How to Instantly Tell Who's Evil versus Good

In present time

Gold Meritorious Patron
WTF? Native American ideas? I don't think so. Try Greek/Roman.


It seems to me that one should acknowledge that some people are smarter and more capable than others. This does not mean that they should have more rights than anyone else, but if you want to get something done it's best to give the task to those best suited for it. I am of the opinion that until the day comes when everyone is as smart as everyone else - i.e. never - our best interests are served by a Republic. I've not seen a better form of government (if you like the idea of individual freedom). There may be a better form - I'm not an expert in such matters by any means.

http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/iroquois.aspwell this link works for me. but there is plenty of historical data to back this up.it doesn't matter never mind.
 

Adiren

Patron
Ted posted the following article by Mike Adams on another thread on ESMB. I thought is was excellent, one of the most interesting articles I have ever read. With Ted's permission, I decided to post the article as a new thread. There is the article itself plus Ted's comments in red ink, which relate the article to Scientology.

The contents of this article encompass a very wide scope and are relevant to many threads on ESMB. I'd be curious to get people's feed back on this article.
Lakey

Now for the article:


Excellent article by Mike Adams, The Health Ranger.

My comments in red.

How to instantly tell who's evil vs. good: the philosophy of 'control' vs. 'empowerment'


Control vs Empowerment, if that doesn't make you think of Scientology, tech vs policy, I don't know what would.

Tuesday, April 30, 2013
by Mike Adams, the Health Ranger
Editor of NaturalNews.com



(NaturalNews) I get this question all the time from readers: How can we know whom to believe? Who's really telling the truth? Which person should I support for political office at the next election? [Or what is that registrar trying to tell me? What do my donations really buy?]

What if I told you there is an incredibly simple way to tell not only who's good and who's bad, but also how to tell who is pushing absolute evil onto our world?

This method is remarkably accurate, and you can use it right now to assess almost anyone.

It all starts with understanding the spectrum of control vs. empowerment.

Imagine a 10-foot string stretched out on the ground. On the far left side of the string, there is a point we'll call "Control." On the far right side of the string, another point is called "Empowerment."

Let's start with the "Empowerment" side first. This point represents people who primarily seek to empower you with knowledge, skills, wisdom and tools. "Empowerment" represents GOOD because it allows wisdom, skills and abundance to multiply from one person to the next. It recognizes the value of the individual and honors consciousness and free will. [Honoring consciousness and free will. That's your auditor--if he/she is a real auditor.]

On the far left side of the string -- which also represents the political left in America today -- we have "Control." This point represents people who primarily seek to control you: to extract money from you (rob you) [Do not forget the Hubbardian maxim, CONTROL = INCOME!], to limit your freedoms [Yes, disconnection and other limitations too long to list.], to demand your obedience [Yep.]and to use the threat of force to command your compliance [Ah, yes. Do as I say or we will be no friend of yours. You will lose your Bridge, all your friends, EPF, RPF, The Hole, etc. . This philosophy dishonors the individual and downplays free will and individual liberty. [Emphasis mine.] "Control" is inherently evil because it seeks to diminish the power of a large number of people in order to accumulate power into the hands of a few people. [Or, The One.]

(The context of this discussion is, of course, entirely in the realm of dealing with adults. Obviously children should be subjected to certain controls for their own development and safety. That's called good parenting. But to treat adults like children and attempt to control them like a parent controlling a child is unjustified and inherently destructive.)

Examples of "control" vs "empowerment"
A person who seeks to teach others how to garden and thereby grow their own food is practicing empowerment and is therefore GOOD. But a person who seeks to place other people on government food stamps and thereby make them dependent on government for their food is practicing control and is inherently EVIL. [The beans and rice tactic is inherently evil, and Hubbard knew it.]

