Dang, I came across the hidden hand interview what like 2 decades ago? It is an amateurish justification of evil... there is a lot of internal tension within the authors logic. I just remember it saying evil is merely a "catalyst, a service, a contrast" which never sat well with me. But I suppose that is the meta-intent of the interview. Deception vs. Trust. I've read it again to pick out some quotes I found interesting...

All paths lead back to the One… in the end, all is reconciled.

Negativity is a necessary part of the process of evolution.

So, if I'm followed correctly, if everything ends in unity and negativity disappears, then negativity isn't intrinsic. Its temporary. Which would make one wonder about its necessity.

We are bound by our rules to not infringe upon your free will… We cannot give you information that would be too direct… much must remain hidden.

I will do my best to answer your questions honestly…

They explicitly say they withhold or obscure truth, yet present themselves as a reliable source of truth in the same conversation.

We offer you the catalyst of negative experience… but you must choose how to respond.

We have been influencing your societies for thousands of years… guiding events.

“Choice” is emphasized, but the environment is described as heavily engineered, which undermines the neutrality required for real free will...

Both the positive and negative paths lead back to the One Infinite Creator.

The negative path is one of that which is not… it is much more difficult… eventually it must turn back.

Both paths are valid yet one is harder, unstable, and temporary, the other is harmonious and unified... I suppose the negative path detours to the positive path.

We are here to provide you with catalyst… through pain, suffering, and adversity… that you may grow.

Service through harm... one must redefine "service"

Without negativity, there would be no choice… no polarity… and therefore no evolution.

Then choice is structurally dependent and not truly free. No choice made is genuine... which kinda shoots their purpose in the foot.

We must not break the Law of Free Will… this is the prime directive.

We influence your governments, your financial systems… your wars…

They claim a binding non-interference rule, yet describe large-scale interference.

We are playing our role… providing that which you need for your growth.

If they are just playing a role, are they morally responsible? BUT the logic still talks about choosing paths and spiritual consequences... agency vs determinism it seems.

Shifting definitions, selective logic, unverifiable authority. It is a fun read and makes you think a bit about morality and suffering... it made me really consider polarity for a little... it works rhetorically but it can't seriously hold all of its claims together. I guess that is the nature of the negative path. It accurately represents it anyway - how those on that path rationalize control, suffering, and deception. Perhaps in that symbolic sense, it is more enlightening than I first realized.

Evil's truth is perspective and contrast rather than consistent and rational.