Organized Lying

In sum, social relations in general are sexual relations and nothing but sexual relations, and in turn, the sheer animosity towards sexual relations and thus social relations in general on the part of our local, state, and federal officials and leaders renders all of them as anti-social and inhumane demons and monsters. And historically, state and society have designated certain spaces such as baths and brothels and spas as places for engagement in these basic social relations that are of a sexual nature. And as we said, basic political and social life is eclipsed and overshadowed by fear-mongering and lies. We defined “fear-mongering” in the previous post. But we must also address where all the lies come from.

John Mearsheimer argued that in order to know what lying is and where it comes from, we must first know its opposite, which is truth-telling. In turn, Mearsheimer designated the term “deception” as an umbrella term for lying, spinning, and concealment. To borrow from Mearsheimer:

“Truth telling is when an individual does his best to state the facts and tell a story in a straightforward and honest way. Every person invariably has limited knowledge about the details of any case and biases as well. Memories can also be faulty and it is impossible to relate every fact one knows when telling a story. The key point, however, is that a truth teller makes a serious effort to overcome any biases or selfish interests that he might have and report the relevant facts in as fair-minded a way as he can. Deception, in contrast, is where an individual purposely takes steps that are designated to prevent others from knowing the full truth – as that individual understands it – about a particular matter. The deliberate aim, in other words, is not to provide a straightforward or comprehensive description of events.”

Hence, both the truth teller and the liar perceive a certain advantage or benefit to their respective strategies, in the sense that the truth teller perceives that the strategy of truth telling has an overall advantage or benefit that lying does not have, and in turn, the liar perceives that there is an overall advantage or benefit to lying that truth telling does not have. But overall, the downside of lying is greater than the upside given that lying “creates a poisonous culture of dishonesty” that is hard to overcome, according to Mearsheimer. Lying about foreign policy – which arguably is the root of it all – “might spill into the national arena and cause significant trouble by legitimizing and encouraging dishonesty in daily life.”

A lack of reliable information upon which to base very basic decisions, the destruction of the policy-making process, the undermining of the rule of law, and the alienation of the public to the point where they are “willing to countenance some form of authoritarian rule” are the four major consequences of pervasive lying in government, as Mearsheimer contended. Not to mention the backfiring and “blowback” of lying in public life. Nevertheless, there is and always has been “organized lying” which seeks to “shred” basic facts and the truth. But then, reality hits us in the face in an “unexpected” manner. As Hannah Arendt wrote:

“Lies are often much more plausible, more appealing to reason, than reality, since the liar has the great advantage of knowing beforehand what the audience wishes or expects to hear. He has prepared his story for public consumption with a careful eye to making it credible, whereas reality has the disconcerting habit of confronting us with the unexpected, for which we were not prepared.”

Thus, and in the very end, the liar “is defeated by reality, for which there is no substitute” and as a result, the liar “will find it impossible to get away with lying on principle.”