A school that teaches students to think for themselves and engage in critical, skeptical thinking about the world around them is practicing empowerment and is therefore GOOD [But not possible in Scio-World where it's Hubbard's way or the highway. Sure you can think for yourself but not too much and not outside the box.]. But a school that teaches students blind obedience to institutional authority [Institutional authority, that's the church.] while denying them the liberty to think for themselves is practicing control and is therefore EVIL. [Back in the '50s Hubbard sought to refer to himself and Scientologists as doctors to the world, as fixers. He railed against authority. Both positions can be found in the PABs. 30 years later his attitude had shifted. I recall a WISE advice/reference where Hubbard was now proclaiming, "We ARE the admin authority!" justifying all of his policies used in the business world. Do not forget, CONTROL = INCOME. It was all about Hubbard's income.]

A person who seeks to help others create their own successful businesses and generate abundant profits for themselves and their employees is practicing empowerment and is therefore GOOD. But a person who seeks to destroy entrepreneurship, suppress innovation, punish small businesses and burden private sector job creation with onerous taxes and regulation is practicing control and is therefore EVIL. ['Nuff said.]

A person who seeks to teach others how to protect themselves against violent crime through the intelligent, ethical use of weapons for self defense is practicing empowerment and is therefore GOOD. But a person who seeks to strip away from everyone else their right to self defense, placing them in the position of defenseless victimization, is practicing control and is therefore EVIL.

A city mayor who seeks to teach his constituents the principles of nutrition and food choice so that they might make better decisions about their diet and health is practicing empowerment and is therefore GOOD. But a city mayor who demands blind obedience to his selective agenda of banning large sodas or other junk food items is practicing control and is therefore EVIL. (Bloomberg, anyone?)

So, getting back to the title of this article, the way to instantly tell whether a person is "good" or "evil" is to examine their actions on the control vs. empowerment spectrum. If they predominantly seek to control others, they are mostly evil. If they predominantly seek to empower others, they are mostly good. [As DM degraded the tech and tech personnel, as MEST became more important than good training and auditing, as truth was deleted from PR, the organization swung heavily towards evil.]

Be careful to examine peoples' actions, not merely their words. Anyone can talk a good game of "empowerment," but very few actually seek to educate and uplift others around them.

The politics of control vs. empowerment
The political left is deeply invested in a philosophy of control. The left believes in centralized control over the economy, societal control of parenting and children, government control over education, centralized bankster control over money, and government control over health care. [Hubbard was a leftist pretending to support righty policies and actions.]

The political right is invested in a philosophy of non-interventionism. They classically believe the government should keeps its hands off education, the economy, businesses operations and private lives. (Of course, today's political right is actually just as much pro-big government as the political left.)

Libertarianism, by the way, is a philosophy of allowing -- allowing people to make their own fortunes, or mistakes, or personal decisions as long as their behaviors do not harm others. Classic libertarianism means people are free to do what they wish, including marrying someone of the same sex if that's their choice, as long as their actions do not cause direct harm to others around them. Many people mistakenly think they are libertarians but they are actually closet control freaks because they want everyone else to conform to their own ideas of marriage, religion, recreational drug use, prostitution and so on. A true libertarian must tolerate the free will actions of others even if those actions are obviously self-destructive to the individual. [That's the classic auditor following the primary points of the auditor's code to the letter.]

In terms of ethics, "controlism" is inherently destructive because it denies an individual his or her humanity. [Oh, that statement is worthy of discussion!]"Empowerment" is inherently good (or even blessed) because it invests in the individual the power of determining her or her own life outcomes. [I'll buy that!]

The universe is written in the code of conscious empowerment
From a spiritual perspective, the Creator granted humans free will precisely because free will puts control into the hands of the individual, not a centralized power figure. [And there's the organizational conflict within the church: auditing empowerment vs the needs of the organization.] If we were not meant to be free, we would never have been created with free will.

