Having to 'bite the bullet' or why it is sometimes said that '

The Saint is a 'Liar'

   Have you ever considered what a politician might go through in having to relate cold hard truth to any potential constituency on any matter concerning something of 'vital importance? You might believe that telling the truth at all times would have to be absolutely essential, but sometimes, due to the limited capacities of their constituencies, these individuals in fact cannot 'at all' tell the 'truth' as it is so called, without losing voters altogether. Now, the simplistic religionist thinker might comment here, that one must always tell the truth, but.... what then exactly 'is' truth and what exactly constitutes an outright lie?

   Let's say we are in a house in Germany in 1942 and the SS knocks at the door and asks if there are any Jews present and; I have a house full of Jews. What do you think I should answer? Of course I will answer something like “there are no Jews here”, and perhaps I will even go to extravagant lengths in order to make my claim credible. Believe it or not though, I know people who have told me that they would turn them over to the SS simply because 'they'…'could not tell a lie'. As you can well imagine; with friends like 'that'... you will never need enemies.

    But then again, if you are a religionist you might also argue something like: “well it is written in the commandments of the good book that 'thou shalt not lie'”. Of course what this person is 'in fact' stating is that they think winning Brownie points toward getting into some heaven of their imagining, is worth 'more' than the life of their Jewish friends. Well, here is some truth for you: the above mentioned types are in serious need of psychological counseling, a good course in straight thinking and perhaps even, a damn good thrashing in order to make sure this piece of common sense registers with them.

   The reality is that it is often necessary to 'dissimulate' or misrepresent something of seeming importance in order to serve a greater good. One must have the capacity to see and know the difference between a misrepresentation that is malicious, and one that may save a life or serve a greater cause regardless of what it may seem to cost them personally.

   If we have to discuss something very 'adult' with a room full of people and there are small children present whom might not have the capacity to understand, is it not often necessary to defer to those children in terms of what we might discuss until such time that their parents can send them off to bed? And so too it is with a politician in a room full of people where a percentage of them think like children; and so it is that we who do not think like children, seeing this, then begrudge them our vote. Take for example a politician who may be quite sympathetic to a certain constituency, (say that of Gays and Lesbians or perhaps those who are pro choice), but, might not be able to openly express his real feelings. In a 'red state', that politician may even have to go so far as to take on the role of the villain to the point where he may be perceived to 'blue staters' as being vehemently right wing. Of course if he wins the election because of his successful dissimulation, he will most likely do a 180 degree turnaround and then be perceived of as being dishonest or flip-flopping by the red staters .If he will later be running for a second term or seeking another public office, this will probably cost him quite dearly; however, he has done what he feels is the right thing morally.

   The problem with dissimulation is that anyone can rationalize it's use. The truth of the matter is difficult if not impossible for the average voter to determine simply because; that element of 'malevolence' which would make the dissimulation an outright lie is often a quite subjective thing. It would take a very objective individual with their emotions well under wraps, and with a patience and capacity for profoundly deep thinking, to be able to mull over and weigh out the benefits for society and the planet as a whole. Of course since these levels of sensitivity do not prevail in any broad swatches of our societies, that politician who has ultimately done the truly 'right thing' by properly dissimulating on some important matter when it was indicated, may well be perceived of as a liar; and therefore it is sometimes said that “sometimes the 'saint' is a 'liar'”.

   We live in a society of simplistic thinkers that all too often behave just like sheep. And of course, like sheep, they have to be led around and fed also. When they do express themselves as a whole at all, as in when they vote, they still 'act out' with the kind of mob mentality that sees white hats and black hats as good guys and bad guys. When they hear about things happening in our world like global warming, they have a tendency to say things like: “ Oh, but 'they' will take care of it”, but; ask them who 'they' are, and they themselves haven't even a clue.

    If you were to tell them that the  'they' in question, were composed of enlightened men and women that were formed into conscious organic entities attempting to get things accomplished on the planetary level, and that 'they', were being handicapped by 'them', they would think you were crazy. If you were to try to tell them the truth and describe their condition to them as being one where they had very little capacity to understand simple cause and effect relationships; you would only push their buttons and anger them. If you were to further attempt to explain to them that they technically fit the definition of an Imbecile (which is one that cannot understand simple cause and effect relationships) they would just put you to scorn and, if you were in the wrong place at the wrong time and told them they should therefore not have the right to vote because of this; they might give you a good beating as well, into the bargain.

    But the truth is, that the populace is absolutely rife with imbeciles of many a sort, and dangerous ones at that; and so it is, that at times the enlightened individual will find them self in a position where they must dissimulate to the vulgar in order that some 'truth' of a higher order might prevail. Unfortunately, this higher 'truth' – which should by the way – be 'intrinsic' in the nature of whatever it is that is being put forth by that individual who is utilizing the tool of dissimulation,- will NOT be perceived  by 'them' as such through the veil of their own ignorance.  

   How did we come to have to express this level of deception in the human condition? I can recommend a book to you that might help. It is called “The Liars Tale: A history of Falsehood” by Jeremy Campbell. The book lays out the history of deception in both the plant and animal (which includes us) kingdoms. Though his book is overly 'wordy' and he waxes quite verbose at times, nonetheless, it will shed light on this most important subject.  It would not hurt at all either to familiarize yourself with a copy of Darwin's Origin of the Species, or at least a good overview of 'it'.

  If you feel in reading this that you have been somehow insulted, then perhaps you should consider that YOU are probably part of the problem.