The Lesser of Two Evils

Since 2020, or maybe even before that, one of my central mottos has been “choose the lesser of two evils if you have to” or maybe even “choose the lesser of many evils.”

That always seemed like a rational and prudent philosophy. You had to choose something, didn’t you? You had to vote or had to make day-to-day choices in life, you couldn’t just sit around and do nothing. And if you couldn’t find a choice that seemed perfectly balanced, perfectly seated in goodness, and love, then you were forced to choose something that wasn’t so pristine—something that maybe was not all bad, and maybe better than the other choice.

Or you could not choose at all. If it wasn’t exactly, or close to exactly, what you thought was ok, you could also just not make a choice. And wait for the better thing to come along one day. But who was going to do that?

Well, truthfully, doing nothing never really seemed like the right thing to “do.” That seemed lazy, unconscious, blind, and irresponsible. As humans, isn’t that our first responsibility to ourselves and to the world—doing something?

Remember the adage, “Faith without works is dead.” A materialist male must have come up with that one. I don’t necessarily disagree with its fundamental reasoning. If our inaction (or “works”) is due to laziness or fear, then the saying is right on. But action could also be spurned on by fear. And in that case, a decision of “being” becomes the right one. (Often, we correlate “doing” with the masculine, and “being” with the feminine.)

I do believe, in today’s world, there is a place for “doing nothing”—and the word “doing” is the key here. When I say “doing” I mean physically manipulating matter. “Thinking,” as per my specific definition here, is not doing. The definition of these words needs to be more refined to use them properly in my context, but I hope you understand what I am getting at. I am making a distinction between “doing” and “being.” So, for further clarity, my definition of doing doesn’t include prayer, for example, prayer falls under “being” in this context. “Loving” is not “doing”—expressing love in the physical realm is doing, but “feeling love” is “being.” Holding the truth in God is “being”—not “doing.”

Get the picture?

So, if I chose, for example, not to vote in the American election, but held the truth and love of God in my heart, I am choosing not to “do” but rather to “be”—to sit in an inactive state, and know love, and to know truth, and to know peace. I do not have to be the warrior all of the time—as you know, I define warrior as the person who takes physical action toward Truth, and maybe physical action against evil. The “Peaceful Warrior” is one who HOLDS truth, in thought, in prayer, in “knowingness.”

Although these concepts may seem “New Agey” they are in fact quite in alignment with Jesus’ ministry that he brought to the world 2,000 years ago (at least in one popular interpretation). And Jesus was not the only prophet to speak this sort of truth.

I do believe it is a valid choice to simply “be” in some situations. Take the aforementioned American presidential vote. I know quite a few people who have chosen not to vote at all. Many of these people have turned against the party they had previously believed to be their moral choice—the Democratic Party. And because they find Donald Trump so vile, they simply cannot vote for him. So, they will not vote at all. Are they taking the “being” path? Maybe. It, of course, depends if they go into prayer, or take some other “being” stance to hold the truth they do not believe either candidate will focus their presidency on.

Most of them (those who do not vote) will not do this (I would suspect). Instead, they would be responding to fear. Neither candidate is “safe enough” for them to feel comfortable choosing.

But let’s take a closer look at that.

Donald Trump may have a “vile” personality he projects when in public. He may even be a hard-core narcissist as so many people claim him to be. But there are certain positions he takes as compared to the positions of Kamala Harris that is more in tune with decency, commitment to the nation (the United States of course), and common sense. He may not be a “decent” personality (to some—considering some language about grabbing small cats), that I do not know. And if people think he is vile, that for the most part was probably created by the opposition’s propaganda. But is this narcissistic, buffoonish, vile, man suitable for the presidency? I’m afraid so.

Think about basic issues such as medical transitions of kids who succumb to a mental illness or social contagion and in the case of minors, bypassing parents in order to perform these medical transitions, unvetted and unprocessed immigration, censorship of social media (and in general censorship of any speech contrary to the mainstream narrative), financial and policy support of massive killing (regardless of the “side”) in Europe and the Middle East (addiction to war), lax regulation of Big Pharma, FDA, and CDC, support of global collectivist organizations such as WHO, UN, and NATO who dictate and advocate world collectivist agendas, supporting an ideology of Neo-Marxism and extreme Socialism—need I go on, and I could! Which candidate do you think supports these policies and which opposes them? All of these issues are monumentally important. DT can grab all of the cats he wants, and eat them as well, and he will still be the choice of sane, and decent, people.

Yes, if you want to call Trump the “lesser of two evils,” be my guest. But considering those issues, without muddying the waters with “personality” (either one of these candidates muddy the waters—Trump’s scowl compared to Harris’ joyous laugh and smile) you are left with one that is decidedly evil, and the other that is not evil in the least regarding these primary issues (and many more like them). I believe taking the wrong side on those stated issues, and many others, is decidedly evil.

I will not be in a “being state” this November—where this mustn't be a choice between two evils—one being “lesser” than the other. This is a decision to choose the candidate that is NOT evil—not evil where it matters (and maybe not evil at all depending on how you define “evil”). Those who oppose Trump believe he is insane. They believe he is evil; they believe he is a dangerous psychopathic criminal. I don’t believe any of these things are attributed to indisputable facts. Most of these views, in my opinion, are due to propaganda. Yes, Trump can be a buffoon, he can be a self-centered egomaniac. But probably one-third to one-half of all US presidents would fall into all or most of those categories. And many of them, due to these apparent faults, have had the confidence, stamina, and resilience to stand up to all the other crazies who are jointly ruling the world. Sometimes being a narcissistic ass is exactly what is needed to be an effective leader.