Feigning Ignorance of Evil

Evilby Jerry Richardson1/6/15
Given his comments at the funeral of NYC police-officer Liu, it seems that FBI Director James Comey is trying to understand the wrong thing.  He does not actually need to “understand evil” in order to properly do his job.

“FBI Director James Comey on Sunday honored murdered New York City Police Officer Wenjian Liu and remarked that he was shocked and bewildered by the increased number of police officer deaths in 2014.

“One hundred and fifteen were killed last year,” he said. “That’s a shocking increase from 2013. I don’t understand evil and I cannot try.””
FBI Chief at Liu’s Funeral

In his official capacity as Director of the FBI, Comey should be concerned about understanding the cause for the “shocking increase from 2013” of police-officer deaths.  Since he stated that he was “shocked and bewildered” about the increase, we can legitimately conclude that he is either clueless or feigning ignorance—I think feigning is more likely.

In the unlikely event that he is actually clueless, I suggest that a good place for him to gain understanding of the “shocking increase from 2013” of police-officer deaths” would be to examine the wide-spread false-narrative creation of animosity toward the US Justice System and the nation’s police-forces whose duty is to support the rule of law.

Comey should spend an hour or so on the Internet and research some of the disrespectful and dishonest comments, about police officers and law enforcement officials in general, made by President Obama, the AG Eric Holder, the major of NYC, Bill de Blasio, and of course the too-numerous-to-count comments broadcast by the denigrate-America media, and made by race-hustlers such as Al Sharpton and Jessie Jackson.

To oppose evil, it is not actually necessary to understand it—of course that may help but even so, it is not absolutely necessary; the rock-bottom necessity is to properly identify it, which is simply to recognize evil for what it is: Evil; and for what it is not: It is NOT Good.  First Identify evil; then stop it or prevent it.  As Sherlock Holmes said: “Elementary, my dear Watson”—certainly, elementary unless you are a Progressive.

And to those who want to carp that good and evil are very subjective and relative terms; my response is that subjective and/or relative good and evil is a primary facet of the morally-unmoored ideological-malady that has been brought into our modern-world by post-modern relativism.

Prior to the post-modern ideology invasion, the world for centuries had a reasonably-standard, biblically-influenced view concerning good and evil.  The 10 Commandments were considered, at least in most of Western civilization, as a beginning scaffold for determining good and evil.  The influence of the 10 Commandments could be found in the legal statues of most western nations.  This widely-shared worldview has been increasingly disparaged in favor of post-modern ideology:  All truth is relative; no truth is absolute—except of course the one just stated.

As a simple illustration of the difference between “understanding” and “identifying” evil, I offer as exhibit 1, Hitler and the Nazis during WWII.  I dare say that many if not most people, even today, do not “understand” the “evil” that was instantiated by the Nazis.  Modern scholars, both professional and amateur, have continued to study the Nazis ideology and to give their theories as to how and why it was what it was—well, in simplest terms, it was evil.  And often-times, evil is not easy to understand due to subtle and not-so subtle elements of irrationality.

But I believe that I can say without fear of contradiction that courageous and honest people in many different countries during the run-up to WWII had absolutes NO difficulty in “identifying” the indisputable evil that the Nazis and their ideology represented.  There were, as there are today, political appeasers, such as Neville Chamberlain (our modern counterpart is Barack Obama), who deluded themselves into thinking that they “understood” Hitler; but at the same time they were completely unwilling to deal with the reality staring them in the face, and to take the important simple-step of labeling Hitler and the Nazis for exactly what they were: Evil.

Exhibit 2, Islamists; we have too many political leaders in the world today who are only trying to “understand” Islamists.  Why does any nation need to only “understand” any group of people who have vowed to subjugate or annihilate them?  Does anyone really need to “understand” a rattle-snake that slithers into their home?  “Understanding may be helpful but it isn’t necessary.  What is essential is to “identify” evil and then destroy it, at least fight against it.  The current Obama Administration refuses to correctly “identify” (name) Islamic Terrorists for the evil organizations they are.  The Obama Administration will not even call them what the entire world knows that they are—two words—Islamic and Terrorists.

As is well-known in any realm of practical problem-solving, without proper labeling and identification no problem can be adequately dealt-with.

Yes America currently has a growing problem with our latest home-grown variety of evil—the radical, organized effort to undermine our justice system—but the problem in opposing it is not a lack of proper understanding, it is a lack of candor for proper labeling. The deadly problem of mislabeling evil was long ago described succinctly in the Bible:

“Woe to those who call evil good, and good evil; Who substitute darkness for light and light for darkness; Who substitute bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter!”
Isaiah 5:20 NASB

Too many people in American today, including many of our so-called leaders, when given a public platform with the opportunity to speak truth, choose instead to avoid the truth; they simply will not clearly and correctly label evil even when it comes crashing down upon our collective heads.

For the FBI director to make the inappropriate and illogical statement that, “I don’t understand evil and I cannot try,” at the funeral of a NYC police officer who was assassinated in a vicious act of indisputable evil is sadly illustrative of America’s latest problem with evil—it is not a problem of understanding, it is a problem of political- cowardliness. It would have been the unvarnished truth if Director Comey had stated:

“I will not name or call-out this evil; I will not identify it.”

