Reimagining a Post-Truth World

Chuck Stephens

REIMAGINING A POST-TRUTH WORLD

Averting the Death of Truth

Copyright © 2024 by Chuck Stephens

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, scanning, or otherwise without written permission from the publisher. It is illegal to copy this book, post it to a website, or distribute it by any other means without permission.

Chuck Stephens asserts the moral right to be identified as the author of this work.

Chuck Stephens has no responsibility for the persistence or accuracy of URLs for external or third-party Internet Websites referred to in this publication and does not guarantee that any content on such Websites is, or will remain, accurate or appropriate.

Designations used by companies to distinguish their products are often claimed as trademarks. All brand names and product names used in this book and on its cover are trade names, service marks, trademarks and registered trademarks of their respective owners. The publishers and the book are not associated with any product or vendor mentioned in this book. None of the companies referenced within the book have endorsed the book.

First edition

ISBN: 978-1-998971-49-7

This book was professionally typeset on Reedsy

Find out more at reedsy.com

Truth is so rare that it is delightful to tell it.

-Emily Dickenson

Contents

1. PREAMBLE

2. METHODOLOGY AND RULES OF PLAY

3. THE MACRO SERIES: TELLING THE TRUTH

4. THE MACRO SERIES: CENSORSHIP

5. THE MACRO SERIES: RIOTS

6. THE MACRO SERIES: GOVERNMENT OVER REACH

7. THE POLITICS SERIES: ELECTION SWINDLES

8. THE POLITICS SERIES: THE SEPARATION OF POWERS

9. THE POLITICS SERIES: CULTURE WARS

10. THE POLITICS SERIES: REVISIONISM

11. THE POLITICS SERIES: UKRAINE

12. THE LAW SERIES: SELECTIVE LAW ENFORCEMENT

13. THE LAW SERIES: POLITICAL CORRECTNESS

14. THE LAW SERIES: GENOCIDE

15. THE LAW SERIES: DECRIMINALIZING PROSTITUTION

16. THE HEALTH SERIES: ABORTION

17. THE HEALTH SERIES: COVID-19

18. THE HEALTH SERIES: RECKLESS TRANSMISSION

19. THE HEALTH SERIES: SAME-SEX MARRIAGE

20. THE HEALTH SERIES: GENDER MODIFICATION

21. THE FUTURE SERIES: OPEN BORDERS

22. THE FUTURE SERIES: NATIONAL DISTANCING

23. THE FUTURE SERIES: GLOBAL WARMING

24. THE FUTURE SERIES: REPARATIONS

25. THE FUTURE SERIES: ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE

26. THE FUTURE SERIES: ASSISTED SUICIDE

27. EPILOGUE

About the Author

Also by Chuck Stephens

1

PREAMBLE

Truth be known

What is Truth? These were the cynical words that were famously spoken by Pontius Pilate as he passed the buck to the local chief. He seemed to imply that he did not see eye to eye with the local yokels and did not concur with their verdict. He seemed to imply that the imperial view of Truth might be different from the indigenous view of it.

Finding the right answer to any question, finding the truth, involves several steps or calculations. The focus of this book is not on the answers, but on how to reach them. How to recognize the truth for what it is. Or should I say, for what it was? How to tell it apart from deception, untruth, lies, gossip, fake news, etc. This discernment is different from the other sense of telling the truth – honesty. We will look at both senses of the word. The greatest need for a great reset is recovery of truth.

Courts seek truth through a formal process. Different views are presented, archetypically by the prosecution and the defense. (In a divorce court it may be between him and her.) A judge or sometimes a jury has to seek the truth. That is why Lady Justice wears a blindfold. She should treat everyone equally and by the book. No exceptions. No exemptions. The truth is not for sale. Or is it?

Witnesses may be called forward. They swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. Nevertheless, witnesses can be bought and they often lie. So the process includes cross-examination, to try to get closer to the truth.

Evidence may be submitted in the form of documents or photos or samples. Experts may be asked to testify. They may present relevant data. Did you ever notice that the courts are overbooked, over-utilized, and thus over-extended? This is because they are more discerning, and it points to the death of truth in many other spheres.

