There are times when evil shows itself as evil.
A young man on a bike snatches a bag from an old woman and drags her on the ground while she hasn't let it go yet, she is bruised. No one in his senses doubts he is an evil young man.
There are times when what purports to be good also is good.
Suppose I had been begging for two hours without success, suppose I had previous to that been for more than three hours in a library where I did obviously not eat, suppose someone gives me a meal with moderate but adequate calories, there is no one who would consider that act as evil (starting pushing food on me as soon as I sit down even if I'm begging to wash is another matter, and continuing, so I get away overfed and underwashed, that is another matter, has also happened).
Then there are times when what is evil purports to be good.
Should we always expose it, just because evil deliberately hiding as a good it isn't is bad? Should we never expose it, just because we shouldn't pry behind the good pretences? Or should we expose it sometimes but other times not expose it?
I hold, sometimes it should be exposed and sometimes it should be let alone. If for instance Henry IV of France was in 2.VIII.1589 secretly a Calvinist or indifferentist playing for power, but pretending to be a Catholic, as a Catholic I think the Catholics who didn't expose him did a good job. Why? For one, it is impossible to know he was secretly still Calvinist, he could have been already convinced, but still being ill instructed have been unequipped to express it very clearly. For another, this allowed him, if not yet Catholic, the time to become one. When he got to correspond with Saint Francis of Sales, he at least became one.
There is another occasion where exposing evil is only of doubtful, if any, good. When Concentration Camps were exposed to big public as death camps (supposing they deliberately were so in an extreme way, and not just the "moderate" way already known, where you could get a death sentence for refusing to work), it was already 1945, the war against Hitler was already won, everyone who had contributed to this victory had already been in war with him for other reasons, without this news contributing in any way to make Hitler face one more enemy or lose the war he had already lost. Then comes Faurisson, he thinks this news was a fraud, and he thinks it is a good deed to expose this fraud. Some survivors take this very badly, and his version of exposing a fraud is currently a legal offense in France, because their feelings of being insulted or threatened have been used to lobby the "loi Gaissot".
But here, no one is seriously doubting that Jews in such camps were seriously hurt, as can be verified with those having survived them. Faurisson was at one time attributing the lie (and I think he was mistaken) to such people, when getting out, taking a chance to take revenge on those who had bullied them.
And if it comes to Palestinian victims of a UNO decision, UNO is not too likely to reverse it because of Faurisson exposing one of their reasons as factually wrong. There is more to be gained from exposing Palestinian suffering now, and from examining the rights they have to their land. In my view. That is why I am not a Faurisson unconditional fanatic, apart from thinking him factually mistaken on some particulars.
Does this mean, evil posing as good should never be exposed? Not so.
So, when should evil posing as good be exposed?
Recall the man on a bike and the old woman? No one who saw that happen doubted the young man was doing a very evil thing. I suppose. The woman was my granny. She went to the police, they gave her a date with a psychologist to deal with the trauma.
So, psychology poses as good, it helps people deal with trauma, right? Is it evil?
My granny went to the psychologist. She went out and never came back, because the psychologist told her
"you never got bag-snatched, you know" ...
Yes, I think that psychologist should be exposed, or psychology in general, for telling real victims they are imagining things, so that the real culprits need not be chased. Lazy police not wanting to chase the bag-snatcher of a woman who may have been fairly impopular in the neighbourhood and whose bag-snatcher may therefore have had people protecting him. Once police start turning victims over to shrinks, they have quit doing their job as enforcers of law and order. They have become a kind of umpires of who is allowed to bully whom, instead.
I am not sure whether my granny was bag-snatched in Höja, a neighbourhood where she lived since 1972 and where she and my ma got poorer while others got better off, or whether she was bag-snatched in Rosengård, where she was a Swede. Either place, she could also have been accused of being much richer than she was, some people just would not believe ma and me could have travelled so much if we hadn't been. We could, question of priorities and of not being ashamed to beg when needed. When we were in US in 1977, before we returned to Vienna we were broke, we had the flight ticket from New York and there would be a study loan from Sweden awaiting her in Vienna when she was back at studying at med school, but we were in Anaheim, across the contiguous territory of the United States. Our journey from Anaheim to New York was a good lessing about how to live poorly and still enjoy life. The sect with which he had been staying (I say "sect" as in "non-Catholic purported Christian Church" not in the sociological sense) made a collection giving us a coast to coast ticket with Greyhound busses. Other example, in UK we were broke when visiting Stonehenge, and I made a drawing of a man in fancy (more or less Napoleonic) uniform and we got a great tomato soup in exchange. Displacement was done by hitchhiking.
