The phrase ‘post-truth’ was invented, it seems, about 10 years ago. As usual, books were published with it in the title five years later – by Matthew d’Ancona, Evan Davis, Julian Biaggini and others. Davis and d’Ancona used the language to defend the establishment. And so has Sam Leith this week in the Spectator in a piece about Russell Brand. The central assumption of these concerned establishment gate-keepers – those writers who keep the shutters on the Overton Window to prevent the breaking of the glass – is that Brexit, Trump, Climate Denialism, Vaccine Scepticism etc. are signs of favouring ‘emotion’, ‘clicks’, ‘monetisation’ over against ‘facts’, ‘evidence’ and ‘truth’.
We can understand why they write this way. But this way of seeing things is spectacularly unreflective. It is, in a word, reactionary. Not reactionary in the good sense of the word, but in the bad sense of the word, where it denotes a jerk of the knee. Sam Leith, for instance, jerks his knee against those who are at least questioning why it happens to be now that Russell Brand’s activities are being subject to first media and then police and legal scrutiny.
In the 1960s Hannah Arendt proposed that politics has never been about truth. If this is so, then the phrase ‘post-truth politics’, which has been used heavily in the last decade, is not a useful way of making sense. The establishment can use ‘post-truth politics’ as a way of stigmatising the sort of politics they dislike; they can also use it to imply that they are on the side of truth, facts, evidence, reason – all those high prestige winning-the-argument terms. But if Arendt is right – and she is right – then this is, in short, complete rubbish. The ostentatious anti-bullshitters are just producing a more sophisticated type of bullshit than the bullshitters they inveigh against.
But it is not sophisticated enough to see anything clearly, because it suffers from ideological contortion. Sometimes it seems to me that modern Europe and America are – the West is – nothing more than a sophisticated version of China. Russia, China and the rest are unsophisticated because they use old-fashioned methods: coercion, corruption, propaganda, intelligence. The West is sophisticated because when it wants to do a thing it goes through Public Opinion. Consider COVID-19, Climate Change, Rainbow Flags, all those delightful inverted methods of imposing order on us. The fact is that we, the free citizens of the West, believe this rubbish, and not only obey the rules but enforce them. No one anywhere else believes, even when they obey.
Let me try to get clear about what is going on with this thing called truth.
It is useful to turn to an extremely able Dutch political theorist called Frank Ankersmit. In a book entitled Political Representation, published in 2002, he made an exceptionally interesting contrast between two antitheses.
- The first antithesis is truth versus falsity.
- The second antithesis is wisdom versus folly.
The difference between them is very simple: Truth is absolutely right; falsity is absolutely wrong: so it is right that truth should destroy or eliminate falsity.
Wisdom, however, tolerates folly. This is because the fools might be right. It would not be very wise to destroy or eliminate folly. To destroy folly would suggest a lack of wisdom: since wisdom involves a good sense of how much reality humankind can bear. (T.S. Eliot: it cannot bear very much.)
- Truth, in other words, is divine or godlike.
- Wisdom, by contrast, is human-all-too-human.
These two antitheses involve a different attitude to good and evil. In terms of truth we seek the good, and must destroy or eliminate evil. In terms of wisdom we seek the good, but must live with evil, and its various acolytes – bad and ignorance and waste and corruption and decadence.
(One difference between the red pill brigade and the blue pill brigade is that the former adopts the truth/falsity antithesis to dismiss everything that is going on, while the latter adopts the wisdom/folly antithesis to try to explain everything that is going on. Both are valid. I’d say both are necessary.)
Now, Ankersmit says that in politics we should prefer the wisdom/folly antithesis. We should accept that our political opposition is not an enemy. We should not destroy or ostracise or cancel anyone. We should respect others. We should, as Adam Smith suggested, sympathise with others. We should, as Kant suggested, try to put ourselves in the position of others. And this is obviously part of our modern political sensibility. It is part of the Ofcom insistence on impartiality (spurious though this impartiality is in practice).
But there is a problem. The wisdom/folly antithesis is doubtless the basis of good politics – most of the time, certainly in normal times. Ankersmit recruits Burke to show that part of what Burke was saying in 1790 was that the revolutionaries were so sure of themselves because they chose truth/falsity over wisdom/folly, and hence had the justification they needed for war, terror and the guillotine.
