The Ethos of Hipocrisy by George Karlson

There is a certain profound solace in the moment of discovering someone else’s hypocrisy, and an even profounder solace in pointing it out – normally to someone else, unless one is in the midst of an argument with the hypocrite in question. Indeed, one has many opportunities to notice this trait in others, and comment upon it oneself if so inclined; the inescapable irony is that while most everyone would believe that exposing hypocrisy is a good thing, most everyone would also believe that someone engaged in an act of exposing the hypocrisy of others while concealing their own hypocrisy, is the greater hypocrite. This implies that all the people who suppose this, and who would gladly expose the greatest hypocrite in question, must be free of hypocrisy – as surely they would not themselves become hypocrites in order to expose other hypocrites. It must then be the case that the true and self-aware hypocrite, much like the truly and self-consciously evil, rather than the merely misunderstood, miseducated, or misguided malefactor, must be a very rare creature indeed. Unless, of course, almost everyone denouncing hypocrisy is themselves engaged in an act of consummate hypocrisy – which would imply that hypocrisy is so common as to be ubiquitous. This would present a problem for anyone who is not a hypocrite – since he would be practically alone in the world. It also would present a problem for any hypocrite – too much competition. Fortunately, this tremendous problem probably does not exist, since it would surely be too cynical to assume that the numerous people denouncing hypocrisy are guilty of the very trait they condemn in others. Indeed, since the hypocrite is obviously outnumbered and probably outgunned by all the honest people in the world who always mean what they say and do what they mean, and who realize that encouraging others to commit depraved acts is really more honorable that committing them alone in secret while preaching love and goodwill toward men, it seems to the author only honorable – since he sincerely believes that the only worthy fight is a fair one between equally armed opponents so that the underlying virtue of each can be made apparent -- to avoid any possible taint of hypocrisy by advising the hypocrite on how better to consciously fulfill his ethos of dissimulation.

The first thing any well-trained hypocrite will do, and the most essential, is to eschew hypocrisy absolutely. Obviously there is no point in advancing positions you do not believe in, and advocating deeds and pursuing goals you find to be without real merit, if everyone thinks that you have no problem with doing so. If you did, no one would take you seriously, in which case you might as well have acted according to your own inclinations anyway. On the other hand, you probably don’t actually want to denounce hypocrisy loudly and constantly, for fear of being thought a hypocrite who is trying to draw attention away from your own flaw. This leaves the only safe option as either a cautious and sober silence, which makes for a very boring essay, or the advocacy of an absurd position that no one would take seriously, such as the one that hypocrisy is actually an excellent ethos to adopt. This means that one can still expose the hypocrisy of all one’s opponents, without the danger of having one’s own hypocrisy exposed, because one has already exposed it oneself – and anyway, everyone knows that someone pretending to praise hypocrisy is really doing it for effect, and trying to criticize hypocrites without taking himself too seriously and turning into one.

Having cleverly established one’s own consummate honestly by making a subtle pretense at that odd form of humility here expressed as the admission of one’s own hypocrisy, it is safe to voyage into new regions of insincerity and liberation from the shackles of inconveniences like "truth." Why stop at appearing to advocate positions one doesn’t hold only when it happens to be expedient, and only when one happens to adhere to beliefs other than those which are truly useful and convenient? The entire joy and flexible (some might even say, liberatively and refreshingly absent) purpose of hypocrisy is omitted if one becomes a true believer in whatever one’s "cause" is at the time – not to mention that turning oneself into a blind fanatic is hardly something a self-respecting and ethical hypocrite would want to do. That’s right – this is really an essay on the ethical structure of a self-aware and deliberate hypocrite. This means pointing out that the only way to stay a hypocrite constantly is to ensure that one never believes in what one does or says, and never says what one means. The only way to be sure of this, is not to believe in anything, and never to hold any particular meaning as inherently or essentially significant.

It is this possibility that makes hypocrisy the most consistent ethos possible – since every other more dualistic ethical system ultimately involves at least one self-negating or self-contradictory premise that makes it possible for it to be subverted by a hypocrite: the possibility that one could seem to adhere to it without really believing it. The only thing a fully competent hypocrite can be subverted by is himself, however. This is why, when keeping your friends close and your enemies closer, it is definitely safest to be one’s own worst enemy.

Fortunately, this condition makes it easy to fulfill the purpose of this essay while remaining entirely ethical, since if taken to be accurate, the famous words of Hassan Sabbah, the Old Man of the Mountain and master of the Assassins – as delivered to us as his legendary "last words" in the famous condemnation of the hypocrisies of the power elite, by the great William S. Burroughs – will surely dispel any unfortunate beliefs or misconceptions this perverse commentary might have inspired:

Nothing Is True, Everything Is Permitted.