This sort of abdication of truth-speaking leaves the field for influencing-the-public wide-open to the Al Sharpton’s and other race- demagogues, of the nation to call good evil and evil good; to call police-killing good and rule-of-law evil; to call rioting and pillaging good and law-enforcement evil.  It is the substitution of the darkness of lying (evil) for the powerful and righteous-light of truth (good).  Woe unto us if we are personally or collectively standing silently-by while this is happening!

FBI Director Comey was the highest-ranked member of the Obama Administration to attend the funeral—Obama was too unconcerned, and of course, too busy vacationing and playing golf to attend.

Shamefully, Director Comey won’t publically identify evil; of course, that’s his ticket for staying safe in the Obama Administration.

In an all-to-typical bureaucratic-word-spin, the Directory of the FBI is apparently claiming that he “cannot” even “try” to “understand” that the cold-blooded assassination of two uniformed police officers—guilty of being on-duty in their patrol car—is evil.  Discerning this simple reality does not require any scholarly “understanding.”

Understanding (“knowing and comprehending the nature or meaning of”) of evil can be left to the philosophers, pastors, priests, personal counselors and others; identifying evil and protecting US citizens from it is the primary duty of the Director of the FBI; and if he cannot identify evil, especially when it involves cold-blooded, premeditated assassination; then he neither has the character nor the experience to be the director of the FBI.

Woe to Director Comey and the numerous other Obama-minions like him who either totally sidestep any issue of good and evil, or else attempt to justify it:

“…call evil good, and good evil; Who substitute darkness for light and light for darkness; Who substitute bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter!”
Isaiah 5:20 NASB

 © 2014, Jerry Richardson


This entry was posted in Essays. Bookmark the permalink.

10 Responses to Feigning Ignorance of Evil

  1. Timothy Lane says:

    Quite so; you can’t fight an evil if you refuse to identify it because that would be politically incorrect (as is the case with jihadism, and for that matter with riotous obamathuggery such as the Occupiers and the recent anti-police mobs). Note that we had a similar example in World War II. Stalin was a lesser evil than Hitler at the time (for reasons Churchill once explained), but he was still a deadly evil — except to many on the Left (including much of the Roosevelt administration), who considered that as politically incorrect as their political descendants do jihadism.

  2. Jerry Richardson says:

    Great article by James Lewis in today’s American Thinker. Read it for yourself. Here are a few tidbits pertinent to my article:

    J.R.R. Tolkien and the Courage to Face Evil

    The famous Tolkien novels speak to us because they evoke our deepest dilemmas – most of all, the never-ending puzzle of ordinary people faced with unspeakable evil.
    Sophisticated liberals tell us there is no such thing as evil, but those voices have been muffled since ISIS started to broadcast outright murder videos through the social media.
    All the preening moralizers who blackmail Americans by race-baiting through the media are awfully quiet about ISIS. Ever notice that? But ISIS is not at all different from the other holy war gangs.
    The single weirdest thing about Obama is his inability to face the reality of evil – like the Islamist gang Boko Haram in Nigeria, which is still today raiding defenseless villages, killing and kidnapping women and children, abusing them in every way possible, and selling them on the slave market to the highest bidder.
    Hate-mongering is now the “in thing” on the left, and they don’t act differently from other mobs. Democratic “leaders” from Obama on down have chosen sides – against the cops, and for the Al Sharptons of this world.
    Sauron and Mordor are never far away in human affairs. What ultimately makes life worth living is the Frodos and Bilbos – the normal people, when they’ve had enough and choose to stand up and defeat the Dark Side.

    J.R.R. Tolkien and the Courage to Face Evil

    • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

      Long story short, the utopian Left thought they could create a peaceful, tolerant, and productive society if we could transcend that one thing the they believed led to so much strife: judging things as either good or bad.

      And it’s not quite as simple as all that, because the Left certainly does judge many things as being bad. But many of the things they deem “bad” are simply the expression of a reflexive opposite. Remember the Seinfeld episode where George is lamenting to Jerry that things just don’t work out for him? Well, Jerry says something like, “If every instinct you have is wrong, then the opposite must be right.” So George starts doing the opposite of what he would normally do and things work out great. He even gets hired by the Yankees as the assistant to the traveling secretary.

      But that hasn’t worked out so swimmingly in the crucible of reality. Rejecting, say, the idea of gender because previous generations believed in male and female as distinct entities is the road to destruction. And just as destructive are many of the other reflexive “opposite’ moral beliefs of the Left. Libertarians share this same weakness on a number of issues.

      The reflexive “opposite” defines much of the Left. It’s not that Obama has an inability to face evil. It’s that he’s defined “evil” as the opposite of what it is (as whatever has been traditional or typical in the West). In his worldview, white Christians are the bad guys and “people of color” Muslims are the good guys…or at least they are the victims.