The problem is that if we accept this analysis – that wisdom/folly should be preferred to truth/falsity – then we have no strong way of objecting to a political monopoly that claims to be based on truth. We have no way to oppose a consensus. We have no way of trying to object to corruption and conspiracy. We have no way of dealing with an emergency and the exceptional politics it throws up. We are, in short, and to quote Sam Leith against Sam Leith, “adrift in an entirely post-truth environment”.
Let it be said clearly. We have always, in politics, been adrift in an entirely post-truth environment. Read Plato’s Republic – the very first complete book about politics – to see how this is the oldest problem in politics. (Plato, too, like Matthew d’Ancona, Evan Davis and Sam Leith, wanted to defend truth from mere opinion: doxa in Greek.)
The reason this has become a problem in the last few centuries is because of the imperial expansion of politics. Since 1789 we have witnessed a vast politicisation of the world. And with that vast politicisation we have seen the usually admirable extension of the liberal antithesis of wisdom/folly into our daily politics. Toleration of others, justified opposition, and all that. But as the state has extended its activities beyond the usual ‘law and war’ of a hundred years ago, to health, education, and the entirety of what Germans call the ‘life-world’, creating secular religions of various sorts, and funding scholarship, so we have entered a new earth in which it is hard to tell the difference between the two things which Plato was extremely concerned to keep distinct.
The point is that before our modernity there was a world of truth/falsity outside or beyond the inner world of politics and wisdom/folly. In our modernity it is hard to tell the difference between them. For most of us there is only the monopolistic doxa of the mainstream institutions who are constitutionally incapable of recognising their own biases. Here we have the ideology of ‘settled science’ and ‘established consensus’: the world of the IPCC, the WHO, the Royal Society, Nature and Science, the Meteorological Office, the EU, the BBC, and other twisted-distorted-corrupt-established institutions. Including the Universities. This is a world in which politicians see no clear distinction between public service and private activity, pay for censorship by offering or withholding advertisement revenues, and behave conspiratorially in the service of mostly failing but sometimes successful corporate assaults on the mountainous possibility of monopolistic wealth.
A hundred years ago F.S. Oliver wrote a book on Walpole, a few chapters of which were excerpted for the sake of its maxims of government. In Politics and Politicians (1934) Oliver was giving us Machiavelli up to date, reminding us that politicians should not be expected to tell the truth, that politicians should not be despised for this, and that politics was one of the more meritorious ways of spending a life exactly because it was an education in a particular type of wisdom – practical wisdom. The problem is that we suffer from a press and perhaps a public which is incapable of making such a Machiavellian assessment. Our newspapers continually chastise politicians for inconsistency, for particular untruths and for the entire set of elisions, hypocrisies, frauds, pomposities. But this is the pot calling the kettle black: it is just a rival and unofficial set of opinions moving against and to some extent with the official opinions the government expects, hopes, bribes, tricks and forces us to have. The problem is that the press has almost no capacity or authority to assert truth. It is just a rival claim to relative wisdom: a balancing of the folly of the government with the folly of some of the vocal among the governed.
This would not matter much if politics were limited to law and war. But the extension of government has recently been overlaid by the techniques of technology and the culture that has seemed to accompany technology: namely, the culture of exquisite and immediate crisis, allied to the culture of continual and unexpected moral ‘outrage’ – synthetic or natural – and allied also to the culture of apparent scientific expertise. This last one is the real problem: that ‘science’ or ‘the science’ which has been corralled and corrupted by being subjected to political imperatives.
Let me be exact. The problem is that the political field – the field of wisdom/folly – has expanded. In expanding, like a red giant, it has encompassed other fields, including the great outer field of truth/falsity.
I do not expect politicians to tell the truth. I suppose I am Machiavellian about this. But I do expect politicians to leave the truth alone, and not to usurp truth/falsity for the sake of holding onto power and serving whatever interests they serve at any particular moment. I am not Machiavellian about that.
Now, this may be too fine a distinction: but I think anyone who 1. understands anything about politics and 2. shares my judgement of the politics since COVID-19, has to make such a distinction. If one is too Machiavellian, then one has no way of criticising the COVID-19 policy. And, indeed, alas, Ankersmit seems to have supported it. But if one is not Machiavellian at all, and perhaps too many people are not Machiavellian enough, then they tend to believe politicians, especially when flanked by scientists. The fact that Johnson’s words about COVID-19 are still ‘the narrative’ despite his own fate and reputation is a sign of how effective the entire trick was.
What we call ‘mainstream’ political culture is simply incapable of understanding the importance of a genuine, non-rhetorical, non-politicised insistence on truth, whether this truth is religious, as a sheer alternative, or, of course, scientific, in the sense of genuine, modest science: not the sculpted and politicised narrative of the Lancet, Nature, Science, the American Political Science Review and many others.