To find the truth, a judge needs the Law, just as a builder needs a plumb-line.

What are some of the barriers that try to keep the light of truth from being seen clearly? Why is truth dying out? It is not extinct yet, but it is endangered.

One issue is that Law can vary. From one place to another, different law pertains. For example, common law, constitutional law and sharia law are all different. Laws can be changed by legislatures, so what was illegal yesterday may be legal today. Marijuana comes to mind. Same-sex marriage. Assisted suicide.

Then there is the issue of objectivity and subjectivity of truth. Can my truth be different from your truth? Is that relativist or maybe pluralist? Or is truth situational? Or is there ultimately a one-size-fits-all truth that applies to everyone? If so, how can you tell the masks from its real face? Would we even recognize real truth if we looked it in the face, amidst a sea of masks?

Another issue is perspective. For example, it may be true to a bystander that a car is passing at 100 miles per hour. But what about another perspective? What about a viewer on Mars who sees the earth rotating and also orbiting the Sun? That means, in short, that the car is really travelling a lot faster than 100 mph. Are both right? Can there be more than one truth?

Fredrich Nietzche wrote: Sometimes people don’t want to hear the truth because they don’t want their illusions destroyed. That’s another nail in truth’s coffin.

This brings up the question of diverse interests. Truth is often subverted intentionally for some cause or motive. This goes all the way back to the father of lies who approached Eve in the garden of Eden. She succumbed to temptation, which was presented to her in a seductive way. A toxic mix of truth and untruth.

Fraud would not be very effective if the person swindling you had horns and a long forked tail. By its very nature, it is well disguised and hard to tell apart from truth. We are constantly being inundated by news, adverts, marketing, conspiracy theories and gossip. How do we know who or what to believe?

The Greek philosopher Plato was very influential on Western thought. He envisaged a metaphysical form or ideal for everything that exists in the physical realm. When we sit at different tables to eat, to work and to play, these various tables are but shadows of the real deal. A metaphysical table exists out there that throws shadows in different directions. His metaphor was that we are living in a cave, seeing but shadows on the wall. The real figures exist - outside the cave. With a fire in the background which casts shadows onto the wall of the cave. So reality may be different from what we see. Is the truth itself just a perception?

Another ancient teacher, a rabbi, claimed that he was the way… to the truth. According to St John, Jesus said: I am the way, the truth and the life… In the prologue to his gospel, St John takes a very high view of Jesus as the logos or word. This means that we can hear God speaking (through him), and see (in him) a role-model sent from God, worthy of imitating. Hearing is the Jewish pathway to understanding God’s word. ("Hear, O Israel…) Whereas sight is the Greek pathway. (We beheld his glory, full of grace and truth." ) Hearing and seeing together is best.

At first it may be hard to conceptualize such a claim – one that personalizes truth. It takes truth out of the metaphysical realm of philosophers and brings it down to earth, like a ground wire. One way to get this, is to remember that Christians await the return or second-coming of Jesus – on Judgment Day. If we recall the court scenario, he will judge us. He will listen to the evidence, hear some witnesses, check the available data and then know the truth. About each of us. He will see right through us, deeper than X-ray vision. The prosecutor doesn’t speak truth he only presents his side of it. The defense does the same, it only offers one perspective. Who gets to the real truth? The judge. This metaphor of the justice system is telling – it is slow but accurate. In today’s world, it may be truth’s last stand.

Frances Quarles wrote: The height of all philosophy is to know thyself; and the end of this knowledge is to know God. There is a third understanding of truth. It is faith-based. Call it revelation. It is neither inherently objective like Platonic thinking, nor is it pluralistically subjective. The word morality comes to mind, like in the Ten Commandments – thou shalt not… But this version of truth is on life support.

Look again, the first and greatest commandment of the ten is to love God, only. Followed by scrapping idols and profanity, and keeping the Sabbath holy. From that flow the behavioral touchstones at family level first and then at societal level - on adultery, theft and murder.

Is the Bible true? Many think so, and in our courts, witnesses still put their hand on it and promise to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. Witnesses should believe that "Truth is like a lion. You don’t have to defend it. It defends itself." Just be honest and tell the truth, and the judge’s decision will not be distorted.