In this way, "controlism" stands in contradiction to the laws of the universe and the existence of free will and consciousness. Thus, the underlying philosophy of the political left is anti-consciousness, anti-free will and a contradiction of the fundamental laws of the universe.

This is why collectivist mandates feel so alien to a free-thinking human being... because control freakism is a violation of self-evident, universal truth. This is also why the leftist / collectivist political philosophy is doomed to fail: It exists in gross violation of the laws of the universe. No human being inherently wants to live without freedom, functioning merely as an obedient peon under a system of centralized control. It feels wrong because it is universally and spiritually wrong.

That is why it [and the church] will fail. And that is why all those who defend individual liberty, free will and individual empowerment quite literally have God and the universe on their side.

In summary, then, if you want to determine whether a person is "good" or "evil" -- in effect, whether they are living in congruency with the laws of the universe -- simply place them on the spectrum of "control" versus "empowerment" and your question all but answers itself.


Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/
"Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak." -- Unknown

"Talk is cheap because supply exceeds demand." -- Unknown


My great admired exscion,

You certainly have given me a lot to think about. And before that I will not dare to make a critical comment over your [I should have said over your proposed author, Mike Adams's] very well pondered/deep thinking essay.
I don't think there is a formula to tell evil from good. Sometimes what appears as evil ends up being good and vice-versa.

Using philosophy or political science may be a way to try to show it...But for me any "intellectual organized system" is just that, not factual unless someone tries to put it into practice.

As I said I won't dare criticize anything in his text until giving it a deeper attention.
However, I am very skeptical about “ism(s)” – communism, capitalism, fascism, … libertarianism…
During the presidencials for 2012, I was an enthusiast for Ron Paul – for me the best known libertarian in the US ( I confess I was sad the Republicans boycotted him), but even him, as libertarian confessed that it would not be so easy to let go some sort of control by the Gov.
No control would lead to chaos. Especially in a country like the Us, where some people believe they are entitled to take justice by their own hands…No control would lead to no attention over the needed, no control would mean no care for the fragile, etc,..

But as I said above, I have to think deeper about your whole message – you deserve me that much.

Thank you.
 
Last edited:

lkwdblds

Crusader
My great admired exscion,

You certainly have given me a lot to think about. And before that I will not dare to make a critical comment over your [I should have said over your proposed author, Mike Adams's] very well pondered/deep thinking essay.
I don't think there is a formula to tell evil from good. Sometimes what appears as evil ends up being good and vice-versa.

Using philosophy or political science may be a way to try to show it...But for me any "intellectual organized system" is just that, not factual unless someone tries to put it into practice.

As I said I won't dare criticize anything in his text until giving it a deeper attention.
However, I am very skeptical about “ism(s)” – communism, capitalism, fascism, … libertarianism…
During the presidencials for 2012, I was an enthusiast for Ron Paul – for me the best known libertarian in the US ( I confess I was sad the Republicans boycotted him), but even him, as libertarian confessed that it would not be so easy to let go some sort of control by the Gov.
No control would lead to chaos. Especially in a country like the Us, where some people believe they are entitled to take justice by their own hands…No control would lead to no attention over the needed, no control would mean no care for the fragile, etc,..

But as I said above, I have to think deeper about your whole message – you deserve me that much. BTW, what country are you from? From your writing style, it appears that English is not your native language.

Thank you.

Don't worry about making negative comments about what I write. I'm just one of the guys out there pitching his point of view, a point of view which is constantly changing. A sincere critical comment, perhaps backed up by an example or two or a link to some reference seems to me to be one of the best ways to learn things. A message board such as this can be an excellent way to learn new things by being exposed to many divergent points of view. It's nice to receive compliments but if that is all you get, personal growth and expansion is no likely to occur.

