The Hypocrite; The Election

“I can trust a cynic, a conman. But I can’t trust a hypocrite. Because the hypocrite doesn’t know when she’s lying, and that’s the most dangerous liar of them all.”

My wife shared this from a TV programme that she watched. It was one of those things for these past few weeks and months that conspired to nudge me to produce this article.

For the past few weeks, I’ve had the opportunity to watch a certain personality. I had seen it attempt to personally attack people verbally. I had found out that it had harassed and pressured a rabbi and his family. It had voiced its desire to hunt those that disagreed with it. Towards me personally, it had made accusations against me and my wife. Although this personality had never met me all my wife or knew any detail of our personal lives, it saw fit to express some ludicrously silly statements about my family life, making it plain and obvious that it was only based on ignorance and hubris.

Now, at first, I laughed. When a fool acts foolishly, like a jester, it is very easy to just laugh. But then I began to ponder on what sort of character would express things that are so obviously false and yet continue with such sincere belief in itself. The person who was talking to me in this manner expressed no sense of joking or humour. At best, he was trying to provoke a negative emotion. And if that is the best way of looking at it, then to see it any worse may begin to reveal something evil. Think about it! A person who would claim to want to know God, yet speaks falsehood without reservation or apology. The thing is though, this person came across as if he thought he was telling the truth.

It made me consider a situation. Which is worse? An evil person who simply does evil and knows it is evil? Or a person who does evil but thinks it is good or for good reasons? Personally, I think the second option is far worse. It doesn’t take much effort to do evil. Many times, it is easier to lie than to tell the truth. It is easier to retaliate than to control oneself. But to do good, many times takes effort. And when someone thinks that they’re in a righteous cause, it takes so much inner strength to stay the course. But what then happens when somebody puts all of that energy of doing good into doing evil?

When I described to my wife the behaviour of this personality, as well as my deeper ponderings on such a thing, the quote I started this article with came to her mind. I’ll say it again.

“I can trust a cynic, a conman. But I can’t trust a hypocrite. Because the hypocrite doesn’t know when she’s lying, and that’s the most dangerous liar of them all.”

It is a terrible thing for someone to hurt you and/or to try to destroy your life and then for you to realise that that person thought they were doing the right thing. It can be a hurtful thing for a person to do you evil and that evil be called “good.”

Now I have seen this before. This is recognisable to me. Because this sort of behaviour happens so often all around the world. And this Thursday, 12th of December, 2019, the ritual in the UK will happen again.

“What you talkin’ about, Willis?”

I’ll tell you.

On that date, there will be a general election where some of the populace will vote in order to choose which political party runs their town and their country.

I see the desire of people, that they’ll support their political party, go door-to-door with leaflets or attempting to convince people to vote for their party to be in power, to be the majority voice in government. They just want to fix or help the world, their country, their economy, their community using political means. But as someone said, there is the political means and then there is the voluntary means, and they necessarily conflict. But these people think that political voting and support of the government is a good thing, the means of fixing and improving things, and they will go to the voting booth to try to have a voice in this system, thereby legitimising the people in the government.

But are they doing a good thing?

What is government? And is it moral? Government is simply a label for a bunch of humans who people think have the right to do what would otherwise be immoral. It is a territorial monopoly on legitimised coercion and violence. In simpler terms, it’s the bully that’s considered to be allowed to be a bully. It’s the robber considered allowed to rob. Essentially, it’s the thing that claims to own us all, to control via threats (“laws”) and violence. But it’s just another bunch of humans. It’s not a different, more superior kind of being. It’s just a group of people like you and me. It can only be a gang and nothing more.

So how does my essential equal, as a human being, get to own me to the extent that it can demand the money I’ve earned under threat of violence? Yes, I know that’s what robbery is. And yes, I know it makes me a slave to the state when I earn money. In this modern age, it’s not said to get this ownership by means of God or a god. No, it gets its ownership rights over me by the people, other humans just like me, but that don’t have any ownership rights over me.

Makes sense? Of course not! How would a group of individuals with no ownership, taxation or controlling rights over each other give that non-existent right to another group of similar individuals? It can’t. But the vote aids in the delusion.

And what’s worse is that this gang either starts of as, continues as, or becomes a group of immoral and untrustworthy people. Even without the seven laws for humanity, the state-gang is known for lying, breaking promises, using its thugs and acolytes to perform injustices, killings, theft, abuses, wars, on and on and on. Again, this is without going into the seven laws. I’ve seen plenty of times where people who support the system and will vote in it still recognise they are supporting human slime, a dishonest bunch, liars. And yet … *sigh* … well, they’re still keeping it all going.

