First some pics of gardens and produce
Rockpicker and Oldensoul garden in Montana
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/83357/83357ff4e8e24795ca0c8b0584f128c200189cb5" alt=""
Stone planter by Rockpicker
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/a897f/a897fa768bbd20921478f0b0ec711ce64b0c60fd" alt=""
Freeacre's latest, Orange zest wheat bread
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/44990/44990ae825d6f74ba4d8c643ab127b10d210e597" alt=""
Our latest garden produce, onions and carrots
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/2ab7e/2ab7e251fd0f13b8c95521cceb88a4ff0babb712" alt=""
Thoughts on the Nature of Evil
This is a guest post kindly sent to us from Belgium (abridged due to length, but e-mail us and we could send you the entire essay as an e-mail attachment)
From Belgium
I have had some problems writing this piece because even after researching the internet, I still do not know where the answer lies and therefore offer it up as a discussion document with some initial meanderings to point your thoughts along the lines that I have traveled. You may have an entirely different response which I consider all to the good since such discussions will only put flesh on the bones of this effort.
There are two initial thoughts which occur to me, the first is a question regarding its nature. Is it a tangible concept say like friendship or is it more amorphous say like hope? Whatever it is, its manifestation is subjective in that my worst example may be trumped by your worst example so that its true extent may be only guessed at.
Wikipedia regards views on the nature of evil to fall into one of four
opposed camps:
Moral absolutism holds that good and evil are fixed concepts
established by a deity or deities, nature, morality, common sense, or some other source.
Amoralism claims that good and evil are meaningless, as there are no deities, no moral ingredient in nature.
Moral relativism holds that standards of good and evil are only products of local culture, custom, or prejudice.
Moral universalism is the attempt to find a compromise between the absolutist sense of morality, and the relativist view; universalism claims that morality is only flexible to a degree, and that what is truly good or evil can be determined by examining what is commonly considered to be evil amongst all humans.
Author and moral philosopher Sam Harris notes that universal morality
can be understood using measurable (i.e. quantifiable) metrics of happiness and suffering, both physical and mental, rooted in how the biology of the brain processes stimuli.
A more practical view states that all human life is sacred and any attempt to end another’s life deliberately is evil. In the interests of space I am going to leave the subject of euthanasia out of this discussion entirely. Any attempt to make another believe his life may be ended prematurely by torture is also evil as is torture of the mind as opposed to the body.
I am not going to choose one of these above the others but dip into them freely and to see where that takes us.
Hannah Aret wrote a book titled The Banality of Evil. This centered on the trial of Adolph Eichmann, which happened to take place in Jerusalem. She argued that rather than being a crazy fanatic (would probably now be called a fascist fundamentalist) he was an ordinary bureaucrat who accepted his place in the hierarchy and just got on with his job, which by chance happened to be the running of the death camps. For him it was clear that the heads of state set the policy; his roll was to implement it. Eichmann was trapped by having access to the ears of the true decision makers whilst being above the rank and file myriad bureaucrats who were just doing a job of work for the government. The banality comes from the fact that evil intent can be passed off down an organization by making it so routine it is never questioned.
There are a number of techniques for engaging the public in morally questionable acts. One is to split the work on a project between a number of locations as is common in the automotive industry for instance and distance the component plants from the assembly plant so the connection is not at the forefront of peoples minds. Another is to make the work production line mind numbing so people think “Anything this boring can’t be evil”.
Dual functional components are a way of sanitizing the product. A trip switch used in a missile may also be used in a domestic central heating installation for instance. Yet another is to wrap the project up in jargon so that WMD become as benign as SUV, sure they both kill people now and again but that is not their real purpose.
In the 1960’s MIT’s head of research argued that their concern was the development of technology, not its use. Making more adhesive longer burning napalm was just another interesting problem to be solved during the working day. That it gave innocent villagers an ugly death was not their concern as it was not the concern of the air crew who, distanced from the killing could also take a detached view.
The largest employer in the town where Columbine High School massacre took place is Lockheed Martin. When Michael Moore asked one of the directors the obvious question of isn’t what their company doing just the same as what the rogue kids had done only on a bigger scale, his reply was “No. The missiles which their company made were for the defense of the USA on American soil and not for offense against second or third states”. Of course not and history doesn’t bear it out either.
