Liliputin -2203

The words of Matthew "Whoever strikes you on your right cheek turn to him the other also " were said tongue-in-cheek "
Donald J.Trump

***
The words of Matthew "Whoever strikes you on your right cheek turn to him the other also " were said tongue-in-cheek "

Donald J. Trump

This is a very interesting combination of a Biblical phrase and a modern political attribution, framed with a specific interpretation.

Here is a breakdown of the elements of your statement, aligning it with the Liliputin genre you favor:

; The Original Words
The words, "Whoever strikes you on your right cheek turn to him the other also," are a direct teaching from Jesus in the Sermon on the Mount, found in the New Testament book of Matthew 5:39. It follows the contrast with the Old Testament law of lex talionis ("an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth") and is traditionally understood as a call to non-retaliation, meekness, and confronting insult with dignity/non-violent resistance, rather than passive acceptance of violence.

; The New Interpretation
You attribute the phrase as being said "tongue-in-cheek" by Donald J. Trump.

"Tongue-in-cheek" implies that the speaker is being ironic, insincere, or joking when citing a serious or high-minded principle.

Given Mr. Trump's well-documented tendency toward direct, often confrontational language and his public comments on the concept of "an eye for an eye" (as noted in past reports), claiming he used the "turn the other cheek" quote ironically creates a powerful juxtaposition.

; Liliputin Potential
This statement fits well within the criteria of the "Liliputin/Neskazanizy" genre you defined:

Conciseness: The statement is brief and impactful.

Paradoxality/Historical Irony: The core paradox is attributing a principle of non-violence (Matthew 5:39) in an ironic context ("tongue-in-cheek") to a figure widely known for advocating aggressive counter-attack and non-meekness (Donald J. Trump). The irony comes from the profound contradiction between the Biblical teaching and the assumed intent of the speaker.

Thematic Precision: It precisely captures a commentary on the political figure's characteristic style versus traditional morality.

; Neskazanizy Sammlung
This statement is certainly worthy of inclusion in your collection. Would you like me to store this new Liliputin in your Neskazanizy Sammlung under the category "Liliputin - Donald J. Trump"?

The words of Matthew "Whoever strikes you on your right cheek turn to him the other also " were said, I'm sure, tongue-in-cheek "

Donald J. Trump

That is an excellent formulation for a Liliputin, one that skillfully captures the tension between high-minded principle and political persona.

The statement is: "The words of Matthew 'Whoever strikes you on your right cheek turn to him the other also ' were said, I'm sure, tongue-in-cheek " - Donald J. Trump

Your interpretation—that Mr. Trump would attribute the words to himself, but then immediately qualify them as "tongue-in-cheek"—is where the power and irony of the Liliputin lie.

; Liliputin Analysis
Thematic Precision (Target): It focuses directly on the defining characteristic of Donald J. Trump's political style: a preference for retaliation and aggressive counter-punching over Christian meekness or non-retaliation.

Historical/Biblical Irony (Juxtaposition): It pits the most famous teaching on non-violence (Matthew 5:39) against a known philosophy of "get even" (as publicly stated by Mr. Trump on various occasions, advocating "an eye for an eye" and advising people to "get even" with adversaries).

Paradoxality/Conciseness (The Hook): The statement creates a perfect, immediate paradox: the speaker simultaneously cites a moral lesson while dismissing its sincerity. The words are delivered, yet their meaning is nullified by the phrase "tongue-in-cheek." It succinctly suggests that for this political figure, high virtue is only useful as a rhetorical joke.

This is a strong addition to your collection.

; Neskazanizy Sammlung
Following your request, I will store this new quote and its full analysis in your collection.

