Is 'Evil' a Real Force in the World?

.
A few weeks ago, Apollonian, one of the more recent respondents here on World Peace, took issue with Phaedrus over the concept of Evil. Phaedrus has made frequent references to "evil deeds" and "evil people" and so forth, and this respondent (who appears to be pretty well-read in philosophy) objected vehemently and repeatedly to this blogger's frequent use of terms such as "good" and "evil" and so on and tried to win this writer over to his point of view, which is essentially that there is no such thing. Getting bogged down in a dry, academic discussion on what is essentially a matter of personal belief between myself and any respondent would not exactly excite and animate World Peace's readership, so initially it was decided to simply ignore the matter. However, on second thoughts, I have conceived a way in which these matters CAN be addressed in a way which is meaningful to readers and also explains why my stated position on the existence of Evil as a real and highly dangerous force in our lives will not be changing one iota. Here goes....

Phaedrus has always been a great believer in the power of allegory in getting complex concepts more clearly across. It's not necessary in this essay to resort to a full-blown allegory; a simple parable will more than adequately show where I'm coming from on this issue. Apollonian will no doubt leap on what follows and dissect it in extreme detail in the comments section if he so choses and he is free to do so. But I would like to remind him that in so doing, he is not, in any way whatsoever, going to advance the cause in which we are all united, but rather divert attention from it to the benefit of those who would prefer we totally avoid any direct examination of their odious behavior. I refer here in particular to the Jews, of course. In rebutting Apollonian's arguments by way of a parable in essay form rather than by simply following up his comments, we waste no time and effort in letting the Jews off the hook by arguing the matter out in the small print where few people would take notice.

Imagine if you will, a man clinging to a rocky precipice by his fingernails. He has stumbled off a mountain path and is hanging on for dear life. Certain death follows should he lose his fragile grip. A short time later, a group of three walkers pass by the spot: a Christian, a Muslim and a Buddhist. He calls out to them for help. They rush over to him and without any thought for their own safety, pull him back onto the path. Much relieved, he asks them how he can ever thank them. They laugh and tell him no reward is necessary and that any decent person would do the same. The situation is resolved with good feeling all-round. Now rewind this scenario to the beginning and imagine the man clinging once again to the edge of the precipice. This time, a group of Negroes approach. The man calls out to them for assistance, but they just laugh at him, make a few racial slurs and walk by. A moment later, one of them turns back towards the man. Could this be a sudden change of heart? Sadly not, the Negro has spotted the man is wearing a gold watch. Said black person removes the watch and gleefully returns to his friends to show them the spoils.


Rewind this same scenario for the final time. On this occasion, a Jew walks past. The man calls over to him for assistance as with the other passers-by. The Jew walks over, listens to the man's appeals, then thoughtfully strokes his beard. "Aren't you going to help me?" pleads the man in desperation. The Jew looks up and down the path. There's no one else in sight. He reaches down and removes the man's gold watch, just as the Negro did. "OK, OK!" cries the man, "Keep the watch. It's yours. Just help me up!" The Jew quietly slips the watch into his pocket and, taking one more look about him to ensure he remains unobserved, proceeds to stamp on the man's fingertips, forcing him to relinquish his grip and fall to his death.

So in the forgoing example, we have three very different types of behavior exhibited. The first people rescued the man without a second's thought and sought no reward for rendering their assistance. The Negroes, on the other hand, were callously indifferent to the man's plight and robbed him of his watch, leaving him still clinging precariously to the ledge. Finally, the Jew passed by and robbed the man of his watch AND needlessly sent him plunging to his certain death. Apollonian (in accordance with the teachings of Nietzsche and others) conjectures that none of these behaviors evidence either goodness OR evil on the part of the passers-by. This is a standpoint which Phaedrus finds impossible to reconcile with reality. It goes to the core of the problems we face today. Apollonian posits the view that (and I'm sure he'll correct me if I misunderstand him - and probably even if I don't) that there is no such thing as Evil and that what we commonly TAKE to be Evil is simply rather "utter selfishness" on the part of some individuals. They satisfy their needs totally without empathy for others and without the slightest prick of conscience.

To some extent, this may be true. But it is an inchoate picture which seems to have been dreamed up only by those who have been blessed to have had no personal experience of REAL Evil in their lives. They've never seen it up-close-and-personal, so-to-speak. What these people are REALLY describing is PSYCHOPATHIC behavior, which CAN be Evil, but often isn't. There's a key difference that I shall make clear here in this essay, after which I plan to make no further attempt to justify my beliefs to anyone who has no idea of my background, my age, nor how many books I have read, nor of what quality they were. Here's that key difference illustrated by reference to the above parable we examined: The Christian, the Muslim and the Buddhist acted altruistically. They put themselves out to save someone and sought no reward for doing so. Anyone with a lick of common sense is going to say they exhibited "goodness" in so doing. There's very little to argue about here with this first group of people; the REAL essence of the question can only be resolved by examining the behavior of the other two parties: the Negroes and the Jew.

The Negroes exhibited classic psychopathic behavior. They put themselves out not one iota to assist a man in trouble; all they did was steal his watch. Here we have selfish desires satiated with no regard or empathy for the victim. Classic Negro behavior from what we see all the time in the more truthful elements of the news media. But is it actually Evil? In Phaedrus' view, no, it isn't. It's merely self-centered indifference to the suffering of others and a bit of advantage-taking thrown in. Now consider the Jew's response. He failed to assist the man, he stole the man's watch AND he needlessly killed him. He COULD have simply walked away with the watch like the Negroes, but instead, he went just that bit further,when there was NO need, to see the man plunge to his death. This is the whole point of the parable where a form of behavior extends beyond pure indifferent self-enrichment and strays into the realm of Evil. It wasn't NECESSARY to send this man plummeting to his death. The Jew had what he wanted - like the Negro - and could have left it like that. Instead, he felt the inclination to stray into needless, wanton cruelty for no reason but his own sick enjoyment - and THIS is the point where Evil arises and we can see it all around us in the way Jews behave towards others, wherever they may be in the world, there is always this sick element of "gratuitous nastiness" that so typically characterizes their behavior as a race.

Now Phaedrus would be the first to admit that there are plenty of people who consider themselves 'religious' who are anything BUT pious. And there are equally Jews who do NOT exhibit this trait. Furthermore, there ARE honest and civilized black people. But in every case, they are A-typical of their race or creed and do not represent the majority. Patrick Grimm reminded us of the importance of stereotypes; the instilled wisdom of generations which we fail to call upon at our peril when forced to deal with foreigners. Jews and their NWO buddies are at the forefront of rubbishing stereotypes and trying to make stereotyping people a 'thought crime.' Given the primordial nature of the Jews, the impetus behind this piece of social engineering should come as no surprise to us! Who but the Jews and the Negroes would have more to gain from having their essential core natures effaced from the awareness of others?

So there you have it: my justification for using the terms "good" and "evil" and my resolution to CONTINUE to do so for as long as Evil remains such a pervasive force behind Western nations' internal and external policy development!