The ‘post-truth’ language is an attempt by the established wisdom/folly brigade to illegitimately use the language of ‘truth’ against any of us – including odd bods like Russell Brand – who are honestly trying to remember what ‘truth’ is so that we can resist the use of it against us.
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.
Brilliant article. Absolutely fascinating.
I totally agree.
“No one anywhere else believes, even when they obey.”
I wonder. Is Dr Alexander making an oblique and profound reference to Russell Brand and the Illuminati? Is he preparing the ground/opening the door to the idea, the people of the West, more than those under authoritarian Regimes have become increasingly governed by way of Mind Control techniques? At an uncontroversial level, this is clearly so (government nudge unit). Only those who have delved into some of the more, er, esoteric evidence of who Russel Brand is will understand the point I am making here.
My personal view is, there is a form of juju which, for those who believe it, becomes powerful in their own minds, but if you don’t believe it, plays no role that is apparent to you in your life. I do suspect some of these people, like Russel Brand, do actually believe it and act on it and shuffle about in robes being rather silly, but nevertheless are quite profoundly dangerous and psychologically coercive.
Reading the book ‘180°’ there is actually a bit in the Quack Attack chapter that describes how truth has its own frequency and that, if we are sensitive enough, we can detect truth when it is spoken or expressed. I think this is true. Liars, even when they think they are expressing the truth (from indoctrination etc), don’t come across as authentic. People who promote the bullsh*t (remember Piers Morgan/Arnold Schwarzenegger/Biden/Boris/Fauci etc re the ‘vaccine’) just get shouty or try too hard to convince. They basically become bullies. Truth quietly spoken is immediately recognised by an open, non-judgemental heart.
That is such a great book!
Must get that book (Author?)
I definitely get a different feeling listening to the likes of Andrew Bridgen or John Campbell than other speakers. Maybe it’s body language or something about the way they look at you.
Not sure how I feel listening to Russell Brand but he’s not the Svengali figure the media are trying to make him out to be and that we are fools to be taken in by (even if he looks the part).
Maybe I’ve just got less trusting of authority figures as they lie so fluently.
The author is a guy called Feargus O’Connor Greenwood. I got it on Amazon and it’s still available – the subtitle is “The lies you’ve been taught to believe”. Don’t be put off by the 2-3 inches of book, it’s a smooth, swift and easy read. Even though the material is quite dark, it’s a positive book and gives you strategies for handling your friends and family without alienating them.
He was interviewed by James Delingpole on the Delingpod podcast – start there!
Here is Richard Vobes talking to him https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PBpn8DDWjvs
Thank you!
180 Degress: Unlearn the Lies You’ve Been Taught to Believe https://g.co/kgs/4zjeQn
A great book. Well worth the investment. Another book i think DS readers would enjoy is: ‘The Falsification of Science. Our Distorted Reality’ by John Hamer
Well speaking of ‘Covid 19’ and the ‘narrative’, remember those silver bullet ‘safe and effective vaccines’ that were meant to save the day? This scientist is testifying at the South Carolina senate hearing and follows Dr Buckhalts ( who’s talk I shared yesterday and who is one of several researchers who replicated Kevin McKernan’s work in showing via sequencing that the vials contain DNA contamination ) and she’s completely disagreeing with him, emphasizing the dangers of this mRNA platform and the risks from the contaminants found. Just the massive increase in miscarriages and stillbirths alone is shocking. Very ‘anti-bullshit’ and informative speech from Dr Lindsay. ( 14mins )
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mjQQ7kkj3Bs&t=2s&ab_channel=SC4FREEDOM
Further to this topic, Aussie17 has more here. The fact that Kevin McKernan only discovered this contamination ( now seemingly widespread, as per more scientists testing the stuff around the world ) in Feb of this year makes it even more concerning because by that point billions of doses had been administered worldwide, with most people having subsequent shots, so how many deaths, injuries and miscarriages/stillbirths were directly attributable to this contamination, not just the spike protein itself? It would appear the next sensible thing is to start testing and sequencing vax recipients just to check the extent of the damage, but until then I think many more labs across the world will keep on replicating these findings, and what’s the betting not a thing will get done by the authorities? Just keep sticking those needles in pregnant women and mandating them for college kids in the US, for example. Crimes being committed and nobody in power gives a stuff!
