and being kept in their condition of misery by the bourgeoisie. The bourgeoisie class debased itself by a mania for production and material power, while the very organization of this mania made the creation of an elite impossible. However, criticism of this organization and the development of rebel conscience could, on the contrary, forge a reserve elite. Only revolutionary trade unionism, with Pelloutier and Sorel, embarked on this course and wanted to create, by professional and cultural education, new cadres for which a world without honor was calling, and still class. However, that could not be accomplished in a day, and the new masters were already on the scene, interested in making immediate use of human unhappiness for the sake of happiness in the distant future, rather than in relieving as much and as soon as possible the suffering of millions of men. The authoritarian socialists deemed that history was going too slowly and that it was necessary, in order to hurry it on, to entrust the mission of the proletariat to a handful of doctrinaires. For that very reason, they have been the first to deny this mission. Nevertheless, it exists, not in the exclusive sense that Marx gives it, but in the sense that a mission exists for any human group which knows how to derive pride and fecundity from its labors and its sufferings. So that it can manifest itself, however, a risk must be taken and confidence put in working-class freedom and spontaneity. #RandolphHarris 14 of 17

Authoritarian socialism, on the contrary, has confiscated this living freedom for the benefit of an ideal freedom, which is yet to come. In so doing, whether it wished to our not, it reinforced the attempt at enslavement begun by industrial capitalism. By the combined action of these two factors and during a hundred and fifty years, except in the Paris of the Commune, which was the last refuge of rebel revolution, the proletariat has had no other historical mission but to be betrayed. The workers fought and died to give power to the military or to intellectuals who dreamed of becoming military and who would enslave them in their turn. This struggle, however, has been the source of their dignity, a fact that is recognized by all who have chosen to share their aspirations and their misfortunes. However, this dignity has been acquired in opposition to the whole clan of old and new masters. At the very moment when they dare to make use of it, it denies them. In one sense, it announces their eclipse. A similar pattern may be observed in the fate of those who, in our own time, undertake the perilous task of exposing institutional misconduct. Their dignity, acquired through long resistance to the dominion of old and new masters, is acknowledged by all who share their burdens. Yet the instant they dare to assert the moral authority their struggle has earned, the institutions they confront hasten to repudiate them—thereby announcing, however unwillingly, the waning of their own legitimacy. This frightening experience, with whatever lessons in bravery, cunning, and skill it yields, is firmly sedimented in the consciousness of the individuals who went through it. If the experience is shared by several individuals, it will be sedimented intersubjectively and may perhaps even form a profound bond between these individuals. As this experience is designated and transmitted linguistically, however, it becomes accessible and, perhaps, strongly relevant to individuals who have never gone through it. #RandolphHarris 15 of 17

To further illustrate this dynamic, multiple Boeing employees have come forward in recent years with serious concerns about aircraft manufacturing and safety practices. Their disclosures were made under conditions of intense pressure, fear of retaliation, and, in some cases, personal danger. Those who spoke out developed a tight, intersubjective bond, for only they fully grasped the risks involved in challenging a major aerospace manufacturer. One of the most prominent figures, John Barnett, had served as a quality manager at Boeing for more than thirty years. He first filed a whistleblower complaint in 2017—one year before the first 737 MAX crash—alleging that the company’s quality‑control systems were severely inadequate. Barnett reported that faulty parts and substandard manufacturing practices were being overlooked, potentially compromising flight safety. Another whistleblower, Joshua Dean, likewise raised concerns about manufacturing defects. Both men died suddenly in 2024—Dean from a severe bacterial infection and Barnett from what authorities ruled a self‑inflicted gunshot wound. Their allegations helped catalyze ongoing investigations and legal scrutiny, brought into sharp public focus when the door plug of an Alaska Airlines 737 MAX 9 detached mid‑flight in January. Since that incident, more than one hundred additional whistleblowers have contacted the Federal Aviation Administration, demonstrating how an initially private ordeal can, once articulated and transmitted publicly, become a matter of collective concern and cultural significance. Such testimony does more than record a private ordeal; it objectifies the experience in language and thereby transforms it into a publicly available form of knowledge. Once articulated, the whistleblower’s experience can be incorporated into a wider moral and cultural tradition—invoked in debates about corporate responsibility, used as material for ethical instruction, or taken up in journalism, documentary storytelling, and public inquiry. In this way, both the immediate experience and its broader symbolic meanings become transmissible to new generations, and even to communities far removed from the aerospace industry, each of which may attach its own significance to the narrative. #RandolphHarris 16 of 17

In this way, the objectified experience becomes part of the moral and psychological vocabulary through which individuals make sense of upheaval. And just as communities assimilate the lessons of others’ ordeals, individuals themselves often require a comparable jolt before meaningful change can occur. One sees this in those whose inner lives have been shaped by intense religious or ascetic experiences—such as celibate men who, in moments of crisis, report encounters or impressions that they interpret as divine communication. Typically, growth in awareness unfolds gradually, but there are times when only a dramatic rupture can dislodge a person from entrenched defenses. If the person has the courage (and the encouragement) to accept threat and not respond reflexively with mechanisms of defense, growth will go on throughout a person’s life span, even into the seventies and nineties. Properly understood, the experiences of anxiety and dread will evoke the “courage to be” and they will be harbingers of growth to richer existence. Improperly understood, or encouraged in a spirit of timidity, they lead a person to make of the identity an impregnable bastion. The person then leads a safe but often unproductive and joyless life. Courage and encouragers assist them to grow. The courage to grow can sometimes be generated in psychotherapy or in a properly conducted encounter group. Under such conditions, individuals may enlarge their self‑concept, revise their conscience in more humane and mature directions, and present a public self that corresponds more closely to the realities of their own personality and the demands of the situation. These processes can be profoundly life‑preserving. Yet it remains a sobering fact that not everyone reaches this point of transformation. Some individuals, unable to find a setting in which their inner rupture can be metabolized, become martyrs to the very forces they sought to confront. #RandolphHarris 17 of 17

Lord Jesus Christ, You who stood for truth when the world preferred silence, look with mercy upon all who dare to speak out against wrongdoing in their workplaces, institutions, and communities. We grieve that so many are willing to risk their careers to do what is harmful or unlawful, while so few are willing to risk their careers to defend what is right. We lament that our society so often protects the powerful at any cost, even when their actions endanger the vulnerable, distort justice, or betray the public trust. Strengthen the whistleblowers who step forward despite fear, retaliation, and isolation; grant them courage, clarity, and the assurance that their sacrifice is not in vain. Bless the work of those who labor to support them—including the mission of this nonprofit, which seeks to advance public understanding, protect truth‑tellers, and cultivate a culture where integrity is honored rather than punished. May Your Gospel inspire us to stand firm in righteousness, to resist complicity, and to uphold justice even when the cost is great. And for those who become martyrs to truth—those whose courage is met not with gratitude but with suffering—grant them peace, and grant us the strength to continue their work with unwavering faith. Amen.