‘Truth’ is socially constructed

It often feels like we have shifted into some parallel universe in which everything we knew to be true has been up-ended and replaced by its opposite.

This may be true, but not in a spacey-wacey, timey-wimey kind of way. It has happened through a rapid shift in the philosophical framework of the governing elites from modernism to postmodernism.

Postmodernism is now the dominant philosophy informing global political discourse at the international, or supranational level.

Supranational political decisions are imposed nationally and locally through compliance with international treaties: International Law.

In times long past, International Law was about border definitions, military cooperation, trade and correct procedure in times of war, but the scope of International Law has expanded to cover every area of life including family life.

Nations that have signed up to the various UN treaties and compacts are duty-bound to implement those treaties and compacts in their jurisdictions.

But they face a problem: national democracy. Democracy relies on government by consent. Consent is bestowed by the voters through free and fair elections. Consent relies on the confidence that the results of the elections will be honoured.

The resolution to this problem is for major national parties to field candidates who will act in accordance with international law. Manifesto commitments cannot be made which fall out with international law commitments.

This can only work if electorates are willing to vote for parties who maintain this consistency with international law. In order to achieve consent, national consensus needs to be built around the policies that implement international law.

Consensus-building takes place through mainstream media outlets, mainstream entertainment, and exercises in local ?community engagement?.

The most powerful tool for consensus-building is the education of children.

According to postmodernist theory, there is one absolute truth: there is no such thing as absolute truth. ?Truth? is socially constructed: it is what we, as a group, agree it is.

Please take time to watch the first 10 minutes of this video, from the Council on Foreign Relations, one of the most important policy think tanks in the world. (Pro tip: to stay on top of global governance trends, keep a close eye on the output from this think tank.)

Around the 7 minute mark, Joan Donovan asserts that we have to be socialised into truth. Think about that for a moment. Isn?t that a scary thought? This woman is speaking at the final session of the 2018 College and University Educators Workshop, sponsored by the Council on Foreign Relations, the world?s most influential think tank, about socialising people into truth.

When you hear people talk about ?consensus building?, they mean, ?socialising people into truth.?

Where do we see examples of socialising people into truth?

The most obvious example is the ?consensus on climate change?. At first sight, it seems convincing that it must be ?true? because there is a ?consensus?. We naively imagine a collection of scientists poring over the data from instruments around the world and thoughtfully nodding and saying ?hmmm, yes, we are heading for global catastrophe?. It looks like a triumph for the scientific principle of falsification — no falsification is happening, therefore we can continue to accept the hypothesis.

Unfortunately, this is not how it works.

Please take some time to look at this article. It is from the Institute of Physics and the intent is to ?prove? the consensus on ?Anthropogenic Global Warming? (AGW). The article defines ?experts in climate science? as those who have published peer-reviewed articles in climate science journals. However, that is a self-referential, circular definition. If you have a group of peers who already agree on the truth of hypothesis X, and more importantly, whose funding relies on the truth of hypothesis X, and a new researcher comes along with data that refute hypothesis X, that new researcher?s results will be rejected at peer review.

If a scientifically literate individual outside the peer community reviews a peer-accepted paper and rejects it due to flaws in its method, he is excluded from the consensus statistic of 97% because he is a ?non-expert?, despite being trained to understand and detect flaws in the paper?s method of analysis.

Consensus-based truth relies on a ?community? holding a hypothesis as an axiom, and rejecting anyone who purports to give ?evidence? that falsifies the hypothesis. AGW is a hypothesis but to be part of the ?peer group of experts?, it must be held as an axiom.

?Islam is a Religion of Peace? is, to most people, a hypothesis to be tested by examining foundational documents such as the Koran and Hadiths, and historical records relating to conflicts between Muslim and non-Muslim communities. However, in the world of truth-by-consensus, it is an axiom, and anyone who rejects the axiom is by definition an Islamophobe. Information gleaned from documents is not considered ?truth?. Only the Consensus is the Truth.

When a postmodernist finds a group of people actually using source materials to discern truth from falsehood, the way the pre-postmodern generations of graduates were taught, it sends her into a flurry of consternation and condescending scare quotes.

We must reject postmodernism and all of its rotten fruits. They are destroying us. The good news is that the consensus-building process is failing. The current Brexit drama is evidence of its failure. The plan was to end opposition to EU membership for a generation by consensus-building the population of the UK into voting Remain. The government held all the tools of consensus-building but they failed disastrously. The signs of failed consensus-building are all around us, and the consensus-builders are in a state of panic. Let?s keep up the pressure!