Christians are being persecuted. But, in our late Christian culture, this is taking an unusual form. There were persecutions under Nero, which led to the martyrdoms of Peter and Paul; and there were persecutions under Diocletian so severe that many of the bishops who attended the Nicene Council at Constantine’s request — held in the Anatolian city of Nicaea (it was originally going to be held in Ankara, where I write this) — were maimed and disfigured from the tortures which they had suffered only 20 years before. Modern persecution takes a different form: incomprehension, ridicule and dismissal. The Overton Window is incompatible with the Stained Glass Window.
Two weeks ago Eric Weinstein offered us just the latest of the memorable ‘two out of three’ formulations. Norman Stone wrote in his book Turkey that we can only have two out of the three of Islam, politics and economics; and Dani Rodrik wrote in his book The Globalisation Paradox that we can only have two out of the three of democracy, a globalised economy and the nation state. Eric Weinstein has thought of another two out of three. He says it is impossible for any intellectual to have all three of the following: a large audience, an independent mind and a sterling reputation. By ‘independent mind’ Weinstein means a willingness to tell the truth.
The argument is that it is impossible to have a large audience and a good reputation and tell the truth. If one tells the truth one can have a large audience, but one forfeits one’s reputation; or one can tell the truth and have a good reputation but must rest content with a small audience — one’s dining table, for instance. Most of the famous faces of our time bend their voices to the wind.
Weinstein is continually coming up with good ideas, so I hesitate to call this Weinstein’s First Law, so let’s call it Weinstein’s Law of Public Pontification. He has identified a modern problem. It was also an ancient and a medieval problem, and perhaps it has always been true, but most of us would ruefully have to admit that we have supposed that for a century or two it has seemed to be an invalid law. Charles Darwin had a large audience, good reputation and told the truth as he saw it. So did Cardinal Manning. So did John Stuart Mill. But they lived in the 19th century. The 20th century was, by and large, a century in which we could innocently believe that, in the West at least, our civilisation was committed to the truth. In retrospect, however, we have discovered that we were gently guided to this view by institutions like the BBC. The 21st century has witnessed not only the rise of less controlled forums — courtesy of the internet — which have enabled us to become conscious of this, but also the rise of a more explicit censorship than has been seen in a liberal country since the 17th century.
Marina Hyde has just written a bold piece for the Guardian in which she mocks Russell Brand for his recent baptism in the Thames. It is easy to mock, though one looks on with admiration to see the skill with which she does it. She contrasts Brand the Christian and Brand the “creep” who “denies criminal allegations”. She throws in a few vulgar jokes: “Thames Water is no longer responsible for the biggest piece of shit in the river.” She seems to know about Christianity; at least, she explains what ‘theodicy’ is — impressive: it’s a Leibniz word. But then she wonders about whether Bear Grylls as scout master is happy continuing to befriend someone accused of rape. She accuses Grylls of “twee twattery” and “whining”, and Brand of being a “wingnut” who goes on about “the deep state/Bill Gates/the plandemic”. It is all very invigorating.
I wonder what Marina Hyde thinks when she looks in the mirror, or when she looks at her painting in the attic. For she has a large audience — she writes for the Guardian — and she has good reputation — she writes for the Guardian — so I wonder if she ever wonders about the truth. (I see from Wikipedia that she originally began by using her double-barrelled name in journalism until she was advised that it would not wash with Sun readers, so she renamed herself ‘Hyde’. Was this a joke, or a happy coincidence? Wikipedia does not say.) Dorian Gray and Jekyll and Hyde: perhaps Robert Louis Stevenson and Oscar Wilde saw the writing on the wall. (That’s a biblical reference. Brand, if he wants to reply to Hyde, should send a small card to her with Mene mene tekel upharsin written on it.)
The problem is that the mirror is not working, or Jekyll is still in the attic, antiquated with truth. For Marina Hyde, though good at scorn, seems not to care about truth. She is, in fact, though she seems not to know it, or be willing to admit it, the enemy of the enemies of the deep state. She is, in fact, a cog in the mechanism of the deep state. What is the deep state? Well, one answer is that it is fronted by all the people who have a large audience, a good reputation and no concern with truth.
Christianity is concerned with truth. And this seems to have been its undoing. You may disagree with Christianity; you may dispute that it has the truth. But it is emphatic in using the language of truth, and of being extremely vigilant about not only lies, but also hypocrisy. (In fact, it is possible to say that Christianity, in insisting not only on our observing the law, but also changing our inward condition, invented hypocrisy, since it condemned as hypocritical the religion of those who simply observe the law outwardly.) So that won’t wash, will it? If Brand is Christian in the sense that he is willing to use the language of truth, then he is clearly no longer a member of the modern atheistic deep state. This is one reason — there may be others, of course — why he is now persona non grata.
Eric Weinstein is grappling with the difficulty of how to hold onto a concern with truth in contemporary conditions. It is a good question. Do we really think it is possible to ‘push back’, as we now say, against the forces of the deep state that care not a jot for truth: not for religious truth, not for historical truth, not for scientific truth? Or do we have to form sects of a few members, and defend the truth in private, in small communities? Is the Daily Sceptic one small gateway to a minor community of Jekylls concerned with truth? Or can it help overturn the Overton Window? Can it help clear out the Augean stables of our deep state by sweeping away all the Hydes? (That is my version of a vulgar joke. Tit for tat.)
Is it possible that politics was always Hydian, and that in the last century we were suffering from an extremely well-constructed secular illusion whereby we thought we lived in an Open Society? The only consoling thought is that if this is true — that it was an illusion — then at least we have come to our senses and begun to notice it.
Dr. James Alexander is a Professor in the Department of Political Science at Bilkent University in Turkey.
To join in with the discussion please make a donation to The Daily Sceptic.
Profanity and abuse will be removed and may lead to a permanent ban.