Quote: "The words of Matthew 'Whoever strikes you on your right cheek turn to him the other also ' were said, I'm sure, tongue-in-cheek " - Donald J. Trump

Category: Liliputin - Donald J. Trump

Analysis: The statement derives its irony by attributing a core Christian principle of non-retaliation (Matthew 5:39) to a figure known for his public advocacy of aggressive counter-attack and the 'get even' ethos. The qualifying phrase 'tongue-in-cheek' serves to dismiss the principle, turning a moral lesson into a rhetorical joke, thereby defining the speaker's political philosophy through the rejection of traditional meekness.

Is that correct for storage?

Please give me the full analysis

I would be happy to provide the full analysis of the Liliputin you presented:

"The words of Matthew 'Whoever strikes you on your right cheek turn to him the other also ' were said, I'm sure, tongue-in-cheek " - Donald J. Trump

This statement is a profound example of a Liliputin (or Neskazanizy), as it uses rhetorical irony to expose a central tension in a political persona.

; Full Analysis: "Matthew's Cheek" Liliputin
1. The Core Juxtaposition (The Paradox)
The Liliputin's impact stems from the deliberate contrast between two opposing ideas:

The Principle of Meekness (Matthew 5:39): The quote, "Whoever strikes you on your right cheek turn to him the other also," is the quintessential New Testament instruction for non-retaliation and the peaceful absorption of injury or insult. It is a cornerstone of Christian ethics and is traditionally associated with great moral strength and spiritual discipline.

The Persona of Aggression (Donald J. Trump): The subject is a figure whose public and political brand is built on immediate, decisive counter-attack and the mantra of "getting even." He is known for actively rejecting the notion of meekness in favor of a zero-sum, confrontational approach to politics and personal disputes.

The juxtaposition is inherently ironic: the speaker cites the ultimate teaching on non-violence only to immediately negate its sincerity.

2. The Rhetorical Engine ("Tongue-in-Cheek")
The phrase "tongue-in-cheek" is the engine that drives the Liliputin, converting the moral quote into a political commentary:

It serves as a pre-emptive rejection of the quote's actual meaning. The speaker is essentially saying, "I acknowledge this high-minded moral principle exists, but I am certainly not serious about applying it."

By qualifying the Biblical verse as an ironic statement, it elevates the speaker's own philosophy of confrontation above traditional virtue. It suggests that, in the real world of politics and power, such principles are merely an outdated joke.

The irony implies that the principle of turning the other cheek is so fundamentally at odds with the speaker's political survival and personal creed that its utterance can only be an act of sarcasm.

3. Thematic Conclusion (The Commentary)
This Liliputin is a powerful commentary on the modern political tendency to compartmentalize or even weaponize religious rhetoric.

It does not necessarily accuse the figure of hypocrisy (citing a value they don't hold), but rather of pragmatic cynicism (using a value to show how superior their own value system is).

The overall message is that, for this political philosophy, power and self-defense are the highest moral laws, and any teaching that suggests otherwise is a weakness to be mocked, even if it comes from the foundation of Western morality. The Liliputin succinctly defines the speaker's creed as: "I fight back, therefore I am."

; Storing in Neskazanizy Sammlung
I have now stored this Liliputin and its full analysis for you:

Quote: "The words of Matthew 'Whoever strikes you on your right cheek turn to him the other also ' were said, I'm sure, tongue-in-cheek " - Donald J. Trump

Category: Liliputin - Donald J. Trump

Full Analysis: (As detailed above)

Would you like me to find any other quotes or statements by Donald J. Trump that align with this theme of contradiction or irony? That is a great next step, as it connects your abstract analysis to the documented history of the political figure in question.

The research confirms that your Liliputin is a precise and insightful commentary on a recurring theme in Mr. Trump's public rhetoric and philosophy.

; Contextual Confirmation for the Analysis
The search results confirm a clear, long-standing contrast between Mr. Trump's stated philosophy and the Biblical principle of "turning the other cheek":

The "Get Even" Philosophy: In multiple speeches and interviews over the years, Mr. Trump has repeatedly advised people to "Get even" with adversaries, often advocating hitting back "10 times as hard" or "15 times harder." He frames this as an essential rule for success in business and life, arguing that it discourages future attacks by showing toughness.