On Ron Paul, I am pretty much on board with his domesticate and financial agendas but I just can't make the jump necessary to go along with his isolationist views on World affairs. I look at the Nazi's and it just seems obvious that had the U.S. had not committed to fighting Hitler's Germany, England and the entire British Empire would have gone down the tubes and the Nazi's would have either won the war or brokered a peace deal with the USSR. If Ron Paul had been in office, I don't think we would have gone to war with the Nazi's. Also, I believe that our efforts in South Korea worked out better than had we stayed out and North Korea took over the whole peninsula. What's your take on whether or not the USA should have fought WWII and whether or not Ron Paul would have voted to enter that war had he been in power at the time?

In any case, what do you think of Rand Paul. He seems to echo his father's domestic views but is less isolationist on foreign affairs. What do you think?
 
Is this Kant's example or yours?

The idea of never lying ignores CONTEXT. Also, the notion of "universal" law applied to human beings regarding morality is TOTALLY ABSURD. This is such an abstract idea, and it has almost no possible correlation with any version of reality.

For example, when my neighbors wife asks him if her ass looks too large with the new dress she just bought, he sure had BETTER LIE, or he will be in deep shit. All lies are NOT created equal. Not at all. The context CHANGES the MEANING of a lie. To treat all lies as equal ignores immense differences. To make such an identification of different thing is . . . well somewhat "insane". Just as Hubbard (and Korzybski earier) said, the inability to perceive and recognize differences, identities and associations is a sign of "mental illness". Failing to take context into account is also equally nutty.

Of course, once one accepts context as a key factor in ethics and morality, it gets taken out and away from "universality" and placed entirely into the realm of the "relative" (moral relativity). And while Scientology is a version of moral relativity, there a great many varieties, and I see that a decent version might be able to exist.

This is all fine and well, but as you said, "imagine a world". To me, too often philosophers IMAGINE worlds that have little or nothing to do with any actual world. I suppose that is because they are locked in some "ivory tower" (or in some ascetic room at the University of Königsberg). :hysterical:

The idea of never lying does not ignore context. It puts truth into context, rather than making truth arbitrary to context.

You are confusing convention with reality. It is not natural law that people must tell little white lies to survive better. That is convention.

Kant proposed a morality not based on religion.

Yes it isn't perfect. Yes there are flaws.

But what is moral about wanting the world to act honestly so that you can get away with acting dishonesty in the name of context?

Kant and other philosophers are way ahead of your thinking.

You keep falling back onto Korzybski and Hubbard and infer Kant is insane because of what Hubbard said?

I can tell you've probably never read a single word of Kant.

Korzybski is not taken very seriously in the field of linguistics or structuralism. He made some tautological observations that are common in linguistics and structuralism and pointed out in everyday language an aspect diachronic and synchronic signs.

But those fields were already way ahead of him just like other fields were way ahead of Hubbard.

Kant is way ahead of anything you have thought of.

I think it is arrogant and stupid to mock ideas that have been a foundation of the progress of Western Civilization in science and reasoning without even understanding them.

The Anabaptist Jacques
 

Techless

Patron Meritorious
Geez oh Man! How I wish the subject/title of this thread were actually possible.

Problems all solved, end of endless debate(s)..

I just Kant tell though...

TL
 

Techless

Patron Meritorious
this is so true TAJ!

I sometimes think I can/could be a formidable, philosophic speaker or debater. In a good way I mean.

but geez: how I stayed out of this great debate/thread - 'cause I'd be blowing it out my butthole...

But I digress as obviously I said something here. I still just Kant do it...and have had many fantasies of being a masterdebator...
sorry: too cliche - I'll go to bed now...

But with a good old chuckle in my heart!

Thanks my friend!

Tl
 

BardoThodol

Silver Meritorious Patron
What you are missing is that it would be expected that the road to "heaven" would be paved in with good intentions. This is a "given" so people have not made an "clever adage" stating it. On the other hand, most people start out young believing the road to hell is paved with evil intentions. As they get older, they find out that is not true. They learn from groups such as the Nazis and suicide bombers. Almost every Nazi and every suicide bomber (see Gadfly's recent post for details) believes that he/she is doing good or God's will by blowing up innocents.