But my baseline morality is the seven laws, that it’s wrong to do injustice, to curse God using his name, worship idols, murder, steal, to have forbidden sexual partners (homosexuality, adultery, incest, bestiality), and to eat meat taken from living animals, and the only righteous justice system is one that upholds these seven principles. But what does the gang do? It commits injustice; it legally (meaning through threats) protects the cursing of God’s name via freedom of speech laws and idolatry through freedom of religion laws; it murders and now allows doctors to murder the unborn; its essential nature is theft (taxation) and it allows theft through various means, like the taking of children from parents; in many places, it makes laws legalising gay marriage or preventing any condemnation of homosexuality (“hate speech”); and it is silent about eating meat taken from living animals.

Added to that, many many times, throughout history, it does numerous bad things to its human property (the citizenry).

So I’m not talking about some righteous and good institution. I’m talking about a bloody gang.

To suck in its human property, to sucker its sapien livestock, it creates or uses a game called “democracy” to stroke the ego of its serfs, causing the “illusion of freedom.” “I get to choose who owns me, so I’m free!” And I’ve heard how the game called democracy works. So some stranger, a person wants to be, or continue to be, a member of the immoral gang. “Vote for me and I’ll ‘represent’ you.” But this person is saying it to hundreds, thousands or millions of people, and thus cannot represent you. And how will this person represent you? By maintaining a system that owns you and robs you to pay for things you don’t want. And there are a number of people with a similar offer vying for a place in the gang.

Sounds great so far, right?

Now the choices of political party are all evil or immoral in one way or another. But when you vote for one, you’re saying you want one of those people to force their will on strangers. Whether their will and yours coincides is a flop of the coin. Whether they’ll do what they say is also a roll of the dice. But either way, it’s about saying “I support such imposition.”

So what can happen is that your candidate for gang membership wins. And the gang called government wins and the status quo of violence, threat and robbery continues. But if your candidate doesn’t win and someone you thought more evil than your “lesser of two evils” wins, then the gang called government still wins and the same status quo continues. And by playing the game, you also support the candidate you were against. That’s the rules of the game called “democracy”: you must go along with whoever wins, i.e., the state-gang. And whether your candidate wins or not, if … no, when the winner does anything immoral in that office, then it can easily be said that your vote legitimised their actions.

So it doesn’t matter how you vote, you

personally supported your own subjugation,

supported the subjugation of those around you,

supported an immoral gang,

supported the “more worse” evil candidate if your “better” candidate lost and,

betrayed your own morality by supporting the gang that opposes it in one way or another.

There is nothing moral about supporting the gang. It does not matter how things go with democracy, immorality is intrinsic to the system, especially in combination with an immoral code of threats (“laws”).

So just to say, if I vote, I support evil. My vote numerically doesn’t matter. If I don’t vote or if I do, statistically, my vote is worthless. But where it comes to personal responsibility and complicity, I would be supporting injustice and evil.

But that’s the issue. That’s how it relates to “the hypocrite.” Again, much of the populace is duped into believing that voting is the way to make a change, to help their country or community. It is taught that the best thing to do in an “imperfect” (the nice way of saying “immoral, enslaving, unjust and bloody”) system is to choose the lesser of two evils, which can only mean to choose evil. The good thing for everyone to vote. And with good intentions, with good desires, the people, the voters, keep the evil going.

One of the worst sort of individual there is is the sincere one, the “hypocrite,” who will do evil, who will do their part to make sure evil is empowered, and sincerely believe it was a good thing.

“But if you don’t vote, you can’t complain.”

I’ve dealt with this nonsensical argument before. If there is a band of evil-doers, and a person chooses to stay out of the band, he can complain. If a person choose to take part in the deeds of the band, then his complaints become empty since he is complicit in the evil done.

Again, it’s part of the brainwashing passed down in our culture that teaches that the only meaningful act is the political one. Excuse my bluntness, but do you know how many people stupidly claim or believe that if a person doesn’t vote or take part in political action, they are doing nothing? It’s as if it’s nothing to, for example, try to raise a family, be a good role model or a person of integrity or a good person, or do charity work, or any number of deeds that are about voluntary and grassroots work that improves oneself and the people around you that doesn’t necessitate the unjustified coercion, which is the lifeblood of the state. Such thinking, again, is either a result of cultural brainwashing or state-religious indoctrination, or maybe even some terrible thinking.

It’s another instance of “the hypocrite,” the sincere (sincerely wrong) person who will do evil and think it good.