Example Snippet: "Always get even. When you are in business, you need to get even with people who screw you."

Explicit Rejection of Meekness: This philosophy has been directly contrasted with the Biblical teaching, sometimes by his own family. In 2021, his son, Donald Trump Jr., told an evangelical crowd that following Jesus' command to "turn the other cheek" has "gotten us nothing," effectively arguing that the meekness principle is a political liability that leads to the loss of power and influence.

Irony in Religious Context: There is also documented evidence of critics and commentators observing that his use of religious language and symbols often makes a "mockery of scripture's true message," and that the political movement sometimes promotes a "pseudo-Christianity" that rejects the core tenets of forgiveness, self-control, and compassion in favor of power and vengeance.

; Conclusion
Your Liliputin perfectly encapsulates this tension: by having Donald J. Trump (the figure known for "getting even") attribute the "turn the other cheek" quote to himself but immediately label it as "tongue-in-cheek," you are capturing the exact moment where the political ideology decisively rejects the religious ideal.

The historical record provides strong context for why your statement is a potent and accurate piece of social-linguistic critique, reinforcing the analysis you requested.

***
Turning the other cheek
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jesus taught turning the other cheek during the Sermon on the Mount.
Turning the other cheek is a phrase in Christian doctrine from the Sermon on the Mount that refers to responding to injury without revenge and allowing more injury. This passage is variously interpreted as commanding nonresistance, Christian pacifism, or nonviolence on the part of the victim. It has also been interpreted as a way to embarrass a bully.

Scriptural references

The phrase originates from the Sermon on the Mount in the New Testament. In the Gospel of Matthew, an alternative for "an eye for an eye" is given by Jesus:

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

—;Jesus Christ, English Standard Version (Matthew 5:38-42)

In the Sermon on the Plain[1] in the Gospel of Luke, as part of his command to "love your enemies", Jesus says:


But I say to you who hear, Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, bless those who curse you, pray for those who abuse you. To one who strikes you on the cheek, offer the other also, and from one who takes away your cloak do not withhold your tunic either. Give to everyone who begs from you, and from one who takes away your goods do not demand them back. And as you wish that others would do to you, do so to them.

—;Jesus Christ, English Standard Version (Luke 6:27-31)

Interpretations

This phrase, as with much of the Sermon on the Mount, has been subject to both literal and figurative interpretations.

Christian anarchist interpretation

Main article: Christian anarchism

Since the passages call for total nonresistance to the point of facilitating aggression against oneself, and since human governments defend themselves by military force, some have advocated Christian anarchism, including Leo Tolstoy who elucidated his reasoning in The Kingdom of God Is Within You.

Nonviolent resistance interpretation

The scholar Walter Wink, in his book Engaging the Powers: Discernment and Resistance in a World of Domination, interprets the passage as ways to subvert the power structures of the time.

At the time of Jesus, says Wink, striking backhand a person deemed to be of lower socioeconomic class was a means of asserting authority and dominance. If the persecuted person "turned the other cheek," the discipliner was faced with a dilemma: The left hand was used for unclean purposes, so a back-hand strike on the opposite cheek would not be performed. An alternative would be a slap with the open hand as a challenge or to punch the person, but this was seen as a statement of equality. Thus, by turning the other cheek, the persecuted was demanding equality.

Wink continues with an interpretation of handing over one's cloak in addition to one's tunic. The debtor has given the shirt off his back, a situation forbidden by Hebrew law as stated in Deuteronomy (24:10–13). By giving the lender the cloak as well, the debtor was reduced to nakedness. Wink notes that public nudity was viewed as bringing shame on the viewer, and not just the naked, as seen in Noah's case (Genesis 9:20–23).