In a similar vein, some people are now trying to expose that my blogs can't be done by a poor man in the street, there must be a fraud. No, long between 2009 and 2014 I was welcome to Georges Pompidou (now my luggage has become an obstacle), where internet sessions forty minutes a time can be renewed all day long to closing time at 22:00, except Tuesdays, and long after that up to 23.IV.2019 and a few days after that, I have been able to use the university library of Nanterre often all day long, from 8:30 to 20:00, shorter on Saturdays, and I have some other library cards where I can have one or two hours per day, which is great since the library card at Nanterre was not renewed when it should have been and the connection continued for months after that till the non-renewal came as a bombshell on St. George's day. No, I'm not very shell shocked, I don't need a psychologist to deal with that trauma, believe me!
I think exposing someone for being rich in hiding (I may be rich without accessing my money, though my last news involved 5010 € and I have just one of the study loan debts on 4500 €, leaving 510 but I am not accessing fortunes in hiding) is bad, because you risk being wrong. You risk denouncing someone who isn't rich, but who knows a trick or two on how to get a free ride when needed and how to get some things wanted even while poor.
But I think exposing psychologists for poopooing the real and sad event when pretending to deal with trauma is a good thing. In so far as I succeed, it may make some people less likely to send someone off to a psychologist or other shrink. And that is good. My grandma did not really need an insult from a shrink after a highly humiliating and physically hurtful bag-snatching.
So, my principle for exposing evil posing as good, I think some others might agree, is : expose the evil when it has a victim and when the victimisation is linked to that specific pose as a good thing. With the psychologist, the victim was my insulted grand-ma, and the victimisation was only possible because psychologists have a reputation of being great about dealing with trauma. Maybe that particular one was really great to some other case, and probably it would be impossible for this scam to go on without them being great to some people. With psychiatry locking people up, they are sometimes (not uniformly) very nice to depressive patients who, being depressive, are not upset about being locked in, and therefore get more good than evil from it, emotionally on their own view. They may still be victims of scams, like a shrink telling them to take such and such a medication to be sure to avoid suicide, but often they are at least not bullied when inside. I know one who may be an exception to that rule.
I know a man who would expose John Ronald Reuel Tolkien and Clive Staples Lewis for being part of the secret society. Where are the victims? None, so far as I can see.
I would expose the secret society or societies for giving psychologists and shrinks so much power. Given that the psychologist continued telling my grand-ma:
"... you just imagined it" so many real crimes can be hidden when supposed expertise argue the victims just imagined the crime. Any direct victim of locking up, as well as any victim of other crimes not looked into because the victim could have (and on the view of an "expert" did) just imagine(d) it are victims to that evil posing as good.
It also happens, JRRT and CSL have written passages which do come close to if not directly exposing at least intelligibly illustrating an attempted exposure of psychologists and of locking up psychiatrists, that the Puritans who think they need to expose JRRT and CSL just because they are on their opinion "evil posing as good" could in fact be serving the real secret societies who did not put JRRT and CSL up to writing, nor me, but would like have people think so, so that the men they really put in place may be secure from exposures.
Hans Georg Lundahl
Bibl. Audoux
St. Margaret, Virgin and Martyr
20.VII.2019
Antiochiae passio sanctae Margaritae, Virginis et Martyris.
PS : A case very much in point : Atlas is a reference to a Pagan worldview. Armstrong considered another astronaut or was considered by one as a modern Atlas. To some this reference makes him pagan, therefore idolatrous, therefore evil, therefore certainly capable of being a faker. Quoting one such Puritan:
Exhibit #7: It is important to recognize the pagan mythological concepts employed by the occultists at NASA who faked the Apollo missions to the moon.
I do not find it at all necessary to out everyone who references a pagan concept as a pagan, still less to think evil of him in his other known capacities for that sole fact./HGL