”According to Jessica Rose’s analysis, the two vials which have DNA contamination levels exceeding regulatory limits by over 200 times is associated with mortality rates of 6.2% and 4.7%. The evidence supports the existence of a causal link between the high DNA contamination and the observed deaths.
The presence of DNA contamination in Pfizer vials serves as definitive proof that the experimental Pfizer vaccine does, in fact, contain DNA. This contradicts previous statements made by regulatory bodies, affirming that these products do not alter DNA because they lack DNA content.
So, are we approaching the end game? The ball is now in the regulators’ court, and time is running out for them.
The reason is because many independent labs are currently rushing to replicate these findings, as it is a great opportunity for unknown scientists to make a name for themselves. There is a strong incentive to quickly publish a paper and receive recognition. It’s like an academic gold rush to publish groundbreaking research!
Here’s my prediction: in a few months, you will see numerous labs testing multiple Pfizer vials for DNA transfection (i.e., DNA-contaminated plasmids entering human cells). As Dr. Buckhaults testified, these injections will leave a “calling card” in the vaccinated, and it has clear harmful effects (bacterial plasmid DNA integrating into the vaccinated).”
https://www.aussie17.com/p/check-and-mate
We appear to be leaving Plato’s third state of Democracy to the fourth state of government – Tyranny. Whereas Aristotle and Plato differ in some degree on what is necessary for good government, and all they perceive may not be applicable today. The basic premise of both political theories is that, if the rulers do not understand the decisions they make upon the lives of their citizens, they have lost the true objective of their governance.
I’m currently with Nietzsche in relation to pretty much EVERYTHING to do with the ‘establishment….’
“I’m not upset that you lied to me, I’m upset that from now on I can’t believe you.”
https://disq.us/url?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2Fwatch%3Fv%3Dp-PURM61BX8%3A7BF70-DSzMe0Z9Yij4Heshs1Czg&cuid=2800408
This is seriously NOT bullshit.
About 15 minutes long but worth every second of your time.
The history of the Scamdemic and everything in between.
Brilliant.
I think what the author is basically saying is that the modern world has become so complicated that people on the whole have lost their moral compass and their ability to tell right from wrong.
I don’t really agree. Take away the coercion of the state, the whipping up of lynch mobs by the media and the techno control and sliencing by the bureaucracy and people know exactly what is right and wrong.
Without coercion there is no climate crisis, no lockdowns, no masks, no mass jabbing, no gender confusion.
If we are going mad is because we are being forced to do things that are mad.
Spot on as always. I would add though that as well as being forced, we are hoodwinked and bribed. I believe relative peace and material prosperity have made people too trusting and insufficiently vigilant.
Sophisticated people believe Sophisticated lies
Nice sound bite but not true.
“Russia, China and the rest are unsophisticated because they use old-fashioned methods: coercion, corruption, propaganda, intelligence. ”
And that’s exactly what Western Governments are using …. plus laws (which have no real democratic consent since they are produced under a CONsensus) mandates, bans, fines and threats.
https://khmezek.substack.com/p/living-in-bizarro-world
Living in Bizarro World
The point of Bizarro World is to make the real world appear so chaotic, so dangerous, so uninhabitable, that we will happily give ourselves over to the Technocrats who promise to make it all better.
THIS IS A VERY INTERESTING PERSPECTIVE WHICH HAS A RESONANCE REGARDING THE PURPOSE OF AND THE PSYCHOLOGY BEHIND THE WAY OUR SOCIAL VALUES AND STRUCTURES ARE BEING BROKEN DOWN WITH WOKISM, GENDER ID, LGBTQI+++ ETC:
One wonders whether politicians are ignoring the truth / fact, because they have not dispassionately assessed the data, or are incapable of understanding it. It is hard to fit the truth / falsity – wisdom / folly dichotomy into, for example, the insistence on ‘climate change’ etc, when the science is clear. It is also incomprehensible that we are being drip-fed nonsense to justify ruinous policies and punishing damage to our economy. Truth is clearly compatible with folly
The problem with “truth is absolutely right” is how do we know what the truth is? Neil Oliver’s discussion last Saturday touched on this with a guest. The guest said it only needed two experts and they could tell us the truth. Get 10 experts together today and they would produce 12 views and disagree on all of them. If politicians were listening in they would probably implement a policy that ignored all of them.
Dr Alexander, I must congratulate you for having the Balls to use the word “Bullshit” which must have also given some folks at the sceptics to publish the heading without change. Journalists/Publisher generally don’t call Bullshit , Bullshit… they Fluff around it .