      Even in the best of circumstances, people find it difficult to judge between good and evil if only because self-interest is just a blinding factor. We will tend to rationalize “good” as whatever we are desirous to do. But there is almost no chance to distinguish between good and evil if one has been raised in the Progressive/Marxist mindset. Oh, sure, as Dennis Prager notes, that does not mean they don’t believe in evil. But Dennis says the Left tends to hate the small evils (second-hand smoke) while ignoring the big evils (Islam).

      • Jerry Richardson says:


        But there is almost no chance to distinguish between good and evil if one has been raised in the Progressive/Marxist mindset. Oh, sure, as Dennis Prager notes, that does not mean they don’t believe in evil. But Dennis says the Left tends to hate the small evils (second-hand smoke) while ignoring the big evils (Islam).

        Right on target. Makes me very sad when I remember that we have had real-men in positions of leadership in our nation who knew the difference between good and evil and who weren’t afraid to confront “bad guys” in order to protect American citizens; nor were they afraid to have a robust and courageous foreign policy for the same reason.

        Yes, I remember Ronald Reagan and almost weep when I think of him being in the White House—as compared to the spineless wimp who now occupies it.

        • Timothy Lane says:

          Above all, what the Left considers evil is the beliefs of those who oppose them politically. The extreme evil of Islam (as demonstrated early today in the Paris atrocity) is something they simply refuse to acknowledge, partly because they see Muslims as liberal votes, partly because they reflexively oppose the national interest of Americans. After all, with Muslims all they think they have to sacrifice is the freedom to criticize or mock Islam — and they think they can live with that.

  3. Kung Fu Zu Kung Fu Zu says:

    The current Obama Administration refuses to correctly “identify” (name) Islamic Terrorists for the evil organizations they are. The Obama Administration will not even call them what the entire world knows that they are—two words—Islamic and Terrorists

    There were, as there are today, political appeasers, such as Neville Chamberlain (our modern counterpart is Barack Obama), who deluded themselves into thinking that they “understood” Hitler

    In light of the first statement, and many other facts, I think it is hard to contend Obama is similar to Chamberlain as regards delusion.

    The damage done by Obama is intentional and planned.

    • Jerry Richardson says:


      It is frightening to think that you are probably correct. Over time I have become convinced that it would be virtually impossible to be as incompetent as Obama’s actions make him seem. It is certainly a very reasonable explanation that he knows exactly what he is doing: Destroying America.

  4. Jerry Richardson says:

    The United States cannot fight “what we will not name.”

    …former Central Intelligence Agency analyst Clare Lopez told WND.
    Now vice president for research and analysis at the Washington-based Center for Security Policy, Lopez said President Obama and his entire administration “have withdrawn U.S. military forces, withdrawn U.S. power and influence from critical regions, abandoned former allies – Gadhafi, Mubarak, Israel – in order to favor jihadists, whether al-Qaida or the Muslim Brotherhood in Libya, Egypt, Iran, Iraq, Syria.”

    She said the administration refuses to use terminology that correctly identifies the enemy, which she identified as “forces of Islamic jihad and Shariah – Muslim terrorism – Islamic jihad – some combination of these that demonstrates we know that authoritative, mainstream, orthodox Islamic doctrine drives and justifies what Islamic terrorists do.”

    She said that the United States cannot fight “what we will not name.”

    U.S. Cannot Fight What We will not Name

    • Timothy Lane says:

      This brings home the important aspect, that leftists such as Barry Screwtape Obama are in fact on the other side. This no doubt helps explain why the Obama Gang refuses to identify the enemy (the satanic cult of jihadism), and is so unconcerned about the jihadist threat to free expression.

  5. Jerry Richardson says:

    Obama refuses to call Islamic Terrorism by its name: Islamic Terrorism.

    …in the immediate hours after the murders in Paris, the response from western leaders was scurrilously predictable in their refusal to describe the attack as an “Islamic terrorist attack.”

    Indeed, the responses from our own president, French President Hollande and British Prime Minster David Cameron all spouted the same empty pabulum in asserting that the Paris attack had nothing to do with Islam or any religion for that matter. But the hollow comments coming from our own leaders are steeped in the stench of appeasement and cowardice.

    The first comments came from Josh Earnest, the White House spokesman, who refused to even call the massacre an act of terrorism, but made sure to add the now typical non-sequitor which now routinely follows Islamic terrorist attacks, that “Islam is a religion of peace” and therefore no [one] should associate…the “extremists” in Paris with Islam.

    Then President Obama issued his own statement, but in keeping with his administration’s 6 year old prohibition on using the term “Islamic terrorism,” he simply referred to the attack as “terrorism” — a vanilla term conspicuously devoid of any descriptive term explaining the motivation behind the attack…(But admittedly, calling this an act of “terrorism” was a step up from the classification of Major Nidal Hassan’s similar massacre at Fort Hood as “workplace violence.”)

    Evil Cannot Be Labeled

    If the forces of evil both domestically and foreign are to be prevented from pillaging, butchering, intimidating, or subjecting innocent people then somehow in this nation and other nations of the western world craven-cowards must be removed from high-public office and replaced by men or women of courage.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *