I discussed why fascist narratives can be both created and succeed in my National Column yesterday (yours, in full, for a £20 a year subscription, right now). In it I said:
The anger and disillusionment that people quite reasonably felt as a consequence of the deliberate failure of the Tories to meet need was redirected for the political advantage of the elite that was actually exploiting people, and in the process, something that was once described by the German historian and philosopher Hannah Arendt occurred.
As she explained, the constant lying of our politicians is not intended to make people believe the lies that they are told. Instead, its goal is to ensure that no one believes anything any more. As a consequence, the intention is to ensure that no one can, with any degree of certainty, distinguish between truth and lies, and so between right and wrong.
People deprived of that power are, in Arendt's opinion, also deprived of the power to think and judge and, as a consequence, are then unwittingly subject to the rule of lies. This then means that politicians who wish to manipulate a population for their own advantage are free to do so.
That is what happens when we give up on nuance.
That is what happens when we give up on believing that we have more in common with others than there is that which divides us.
That is what happens when we forget that there is right and wrong, but that there is no one, or any group, that is at all times and in all places possessed of either quality on every occasion.
That is, in effect, what happens when we give up on judgment. We become exposed to manipulation and so to abuse.
And this is where we are. This is why politicians think they can lie to us, on Gaza, on the state of the UK, on Scottish independence, and on almost anything else. That's because they believe that we have forgotten how to determine the truth in amongst the noise that those who wish to distract us deliberately create.
It is our job to work out what is really happening and to form a judgment upon it. That is what politics and political economy demand of us. It's hard, and it sometimes leaves us confused and feeling alienated, but that is the price we have to pay if we are to continue to believe in humanity and decency, and to believe that there are things that are simply right which we must do.
I thought that idea was worth a second outing, here.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
There are links to this blog's glossary in the above post that explain technical terms used in it. Follow them for more explanations.
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
Buy me a coffee!
I was watching episode 4 of the latest series of Dr Who and The Doctor gave a very good speech about rabble rousers to Conrad Clark
Good post, I agree!
The business of lying has been very successful – on the omnibus it is commonly said, “they’re all the same, you can’t trust any of them”.
My question is, given that this has already occurred, (although I don’t think the mass of the general public have yet lost the ability to distinguish right from wrong) how can omnibus passengers…
1. ..tell the difference between truth and lies. Usually whatever the lie, there’s a YouTube channel, a blog or a Freeview news channel to back it up with statistics and experts on hand (true statistics?? real experts??)
2. If we are in the persuasion business (and I think/hope that many of us here are, whether on omnibuses, or in more elevated circles), how do we persuade people that WE are telling the truth and that others are lying?
In other words, what IS the difference between the truth and a lie?
The “household analogy” is a perfect example.
On the one side, the entire academic economic establishment, all broadcasters and journalists, and all government and opposition politicians plus decades of orthodoxy – all telling the lie, every day, in parliament, in the press, on all our news bulletins, in all the quoted think-tanks.
On the other, RJM and other mavericks on this blog, plus an “extremist” subversive Scottish separatist newspaper, who are characterised by the establishment, as economic versions of David Icke. (Sorry Richard, I don’t mean it, just playing devil’s advocate again)
At a philosophical level, what IS the difference between truth-telling and lying?
At a practical level how do we apply that to the business of what I refer to as “trying to make the world a better place”?
My reply will be found in a blog post, soon.
I was most impressed last night with the Palestinian woman on C4 news last night who was interviewed by Guru-Murthy – her passion and distress took over the whole interview and he was almost speechless – a wave of humanity had washed over him. And you know what? It was genuine – not contrived to meet an objective – Israeli spoke’s people please note.
Killing journalists and the people they are reporting on is the lowest of the low because you are killing the evidence for your own inhumanity.
Everyday I cannot find the words to describe what I am seeing, but yesterday looking at the wonderful looking lambs that are now ripe for slaughter and reflecting as a vegetarian on what was going to happen to them, I cannot help but feel that the Palestinians are simply being slaughtered and rendered themselves.
She was brilliant- and he acceoted the need to go with her flow. In fairness, he has been very good on Gaza throughout, as far as he is able within allowed limits.