Sometimes people are head hunted for certain positions where they will be culpable in the continuance or development of some aspect of evil. Overt flattery is a way of bringing them on board by describing exciting aspects of the work and saying that the applicant could do this. It is very difficult technique to resist. Here is one person who did just this from the film Good Will Hunting. For those not familiar with the film Will is a janitor in a University until it is discovered that he is a mathematical genius able to solve problems that tie the professors up in knots. He is sent for a job with the NSA where he is interviewed by its head. After some initial sparing Will is asked why he shouldn’t want to join the NSA. Here is his answer:
Will: “Why shouldn’t I work for the N.S.A.? That’s a tough one, but I’ll give it a shot. Say I’m working at N.S.A. somebody puts a code on my desk, something nobody else can break. So I take a shot at it and maybe I break it. And I’m real happy with myself, ‘cause I did my job well. But maybe that code was the location of some rebel army in North Africa or the Middle East. Once they have that location, they bomb the village where the rebels were hiding and fifteen hundred people I never had a problem with get killed. Now the politicians are saying’, “Send in the marines to secure the area” ‘cause they don’t give a shit. It won’t be their kid over there, getting’ shot. Just like it wasn’t them when their number was called, ‘cause they were pulling’ a tour in the National Guard. It’ll be some guy from Southie takin’ shrapnel in the
ass. And he comes home to find that the plant he used to work at got exported to the country he just got back from. And the guy who put the shrapnel in his ass got his old job, ‘cause he’ll work for fifteen cents a day and no bathroom breaks. Meanwhile my buddy from Southie realizes the only reason he was over there was so we could install a government that would sell us oil at a good price. And of course the oil companies used the skirmish to scare up oil prices so they could turn a quick buck. A cute little ancillary benefit for them but it ain’t helping my buddy at two-fifty a gallon. And naturally
they’re takin’ their sweet time bringing’ the oil back, and maybe even took the liberty of hiring an alcoholic skipper who likes to drink martinis and play slalom with the icebergs, and it ain’t too long ‘til he hits one, spills the oil and kills all the sea life in the North Atlantic. So my buddy’s out of work and he can’t afford to drive, so he’s got to walk to the job interviews, which sucks ‘cause the shrapnel in his ass is givin’ him chronic hemorrhoids. And meanwhile he’s starvin’ ‘cause every time he tries to get a bite to eat the only blue plate special they’re servin’ is North Atlantic scrod with Quaker State. So what do I think? I’m holdin’ out for somethin’ better. Why not just shoot my buddy, take his job and give it to his sworn enemy, hike up gas prices, bomb a village, club a baby seal, hit the hash pipe and join the National Guard? I could be elected president.”
9/11 is too big a subject to get bogged down in here except to make a brief comment on Iraq. Whether Iraq was the reason behind 9/11 or was a reprisal for it, this country was chosen as a target when the CIA knew it had no connection with the events of that day. In fact since they invented Al Qaeda they knew from the beginning there was no connection. So why did the USA decide to kill tens of thousands of innocents in a country halfway around the world? There are two answers to this; the first is because they could (they had done it before and they knew they could do it again) and the second reason is because they deserved it. Saddam for good or bad had not unrolled his prayer mat and genuflected before the American God. It should be noted that both of these answers are good ones. Former friend had angered those who matter and life was forfeited as hubris won the day.
Sometimes the Universal Soldier can have ethical reservations over his or her allotted task. It takes more courage to make a stand and say no than to simply accept your lot and go with the flow. One such was Ehren Watada, an officer in the Stryker Brigade who refused to go with his group to Iraq. To combat foreseen accusations of cowardice his mother sent this open letter to explain her son’s actions.
“I am the mother of Lt. Ehren Watada, an officer stationed at Ft. Lewis. He is part of a Stryker brigade unit that deployed today to Iraq. Despite an unflinching commitment to his men and to democratic ideals, he chose not to accompany his men. His decision came through much soul-searching and through research and consultation with experts Dear Fellow Americans, across disciplines, inside and outside of the military and the government. After weighing the evidence, he came to the conclusion that he could no longer be silent while atrocities were committed in the name of democracy. He could no longer be a tool of an administration that used deception and lies to make the case for pre-emptive war. As a member of the armed forces, sworn to uphold the US Constitution, he refuses to blindly participate in a war of aggression, an illegal war that undermines who we are as a nation and violates international law. Implicit in his oath as an officer is the duty to disobey all unlawful orders for to carry out these orders renders him an accomplice to a criminal act. Furthermore, to order his men to participate in a war of aggression multiplies his guilt a thousand fold. His conscience will not permit him to do so. He believes that he can best serve them by taking a stand against the war. In so doing, he demonstrates that one does not relinquish the freedom to choose what is right, even in the military, and that the freedom to choose what is right transcends the allegiance to man and institutions.”
I think this just about puts good and evil in their respective positions.
Here is a story of someone who went with the flow and then regretted it afterwards. Even though as a result of his decision he was able to save many lives which would otherwise not have been the case. He regards himself personally responsible for “Loosing the World”. He was a chemical engineer and his story is related by Jacob Hornberger. His story relates to the general culpability theme but this time on a more conscious level. In 1935 Hitler’s Nationalist Socialist Movement was establishing its power and in order to unify the nation under one leadership, they wanted all citizens to take an oath of allegiance to the new party. Some like the engineer disagreed with the fundamental aspirations of the party and initially refused to sign. He later reconsidered and then regretted it for the rest of his life. Even though as a result of signing he later was able to save maybe 1000 lives he still thinks that if he and others like him had refused to sign then he could have saved all Eichmann’s victims plus the causalities of war. Because he accepted the lesser evil he fell victim to the greater evil. If in future times the American people are asked to sign an oath of allegiance to the American administration or the European citizens to the European Union how will we choose because there is no middle way with a Sophie’s choice?
”People often exhibit a visceral rejection of comparisons of our dire predicament to the rise of Nazi Germany.” Have you noticed how many Americans get upset over the comparisons that are increasingly being made between the United States and National socialist Germany? After all, it’s not as though we’re living in a police state, right? Well, if U.S. officials could somehow assure us that the U.S. government’s treatment of accused terrorists isn’t moving in the same direction in which Nazi Germany treated accused traitors, maybe that would help to put those comparisons to rest.
So, take the time to be sure to understand the momentous nature of the battle. Speak out about it, wherever and as often as you can. Make clear to everyone you know what is at stake, and convince them to fight, too.
For the present, we have the certainty of the Military Commissions Act—and the hope that we may still prevent its most ghastly eventualities. I pray that hope will be realized. The most terrible and terrifying thing of all, for those of you who will still be alive in forty or fifty years, will be to look back on this time, and to have to say, “Thus the world was lost”—and to know that, because you did not do everything you could, you helped to lose it.”
These discussions although centered on America do not except those on the other side of the pond. The EU as it is now known (haven’t we come a long way from the Common Market) first had Maastricht and now Lisbon as a way of trading freedom for security.
Incidentally it has been shown historically that the only purpose of torture is torture and it rarely if ever has any effective results. What about the ticking bomb scenario, is usually the next question? A nuke is set to explode somewhere in mainland USA within three hours and the only way to find its location is to torture the information out of someone. Is this not justified? Former President Clinton, ever one for an eye to a good public image, has rediscovered the judiciary as a way of passing the buck and has suggested the introduction of torture warrants in the same way as there used to be wire tap warrants (remember those).
The essential question we are coming around to is this, is it in a natural part of human nature to commit atrocities? The answer seems to be divided between those who would and those who would not. The biggest obstacle to overcome amongst military draftees is their resistance to kill another of their own species.
It was reported than in many instances, soldiers in the trenches during WW l never fired their weapon even when charged at. On the other side, in groups they seem to adopt a heard mentality especially when there is some personal gain to be had. To pick a few at random throughout history there were the Crusaders; the Conquistadors and the US soldiers who slaughtered the indigenous American peoples. Here the gains were souls; gold and land. Although these reasons are not excusable there was an identifiable end result but what about the early colonists who would shoot up an Aborigine village or an African village from the air for a bit of Saturday afternoon sport. There is obviously a level of superior/inferior mentality here but would any of these people consider themselves to be evil; probably not - would others judge them to be evil; probably? In some societies such people would not be punished for their acts but would be regarded as being out of balance and would be helped to have their complete being restored in balance. Are such attitudes wussy or enlightened? The difference in attitudes seems to be one of conscience.
Macbeth was a Scottish warrior with an impeccable record in battle but his down coming was an evil wife who had designs on becoming the power behind the throne. According to Scottish custom at that time succession could be passed down the family line but could also be awarded by the Royal Court to a person deemed to be a natural leader. Macbeth was a strong contender but this was not good enough for his wife who persuaded him to kill King Duncan and claim the crown. Eventually he was overcome with remorse and finished up going to pieces.
So the answer to the question of whether ordinary people can be made to act in an evil way appears to be yes, although we should not forget the soldiers in the trenches who would not shoot at the enemy.
Finally we come to two thorny questions: is it evil for one person or group to own another persons body and is it evil for one person or group to own another persons mind? Slavery has been with us for thousands of years and as such may be regarded as Custom and Practice. It is only in the last 150 – 200 years that it has become to be regarded as evil and only for the last forty or so years that former slaves had equal civil rights to other races in the USA. Certainly so far as the slaves were concerned, it was not a good deal to have their freedom taken away, although others would argue to the contrary. In order to provide good work for their owners the slaves had to be well housed, well fed and kept in better health than might otherwise be the case in order for the owner to protect his investment.
