April 30, 2013
(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?
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 toempower 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.
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), to limit your freedoms, to demand your obedience and to use the threat of force to command your compliance. This philosophy dishonors the individual and downplays free will and individual liberty. “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.
(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.
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 a school that teaches students blind obedience to institutional authority while denying them the liberty to think for themselves is practicing control and is therefore EVIL.
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.
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.
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.
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.
In terms of ethics, “controlism” is inherently destructive because it denies an individual his or her humanity. “Empowerment” is inherently good (or even blessed) because it invests in the individual the power of determining her or her own life outcomes.
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. 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 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.
For anyone who is looking to right the evils we are now facing in our country here’s a bit more of how to tell who’s evil vs. good:
The anti-snitch book: RATS
…and here’s some more good advice, particularly if you’re involved in any group activism:
Mike Adams amazes me sometimes. I have read his articles on nutrition and related stuff like that for years and didn’t realize until the Sandy Hook thing that he also wrote excellent (and radical) commentary.
His commentary on the Sandy Hook media frenzy had me digging into his archives and reading more of his stuff. For a younger dude, he’s almost as radical as some of us in the old fart contingent, not that I’m a writer by any means, just a radical old fart. He’s always interesting and is good at laying out his views.
He frequently steps in for Alex Jones on Jones’ daily radio show, and does a bang-up job. He’s a great counterpoint to Alex; Alex is incredibly intense and driven, but Mike while espousing the same ideas has a lighter side.
And he’s a fellow software engineer–so he must be good!
That’s another thing I never knew about the Health Ranger. I read lots of columns online and usually don’t know much about the author’s other work. Thanks for the info.
He’s right on point with this article. I view the desire to control others as an evil, perverted desire. My view is that we humans are not qualified to exercise control over others. The desire to do so is, for me, morally wrong, and must be resisted if it ever enters my mind.
Hey Ed, watch it with that old fart contingent stuff. I represent that statement! 😉
Ha! I’m so old, I keep expecting that dirt will turn out to be a fad.
Statists are all sociopaths and terrorists no different than muggers and rapists. Collectivists are not fully human adult and demand that everyone else live for them just like tribal beta monkeys. They are all inherently evil parasites and need to be eliminated in order to achieve civil society. Statists are anti-individual/anti-civilization and therefore evil. Some are too stupid and infantile to even realize they are evil like parasitic runt Clovers.
DenTee, your comment reminded me of these two bits:
“… nearly half of all Republicans believe that we might need an armed revolution in the near future to protect our liberties and a fifth of Democrats think the same thing.”
“… I am saying that such a revolution is not necessary, precisely because the people do possess the right to keep and bear arms. They need not take up arms against the government, precisely because they already possess the arms.
… He assailed me with this: “I am 70 and old enough to remember when our leaders respected and defended our Constitution.”
I will turn 71 in two weeks, and I do not recall this. …
Geezer conservatism is now tied around the neck of any form of principled conservatism. It points back to a world that never was. …
If the conservative movement in the United States is ever to make a fundamental impact on the political life of this nation, it has got to abandon geezer conservatism. It has got to abandon any attempt to resurrect the good old days. The good old days were not so good, which is why they led, step-by-step, to the bad new days today. There were fundamental flaws in the American experiment from the day that American revolutionaries decided to revolt against Great Britain, not understanding that nothing centralizes power more than a revolution. Friedrich Engels understood this, but geezer conservatives do not. …
War strengthens the state, and all revolutions are wars. …”
Geezer Conservatism: The Albatross
I would highlight and bold this part, just don’t know how:
“… nothing centralizes power more than a revolution.”
This article will make clover’s head pop.
i agree completely. I read the article this morning and was getting ready to post it but you beat me to it.
a clover after reading Mike Adams’ article…
Ha, what’s really funny to me was that once I migrated the site over clover was the first user I noticed that visited. Freaking weird!
Obviously, arguing the point with us is his entertainment. He feels empowered by chastising us anonymously whether he’s right or wrong (vastly wrong as we know).
He’s a control freak and considers himself a moderator or supervisor. When he’s proven wrong he’ll often change the subject, or spout tongue-in-cheek ad-hominems to have the last word. He wouldn’t have the balls to do this in person.
Sounds like my ex-GF. He communicates like a girl 🙂