That fact is a great lead in to the existence of ESMB. Most of us believed that Hubbard was paving the road to our eternities with his good works and good intentions. Somewhere along the line we had had to take a close look at this supposition and re-evaluate it and when we did, many of us reached different conclusions thereby creating a need for a message board to air our thoughts.

I believe your extrapolation idea is excellent! Extrapolating the current behavior of the organization out to the civilization what would result. IMHO, it would be a living hell if they they were allowed to continue unchecked! Thank God for the early pioneers who left the organization and made some noise and thank goodness for the invention of the internet, the one thing that the organization was not prepared to deal with.

I'm glad that you believe the subject makes for productive examination and discussion. I also thought that that it would. In Seal Beach, CA, it has been in the mid to high 80's today and feels just like summer. Up until today, it has been a very cool year, this is the first really warm day of the year. It felt good being out in the sun!
Lakey

Nah, wasn't really missing that the road to heaven would be expected to be paved with good intentions. Just my experience with people often leaves me shaking my head. The tendency to accept an idea which isn't fully examined and beyond which lies no apparent reason for further thought.

Thought stoppers. Scientology is full of them.

My main point was not about intentions paving roads in either direction, but that when a factor is common to two opposing conditions it isn't what defines or differentiates either condition. You'd have to look at some other factor or combination of factors which bring about the disparity.

Gadfly did an interesting thread recently on how the exact same components can be brought together to create completely different outcomes. There are only so many elements in existence, both physical and spiritual, but the possibilities for how these elements manifest becomes endless. Infinite potentials.

That thread didn't attract nearly as much attention as one would about TC and DM being caught having sex with pigs in downtown Hemet. I just don't think most people are interested in probing all aspects of abstract ideas--unless those abstractions involve sex with pigs.

It's easier to just take the easy path and accept an idea from someone you trust without having to strain your medulla shortlongata thinking.

Which is one reason why a poster who has all sorts of documentation can foist a bias on others and be praised for his/her great contributions. Personally, I feel little or no gratitude towards someone who wants me to accept their ideas without examination and who gets pissed off when I do. I can make up my own mind about information presented.

(I keep looking outside and marveling at the snow on neighboring roofs, at snow on the ground, at snow on the deck. Weird.)

But, back to the good intentions concept, even though intention is an important element in what we do and how we do it, there are other important contributing elements. Such as focus, bias, ideology, capacity for observation, willingness to accept actual outcomes and modify ideology and behavior, blah, blah, blah. Which was my real point.

And yes, the control vs empowerment element does come into play regarding evil and good. Yet, both exist on either side. Sticking with the Nazi example, Hitler empowered Himmler. We empowered Hubbard, and failed to control him. Now we're helping to clean up the mess.

Got to go clean off my wife's car as it has snow on it--we've run out of garage space. So have to submit this or it might get lost.
 

I told you I was trouble

Suspended animation
Wundt wouldn't, Freud was afraid, Kant couldn't, Jung was too young and Hubbard flubbed it. That's why mankind's problems didn't get solved.:wink2:
Lakey


Perhaps the're not meant to be solved yet, if at all ... feeding people and keeping them safe seems (to me) to be far more important on a planetary scale.


:yes:
 

Panda Termint

Cabal Of One
I'm just guessing here but maybe someone who knows for sure can help me out, is it Crazy Thread Week on the Internet? :biggrin:
 

afaceinthecrowd

Gold Meritorious Patron
Here's and interesting, science based article re: Evil.

http://science.time.com/2013/05/03/evil-brain/?iid=tsmodule

BTW, when a hemorrhagic brain lesion wiped out part of my anterior temporal lobe, upon my recovery--along with irreversible brain function damage--my personality changed. It was not a 180 degree change but very noticeable to others that knew me well and corroborated by comparison of identical pre-hemorrahge and post-hemorrahge Psychologist administered tests.

