The politician as pathological liar

The politician as pathological liar

Renzo Giorgetti

Source: https://www.heliodromos.it/il-politico-come-bugiardo-patologico/

Sovereignty, understood as the exercise of power in order to organise and govern communities of people, has always had in traditional civilisations a deep rootedness in the sacred, coming to be, more than a simply human fact, the manifestation of transcendent forces. The monarch wields a power that is first and foremost the direct emanation of the sacred, of truly higher influences that legitimise him far more than any consent obtained or offered by his rulers. Ideally, the monarch is above all a pontiff, exercising his ministry (ministerium = service) ensuring harmony in his realm in consonance with the cosmic order, itself a reflection of that sacred order that forms and governs all that exists. The holder of kingship is the mediator between earth and sky, he is the centre, the point of contact between these realities, acting to ensure their communication and interaction (1). This quality, not only human but above all transcendent, was considered as fully real and, even when in the process of dissolution, an ideal tendency to which reference could always be made (as we can see in both Egyptian and Chinese rituals, as well as in the pontifical conception of the Roman principality and the medieval notion of Sacrum Imperium) (2).

The sovereign as a purely worldly power, who imposes himself by eliminating his adversaries or obtaining their consent with benefits, already belongs to a later period, in which power begins to become something of an end in itself, a self-referential reality with less and less reference to extra-mundane aims. The figure of the 'politician' begins to emerge, an individual who obtains power only by virtue of his powers of strength and cunning, and who operates as a simple administrator who must from time to time gain consensus or as a tyrant who concentrates all power in himself by constantly fighting against his adversaries. Politics is increasingly defined as an 'art' (a profane art, of course, no longer based on rta, the sacred order of the world, but on anrta, lying, infringing and subverting this order) (3) as an activity that is exhausted in the simple management of human relations and that finds in the conquest of power the most important, if not the only, aim.

A development (certainly not chronological, but rather ideal) of this evolution could be outlined in the following way: from the priest-king who mirrors the heavenly order on earth, we move on to the warrior-king who imposes himself solely by force, to those who buy consent with riches or the promise of their attainment, and finally to those who rule through ressentiment and social envy, exploiting the will of the last to climb the rungs of the hierarchical ladder (4).

In the current state of upheaval, things have reached such a point (the political world is the vanguard of dissolution) that it is not even the servant who has power, but the outcaste, the untouchable, the individual who stands outside any order. In the 'upside-down world', such a human type, instead of being relegated to the bottom of the social ladder, instead occupies its highest places, in the inversion having 'fallen' from the bottom to then 'settle', as sediment, at the top of the inverted pyramid of power (on this last subject, we refer to our previous discussion) (5).

Such a being, placing itself outside of any order, will reject, fighting (even without being aware of it) everything that is harmony, balance, justice.

Frithjof Schuon makes an extremely precise analysis of it, fundamental to understanding its conceptions and mode of action (6). The chandala, the pariah, the untouchable 'tends to realise the psychological possibilities excluded by other men', transgresses by nature, finds satisfaction in what well-balanced and successful specimens reject. He represents the ultimate in impurity, in degradation, the ultimate in 'psychological dissonance'. Capable of 'everything and nothing', he may engage in the 'most bizarre and sinister' activities (the acrobat, the actor, the executioner), transgressing established rules, like a saint in reverse, distinguished by his abnegation in adhering to an unbalanced and unbalanced lifestyle. His soul has no true individual centre of gravity, his life unfolds 'in periphery and inversion', in a transgression that will give him 'somehow a centre he does not have', illusorily freeing him from his equivocal nature. His is a centrifugal and limitless subjectivity, which leads him to flee the law, because it would lead him back to that centre that is so totally alien to his nature. He is an inferior, and will always behave as such. Not only does he not have the mentality of the superior, he cannot even conceive it exactly: that is why every value is ignored by him, if not openly despised. Honesty, sincerity, honour, in his eyes simply do not exist, representing only an illusion, an obstacle limiting his rise to power. His whole being is based on falsehood, which completely dominates him, making him the first victim of his lies, which he often even believes, making him live in a reality even more illusory than the one to which he condemns those subject to him.

One can now understand why lying reaches a level that can be considered pathological (7). It is no longer even a question of 'reason of state' or Machiavellianism, the contemporary politician lies because lying is his very essence. He lies because it is a necessity, because his whole world is based on it, giving him consistency and identity, defining him and providing him with a role in the world. Otherwise he would be forced to have a centre, to adhere to an order, something inconceivable to him if not impossible, as it would condemn him to extinction. Its survival is based on this. He is therefore not to be condemned, because at bottom his is only an instinct of preservation. After all, such individuals have always existed; the only real problem lies in their position within the social body, a position that is currently the most erroneous, that is, at the top, at the opposite extreme of that which would be most appropriate for them and which they have always occupied at all times, when the world was still in a phase of normality, not yet overturned and subverted in its fundamental values.

Renzo Giorgetti


1 A topic we have already discussed, with examples, in Com'è difficile cavalcare la tigre, Solfanelli, Chieti, 2020, pp.33-36.


2 Obviously the holder of kingship is not naive. His duty is to do whatever it takes to ensure that the norm, the sacred order, remains fulfilled (Manavadharmashastra 7.10). If he must always act without deception, he can keep his plans hidden, so that his enemies cannot take advantage of his moral conduct that is righteous and therefore necessarily more limited than that of one who acts without scruples.

3 Ineluctably linked to anrta is nrrti, dissolution, death.

4 On this already René Guénon, in the seventh chapter of Autorité spirituelle et Pouvoir temporel, Guy Trédaniel, Paris, 1984 (1st ed. 1929). In these different ways of experiencing and interpreting sovereignty, the functional partitioning of Indo-European societies (priestly, warrior, mercantile, servile) will have been recognised, an interpretative criterion that is also valid for the formulation of a metaphysics of history and a better understanding of the present age. Cf. How difficult it is to ride the tiger, idem, pp.28-58.

5 A discussion we have dealt with in greater depth in Why do the worst always rule in democracies?, now the second chapter of La società da liquidare, Solfanelli, Chieti, 2021, pp.32-37. 

6 This theme is amply developed in Caste e razze, Edizioni all'insegna del Veltro, Parma, 1979, pp.11-16, from which we have taken the quoted passages.

7 In today's inverted reality, this situation goes from pathological to physiological.