But morality is gradually eroding. People often lie through their teeth in court testimony. Murder is going the way of adultery when you think of the return of infanticide. Theft is commonplace and hard to prosecute, for lack of evidence. For by its very nature, it is more often done in the dark than in the light. Like murderers, thieves are good at getting away with it.

By checking out twenty-four issues being debated in the public space, the golden thread of this book is finding Truth. You don’t have to be a philosopher or a lawyer to get there. But you do need to sharpen your truth-finding skills, in a world that is teeming with propaganda, deception, scams and fake news.

History is repeating itself. The death of truth happened once before. It was followed by victory over death, a resilience that reverberated around the world for centuries. He saw it coming. He predicted that he would be crushed by the hatred of the religious elite combined with the military might of Rome. But truth always has a way of slipping out. Even from the grave.

We are going down that road once again. Notions of objective truth and subjective truth are squeezing the life out of revealed truth. First prize is to recover it before it is too late. This book tries to sound a warning, so that it can be recovered. Second prize is to fatalistically accept the death of truth. But that will not be the end, for truth always by its very nature has a way of bursting out again. It cannot be contained, it is too robust and self-assured. It will be back, sooner or later. Even if that takes a thousand years.

2

METHODOLOGY AND RULES OF PLAY

Not all ages and places will remember To Tell the Truth - a TV game that was popular in the 1950s and 60s in America (including Canada). But most baby-boomers should remember it.

Over the years, there were some variations in the game rules. However, certain basic rules have remained consistent. Three challengers are introduced, all claiming to be the true central character. The moderator would ask the challengers, who stand side by side, What is your name, please? Each challenger would then rise and state the same name. In other words, two were imposters – only one was the real truth.

Then the moderator would read a short introduction to the central character. In our case, this is not a person but a topic. There are twenty-four hot topics in all, enough for the reader to draw some final conclusions about truth – how to know it. And how to fend off deception. This is filtered and summarized in the Epilogue.

We changed the rules just a tad. On our team, there are no intentional imposters. Rather, the challengers are consistent with their seating (designated left, middle and right). Their answers are not to mislead you, but they are different. Our whole team is trying to help you find the truth.

The panelists are each allowed to pose questions to the challengers. In the original game-show, the central character used to be sworn to give truthful answers. However, the impostors were permitted to lie and pretend to subvert the truth. They actively tried to con the panelists. This happens every day in the public space. (Unless you fatalistically shrug and plead different truths can co-exist. )

After questioning is complete, there used to be a panel-vote on which of the challengers panelists believed to be telling the truth - without consulting the others. Once the votes were in, the moderator would ask: Will the real [person’s name] please stand up?

Originally, the central character would then stand, often after some brief playful feinting and false starts among all three challengers. But in our case, each episode closes with the question: Would the real Truth - about the topic under discussion - please stand out? The reader is then left to weigh up the dialogue and decide who they think is telling the truth… and who isn’t.

The death of truth happens when people un-critically accept any narrative and keep to it, even when cross-examination and evidence bring it into question. Virtue-signaling is not the pathway to truth. It takes heavy doses of humility.

On each topic, the truth can sometimes be obvious and other times it can be agonizing. But after twenty–four chapters, each containing one episode, some truths emerge – about truth. By its very nature, deception is at times hard to detect. That is why the tempter spoke to Eve in the Garden of Eden as a shining one.

We hope that this book will be entertaining and informative, not just about the topics covered, but about the nature and features of truth. Even though we may never get to what is the deepest level of truth, we hope to move you in that general direction. A few may be blinded by seeing the truth, like the Greek seers of old.

In case you find this process confusing or bewildering, the Epilogue does contain some clues. These are drawn from one source of revealed truth, not from objective or subjective sources. Our abiding belief is that all truth is God’s truth, no matter the source. You can find it in deductive reasoning like math, from inductive sources like science, and from secular principles like human rights, but it is still divine. But it takes a special ingredient to supercede the other truths. Faith.

This is a better bet than just buying into emotional contagion. Group-think is far from truth. Without implying that the word truth can be preceded by possessive adjectives like my, your, our, their, instead of the, it is important for each of us to use our own compass. Seek the truth and follow it. Don’t just go with the flow.