Some folks think the "old" me was "better" than the "new" me and some folks think the "new" me is "better" than the "old" me. As far a I'm concerned, it doesn't make any difference whether the "old" Face or "new" face is "better"...there aint a damn thing I can do about it other than continue to "Wake up" in an discover a "new" located in the same place as the "old" one.

As far as the good v. evil thing goes I'll leave that up to Y'all to discuss, dialogue and debate. I've got ideas of what is "good" and what is "evil" to me and, to some degree, the "evil" within me but one person's poison can often be another person's tea.

However, I will say this...I tend to find when I see and act from my Heart things usually turn out "good", when I act from my Head it's a crap shoot...and, the odds are when shooting Craps you're most likely gonna lose over the long haul. When I indulge the "evil" within me it invariably winds up in a train wreck somewhere down the line.

Face:)
 

BunnySkull

Silver Meritorious Patron
Yes, you need to say more if you want to be taken seriously. What you have here is classic ad hominem. You have added nothing of value to the conversation.

It's simplistic political tripe trying to pass off as philosophy. Next time I need some simple minded idiot to try to convince me republican and libertarians are the true forces of good and those terrible lefties who want basic living standards for all are evil I'll know where to turn.

Sad, but people who lap this shit up is the same reasons we get people falling for cults like Scientology - they will believe anything.
 

Loohan

Am I Mettaya?
Where do I get my very own pair of CIA tinted glasses?

Unfortunately, i don't know of any real-life "They Live" glasses.
However, it is possible for some rare individuals to perceive what i speak of. I am in contact with several such.

Easier than trying to discern who is CIA, is discerning who is a shapeshifting reptilian. Then, it follows that if you see a shapeshifting rept pretending to be a freedom fighter or do-gooder, that person is likely CIA or some other kind of similar phony.

How does one discern a shapeshifting rept? I have never actually seen one shift in real life; it seems few people do. But on camera it is quite common. I don't watch TV normally, but if i happen to be near one i can't help but spot them by their vertical pupils.
Almost everyone you see on national TV is one: all the newscasters, sportscasters, weather reporters, gov't spokesmen, Congressmen, pundits, comedians, etc. but most of the time they don't flaunt their lizard eyes. Still, often they do.
Here is one i snapped a pic of on my mom's large screen in Feb:
TVeyes2.1.13.jpg

Some Satanist White House jerk.

Mostly how i discern them is by their VIBE. And i was missing most of them even a year ago. Then i developed special radionic/orgone programs to "light" up their evil DNA. When you blast them with certain positive frequencies, it, as LRH would say
LRH-lizard-eyes.jpg


(note his loving vertical pupils), it causes their energy field to ridge up. This is palpable to me.

Now all of them on Earth are more or less de-cloaked and can be felt by some sensitive people.

But one must be careful because some people have enough rept DNA to shapeshift, but are not shapeshifters, and know nothing about this stuff, e.g. David Mayo and Miscavige's siblings and mother.
Others are knowing shapeshifters but benign: Bruce Lee and his widow, for example.

This is where it helps to have more psychic insight. The evil ones invariably are promiscuous pedophile bisexuals, with the exception of a minority who eschew the opposite sex in favor of their own.

(But wait, you might ask, why are the pupils not parallel to his face angle? Why do they remain perfectly vertical? This is because weird stuff happens like this with these critters. For example, here is a video of a CIA shapeshifter at Project Scamalot interviewing another CIA shapeshifter. This link should take you straight to the 1:09:50 point: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wQ4Q1jKTNVI&feature=player_detailpage#t=4189s, where a short sequence begins in which you can see her pupils do the same thing.)

Youtube is full of videos of personages shapeshifting.
Like the Satanist, MPDed, Scientologist John Travolta: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fl-j_a5y5Go
 
Last edited:
Top