Dear Friends,
It seems to me, one strange thing about the world we live in, is that to question a person who has been caught in lie after lie, is very rude, but it is acceptable, nay, duty, to call a person who has been caught in the truth over and over, a liar. Examples abound, but what I am interested in is, why? Why is it that when a person, we all know in our hearts is lying, we are so loathe to call him or her a liar, but the default position for someone who has been proven to have told the truth, is that they are lying, unless proven otherwise? The consequences for humanity are deep and resounding. Economies have been gutted, entire races have been slaughtered, persecution of every sort has flowed from the lips of liars, connivers and outright psychopaths… that have ruled humanity since time immemorial.
Machiavelli tapped into this in his letter to the Medici clan. In that renowned work he states that if someone, even a persistent liar, constantly claims to be telling the truth, most people will go along, even when they know he is lying. Machiavelli used the example of Pope Alexander the VI, since he was a renowned and accomplished liar. In that piece Machiavelli wrote that a prince need not keep his word if doing so would put him at any disadvantage. Combining lies with bad faith, so psychopathic, but quite progressive. Nevertheless, why is it that such a system works so well, when it comes to ruling humanity… Or does it? Perhaps being a liar and conniver is not best for society but only for the liar.
In modern times both Clintons are renowned and adroit liars, yet to question their word is considered the epitome of rudeness. His lie under oath, and again to the public, that he didn’t have sex with that woman, Miss Lewinski, is both proven and notorious. Her lie that she had no idea she had wiped her server, like with a cloth, is also notorious and even laughable. Yet the media bends over backwards to listen intently, to what is most likely a lie, every time they open their mouths. We are supposed to believe everything they say without question. This has the effect of making everyone complicit in the lies, and become an accomplice with the liars, connivers and fraudsters. Which is also amazing to me, why would we take on a sin that we need not, for the benefit of a deceiver, who is deceiving us?
Trump, on the other hand, is proven to be telling the truth over and over, yet is called a liar. When Trump mentioned the rape problem in Sweden, the media went apoplectic over it, calling him a liar. Yet when they went to Sweden to prove him a liar, they had to quietly slink back without releasing a word of what they found. Even when their reporters were harassed, they refused to report it, because it proved Trump right. The Russian collusion hoax, that we spent 40 million dollars and 3 years of his Presidency trying to prove, is just another example of this. To this day, no matter how many times Trump is proven to be right, the default position is that he is lying, until proven truthful. Why is it that so many people think it rude to call a liar, a liar, but not give an honest man the same courtesy?
Now, there are glittering lies and ugly truths, that explains some of it, but not all. Kipling also spoke to the subject in verse in his Gods of the Copybook Heading. Explaining the phenomenon but not the reason behind it. Obviously, the reason the liar connives and commits fraud is for personal gain, but why do we go along? Some probably are so mired with their own lives they don’t have the energy to think it through and just go with convention, others might vote the way their parents and grandparents voted and that is good enough for them, while there may be some who nihilistically want humanity to suffer, and so don’t as much believe but abet. Maybe all these responses are sufficient to answer the question, but I worry it is some deep unconscious misery quotient we all have, living in our id… making us crave suffering by whatever means?
Sincerely,
John Pepin