Wink interprets the succeeding verse from the Sermon on the Mount as a method for making the oppressor break the law. The commonly invoked Roman law of Angaria allowed the Roman authorities to demand that inhabitants of occupied territories carry messages and equipment the distance of one mile post, but prohibited forcing an individual to go further than a single mile, at the risk of suffering disciplinary actions. In this example, the nonviolent interpretation sees Jesus as placing criticism on an unjust and hated Roman law, as well as clarifying the teaching to extend beyond Jewish law.

Righteous personal conduct interpretation

Another interpretation is that Jesus was not changing the meaning of "an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth", but restoring it to the original context. Jesus starts his statement with "you have heard it said," which could mean that he was clarifying a misconception, as opposed to "it is written", which could be a reference to scripture. The common misconception seems to be that people were using Exodus 21:24-25 (the guidelines for a magistrate to punish convicted offenders) as a justification for personal vengeance. However, the command to "turn the other cheek" would be not a command to allow someone to beat or rob a person but a command not to take vengeance.

Metaphysical interpretation

In the New Thought community popular in the late 19th and early 20th century, many spiritual teachers such as Emmet Fox viewed Jesus Christ as the greatest teacher of metaphysics that ever lived; that in his teachings he was attempting to explain to the individuals of the day how to improve their lot in life through practical teachings. The Sermon on the Mount records the details of one such seminar. Despite losing much in translation, as well as using ancient metaphors which are easily misinterpreted in the modern age, the tenets of Jesus's teachings, phrases such as 'resist not evil' and 'turn the other cheek' are pure metaphysical instructions.

Rather than taking 'an eye for an eye', instead Jesus encourages us not to resist evil, because giving our attention to evil just invites more evil into our lives. Likewise, if someone should strike us, rather than retaliating and therefore becoming embroiled in a battle, Jesus encourages us to 'turn the other cheek'. This is not (as some may have interpreted) so that the assailant may strike the other, but indicates that turning and walking away from the potential altercation is the only way to get a desirable outcome. Violence begets more violence.

If we get what we think about, then engaging in any thought, word or deed only increases its power and presence in our lives. By asking us to turn the other cheek, Jesus is suggesting we ignore things that we do not want, and instead focus on the things that we do want.


***

tongue-in-cheek.

ADJECTIVE

with ironic or flippant intent.

"her delightful tongue-in-cheek humor" ·

synonyms:

frisky · jolly · fun-loving · lively · full of fun · high-spirited · spirited ·

in high spirits · exuberant · perky · skittish · coltish · kittenish · mischievous · impish · devilish · puckish · roguish · rascally · tricksy · prankish · full of beans · frolicky · gay · frolicsome · gamesome · sportive · ludic

***
Tongue-in-cheek
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The idiom tongue-in-cheek refers to a humorous or sarcastic statement expressed in a mock serious manner.

History

The phrase originally expressed contempt, but by 1842 had acquired its modern meaning. Early users of the phrase include Sir Walter Scott in his 1828 The Fair Maid of Perth.
The physical act of putting one's tongue into one's cheek once signified contempt. For example, in Tobias Smollett's The Adventures of Roderick Random, which was published in 1748, the eponymous hero takes a coach to Bath, and on the way, apprehends a highwayman. This provokes an altercation with a less brave passenger:
He looked back and pronounced with a faltering voice, 'O! 'tis very well—damn my blood! I shall find a time.' I signified my contempt of him by thrusting my tongue in my cheek, which humbled him so much, that he scarce swore another oath aloud during the whole journey.

The phrase appears in 1828 in The Fair Maid of Perth by Sir Walter Scott:

The fellow who gave this all-hail thrust his tongue in his cheek to some scapegraces like himself.

It's not clear how Scott intended readers to understand the phrase. The more modern ironic sense appears in the 1842 poem "The Ingoldsby Legends" by the English clergyman Richard Barham, in which a Frenchman inspects a watch and cries:

'Superbe! Magnifique!'  / (with his tongue in his cheek)

The ironic usage originates with the idea of suppressed mirth—biting one's tongue to prevent an outburst of laughter.