The state of Israel has a track record in “Killing journalists and the people they are reporting on”. Of course, they claim this isn’t “killing [..] evidence [of their] inhumanity” — it’s always just a mishap. Oops! To have one mishap is unfortunate, to keep doing it establishes a track record of lawlessness.
But the Israeli state doesn’t like to be observed. They don’t like journalists having access to witness their behaviour. Many folk don’t know that their fear of observation also extends to their ‘allies’. In 1967, In the 6 day war, Israel attacked a US spy ship that was in International waters (by aircraft and motor torpedo boats). The spy ship was performing signals intelligence – Israel didn’t want to be observed. Just another tragic ‘oops’. They paid ‘compensation’ for the US dead and injured and for the damage to the boat. Who knows what the compensation should be for the many journalists and civilians and collateral casualties should be?
I wonder why they don’t want their behaviour to be witnessed. It’s not a good look. Why is this rogue national tolerated at all?
To your last question, I have no answer.
Encouraging a sustainable kinder world for all is a hard row to hoe, and many find it much easier to just give up or follow whatever current “normal” paradigms presents regardless of its veracity. Frustrating, but that hard row decency encourages produces better more sustainable outcomes ultimately.
I find that speaking the truth boldly, to power or anyone else for that matter, is where we all begin. You are absolutely right, and not only is it a problem for democratic societies that lies, half truths, misinformation and disinformation are widely disseminated and opinion now taken as fact by even the likes of the BBC and twisted abd distorted by papers like the Guardian, it is also how the debates and issues are framed, the ‘either/or’ fallacy, ie we can have extreme and toxic neoliberalism or it’s full on communism. Most people don’t want either, we’d just like to pay our bills firstly. Revolutionary? No, but few are asking for that.
Yes, the politics of the Anglophone world and the socioeconomic and sociopolitical landscapes have been caotured by some extremely unpleasant ideologies backed by big money. We are plunging again into a moral free abyss whilst our leaders of all kinds chant ‘Peace! Peace!, where there is no peace. Their evil and brutality and subterfuge in these matters are bordering on fascism. We saw where that lead last time yet they continue to play their games no matter who suffers and dies in the process.
Arendt’s insight is still valid, despite the growth of internet. But, while we in the west may eventually glimpse the perversity and dishonesty of our politicians and media on Gaza, for example (or Vietnam, Chile, Iraq, Libya, etc), we still haven’t remotely understood that their ‘jungle’ is becoming far better tended than our ‘garden’. Long way to go, but our direction is down and theirs, on the whole, is up.
[…] RobertJ, who is a regular commentator on this site, included these questions in the conclusion to a comment he posted today: […]
There’s a lot here to agree with, but I nevertheless find myself conflicted. Nuance and truth are important, but important to whom and when?
It seems inevitable (to me at least) that you will encounter someone who cares nothing about truth or nuance. Perhaps their success might even depend on their ability to run roughshod over all over your truth and nuance and tie you up in ethical quandaries which trouble them not in the slightest.
Is it black and white to call them out? To oppose such persons and categorically refuse to cooperate with them?
I had the essentials of this debate a long time ago in philosophy while discussing objectivism vs relativism. We never found an answer which did not involve underpinning a society of tolerance with an authority that rejects intolerance. At some points, it seems we must tread closer to black and white than is comfortable. I don’t like it, because as you say, it does take us closer to fascism.
Being an American, I can’t comment on politics overseas, but I can’t imagine seeing anything redeemable in current U.S. political leadership. The headline being bandied about now is, “gerrymandering is good actually, and both teams are doing it.” Twenty or thirty years ago, such stuff would’ve been socially and intellectually dubious. We were even talking about mathematical solutions to making gerrymandering impossible. Now look where we are.
Thanks
Where are we? Certainly in a world of gross intolerance. That is the problem.
The answer is always to hold on to the truth, even if you are the only person left in this world who knows it.(George Orwell)
See also Hans Christian Anderson’s parable of truth, the King and his suit of clothes, a brilliant story and parable of human nature:people denying an obvious truth to ingratiate themselves with, or protect themselves from, power.
Agreed