Politics and Correct Phrasing of Truth

What is the point of arguing when you’re wrong?

Hypocrisy proves only one thing… that you can’t convince yourself that you’re wrong.

If one person ever believed too much about being right, they always have been wrong. If no matter how they look at life and they have no understanding about truth, as in they lied since they had the first chance, creating a pathology about what the truth is, through a lie, they must always be wrong. Their perception will always prove this through their brain patterns.

Power does not equal correct. Power does not prove one right. If a person is allowed to be in power, and they are constantly wrong, their whole power system falls. 

For instance, a country that is constantly in the struggle of power with its leader, for instance, one that makes no attempts at forcing others to be free from the bonds of slavery (in its many forms) takes on a whole other layer of problems and will eat its own tail, no matter what. War and famine are caused in symptomatic relation to power and will never be undone by their own greed for power in authoritative centrality, top down. If a power hungry politician or dictator decided one day to enter a contest to who is right, between one extreme, or the less extreme of their views, and see whose power and influence was greater, the dictator would always win, given mentality alone.

Dictatorial politics is much more clear about what it represents because when a dictator decides within his own law what is better for his population, there will be only religion and sex to control the population, while money will be secondary because the economy may only  be run by his own greed and decisive sentience. There is no happiness in power like that. There is no peaceful obligation to law in political system like that.  

Tyranny is small, the country with tyrannical government, as opposed to democracy, within reason, will always find war to be its most obvious reason to exist. Internal and outer within its borders of mind and borders of territory.

If a person in power decides for himself to take over a country or other neighbor, that neighbor better have real reasons to defend itself or succumb to culture loss or culture absorption. War is only a game.

If a war is never ending, it's a mind made struggle. In the times of conquerors and power struggles to take over new land, only the most powerful men let themselves believe in their own genetics, while the most powerful individuals were not brutes, but intellectuals and allowed many cultures to thrive.

Catholicism took over the planet for love of Christ, but only so far in as the reasons for life after death as a strategy to control the population of the planet so the pope could believe in its own lineage of the Church of Christ.

Christ consciousness, a different political endeavor than that of power hungry or simple deceit or other forms of egoic sentience, created power for love and over 2.02k years of life created an idea that someone, somewhere was looking over us and preventing deceit and evil while loving us unconditionally as long as we obeyed the law laid out by that deity.

Like chess pieces, strategy in war is placed on importance to what resources we can attain to and what populations we absorb, if too many people are absorbed into acclimation to the new government of opposites they will always find resistance to the other power system.

If the game of war doesn’t concede in a history where the whole planet can agree to its unified freedom and the negative entities of the planet can't find a reason to stop being power hungry, then maybe peace is never viable. Evil just is, it breeds itself through mental sickness and illness and causes sexual dysfunction to become domineering and loss of life is usually not prevented because evil does as evil does.

To prevent evil we would need to weed out all mental illness, which was my main point to make this lifetime, if mental illness is commonplace there will always be evil. To start, you would need to politically incline your countries to use psychological testing to weed out liars and cheats and con artists and rapists and murderers and keep them from having influence. Through these tests you look for cues with multiple choice with abstract detail to decide what a person thinks. No matter what they will be truthful answers. Usually logic and reason, with absolute truth being the underlying source of information to befriend its own lying to betray the simple form of what a person thinks.

For instance: If you think, do you exist? True or false: 1.) I do. 2.) They do. 3.) You do. 4.) We do. 

In this form of question there is no blanket cased answer to sense the pronoun inclination of the person. A healthy individual will answer (1.) while a moderately or funny individual will answer (3.) Paranoia comes from answering (2.) and 4. will be cluster b within schizophrenic delusions. if a 5th response is 5.) I decline to answer, the entire question is called paranoia and they are pathologized immediately as fearful of themselves and possibly a danger to society, a disclaimer should be placed before the questionnaire, that states, you must answer the first option that comes to mind and if they spend more than 10 seconds answering they forfeit their sane thinking, place a unanswerable questionnaire they can read the questions from for 15 seconds, they can skip, and when the time is up the multiple choices are available to be clicked. This gives ample time to allow a sane thought and the choice is obvious to sane people.