Some groups of Christians may not agree that former slaves and their families should be accorded any civil rights at all. We all know that the only time Jesus lost his temper was with the money changers at the Temple and even though slavery was rife at the time in the countries he traveled, he never spoke out against it once. God’s beloved Abraham, the Bible leads us to believe, with his wife’s permission, impregnated one of her slaves named Hagar. As time went by Hagar became insolent and as a result was severely beaten. When the opportunity presented itself she ran away but then met the angel of God on the road. Instead of guiding her towards her original land of Egypt, the angel advised her to “Return to thy mistress and submit thyself under her hand.”
Saint Peter devotes a whole chapter in his testament in the defense of slavery. He exhorts slaves to be “subject to your masters with all fear, not only to the good and gentle, but also to the forward (tough and cruel)”. Peter also tells slaves “when you do well and suffer for it, yet take it patiently, this is acceptable with God.” If Peter was hard on slaves, Paul was worse. In addition to making obligatory calls for obedience “With fear and trembling”, Paul went so far as to return a runaway slave to his master.
According to Samuel Francis who wrote in a 1998 edition of the magazine
Southern Partisan, “Neither Jesus nor the apostles nor the early church condemned slavery, despite countless opportunities to do so and there is no indication that slavery is contrary to Christian ethics or that any serious theologian before modern times ever thought it was.”
So there we have it. The keeper of the Universe’s moral code reckons that owning another person’s body is right on with him, at least so far as his representatives can be relied on. It also follows from this that the God of universal love and mercy also has sympathies with the Klan. I sometimes wonder that if the Christian God has such obvious double standards why the PTB want to abandon him in favor of Lucifer. Still, that is not my concern.
Zombies and people on life support can exist without a mind but so far as I know, without going into the realms of the paranormal, a functioning mind cannot exist independent of a body to house it. If owning another’s body is morally acceptable then owning another’s mind must also be acceptable by the same token. This argument gives the moral green light to projects such as MKUltra. (The details of which can be had by e-mailing for the unabridged copy of this post.)
Susan’s story is evil by any standards but not according to theologians.
Let us recap on a few logical conclusions here.
We are told in the Bible by the representatives of God that he (or she) does not have a problem with slavery. If it is acceptable for one person or group to own another’s body then it must also be acceptable to own another’s mind since the two are not separable. It is then honorable or, at least, not dishonorable to take another’s mind away from them and replace it with a creation of your own for your own purposes. The problem here is that if the 300 or so people that represent the 12 bloodline families that control the world take the rest of the world’s citizenry into slavery, including the whole of Christendom, this then gets a pass from God but these families are supposedly representatives of Lucifer so God is on a hiding into nothing. Unless, that is, you take the Book of Revelations as an accurate document.
Notwithstanding any of this, evil exists but it one of those words or concepts which defy a dictionary definition and can only be understood by way of examples about which you must make up your OWN mind.
Sources
The Banality of Evil
http://musictravel.free.fr/political/political65.htm
Wikipedia – Evil
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evil
Good Will Hunting – NSA Speech
http://www.stormfront.org/forum/showthread.php?t=189834
The Terrorist – OPEC Meeting Attack
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0841179/usercomments
Vietnam War was Lost – The Quiet Mutiny Documentary by John Pilger
http://freedocumentaries.org/film.php?id=255
Ehren Watada – The soldier who refused a tour in Iraq
http://www.aljazeerah.info/Opinion%20editorials/2006%20Opinion%20Editorials/June/27%20o/A%20letter%20from%20Carolyn%20Ho,%20Mother%20of%20Ehren%20Watada%20Who%20Refuse%20to%20Fight%20in%20Iraq.htm
Universal Soldier Song Lyrics
http://www.lyricsmode.com/lyrics/s/sainte_marie_buffy/universal_soldier.html
Jacob Hornberger – Thus the World was Lost – Arthur Silber
http://powerofnarrative.blogspot.com/2006/09/thus-world-was-lost.html
The Ticking Bomb Scenario to Justify Torture – Arthur Silber
http://powerofnarrative.blogspot.com/2006/10/lies-in-service-of-evil.html
The Stanford Prison Experiment
http://www.spring.org.uk/2007/09/our-dark-hearts-stanford-prison.php
Slavery Condoned in Bible
Derek Jensen – The Culture of Make Believe pp 54 – 57
Mind Control – Bryce Taylor / Susan Ford – Thanks for the Memories
e-book download
http://www.box.net/shared/dx8i272e88