The Guest Panelists

There are five series of four to six episodes each, as follows:

The Macro series

The Politics series

The Law series

The Health series

The Future series

The panel for each of these series remains the same, but it changes from one series to another. That way, relevant experts are tapped to pose the questions.

The four panelists represent the biggest four anglo-phone regions on earth:

North America

Britain

South Africa

India

Each of these regions continues to be represented on every panel throughout, although the individual panelists change.

Time-Zoom

This is a new technology premiering in this book. Zoom allows panelists to be invited from far-away places, in different time-zones. They gather in one virtual dialogue. But the Time-Zoom app allows us to invite panelists from different eras past as well. It crushes the time factor, as well as the distance. But it enhances the quality of questions posed by the panel.

3

THE MACRO SERIES: TELLING THE TRUTH

Moderator

Welcome to the new sequel to an old favorite game that searches for truth. To start this new season, we even have this one episode on Telling the Truth. We regard truth-telling as a virtue, and its opposite is a vice – deception.

Do the names Julian Assange and Edward Snowden ring any bells? Assange is a cypherpunk activist who exposed that news reaching the public was out of sync with military sources. He later founded Wikileaks. He is in jail in the UK, but many media platforms and even Amnesty International are advocating for his release as a whistle-blower. Then along came Edward Snowden, saying this credibility gap between what the public is told and what is really known in the corridors of power is an existential threat to democracy.

Snowden said: People don’t realize how hard it is to speak the truth to a world full of people that don’t realize they’re living a lie.

Looking for facts is an essential technique in seeking the truth. So when whistle-blowers come forward with facts or hard evidence that the truth is being subverted, is it not time for deeper investigation? What is more foolish – believing what is not true? Or not believing what is true? Are people being held in jail for telling the truth?

George Orwell once wrote: The further a society drifts from Truth, the more it will hate those who speak it.

Now we have a case of disinformation in the war in Ukraine. According to evidence leaked by Jack Texeira, who has been arrested, there is a major discrepancy between news content and reality. Of course, intelligence is a cloak-and-dagger environment, full of spies and spooks, so no one seems too surprised. Winston Churchill once remarked: In wartime, truth is so precarious that she should always be attended by a bodyguard of lies.

Remember Daniel Ellsberg? In 1971, he leaked the Pentagon Papers to the media, exposing this same credibility gap between what the public was being told, and the reality on the ground in Viet Nam. There is a history of leakers - suggesting that nefarious deceptions are deemed by many to be unacceptable.

So we welcome our four panelists, all of whom are with us remotely, via our new app Time-Zoom. Please note that they all join us in their personal and private capacity. From North America we welcome George Washington. From Britain we welcome Malcolm Muggeridge. From South Africa we welcome Desmond Tutu. And from India, we welcome Mohandas Gandhi.

This is our illustrious panel for the first series – on macro-issues. Like telling the truth.

Each panelist may pose one question to any one of the three challengers. We hope that their questions are probing and penetrating enough for us to get to see the truth about the topic of each episode. We encourage both challengers and panelists to help us sharpen our truth-seeking skills. All of them must tell the truth.

Please give it up for our first guest panelist!

North America’s panelist - George Washington

In my era, we were brought up to tell the truth. It was not just a virtue, it was an imperative. So I would like to direct my question to the challenger on the right. Do you think that I did the right thing, as a boy, when I was confronted by my father about a cherished cherry tree? I answered him that, yes, I cannot tell a lie, I did chop it down it with my little hatchet.

Challenger on the right

You did the right thing. Although you had not done things right! You should not have cut down that cherry tree without permission. But you didn’t turn it into a blame-game to try to exonerate yourself. You told the truth.

When I was growing up, this was the story that we associated with your name. It taught us honesty and integrity. But in today’s world, all we hear is that it was environmentally unfriendly of you to cut down a tree… you were not thinking of food security by cutting down a cherry tree… which is why, when you grew up, you became an insensitive slave-owner. I regard this new take on your legacy to be a slanderous insult. It is revisionist. It is defamatory to speak of America’s first president like that, sir.

To be honest, I think that those who talk like that are suffering from the woke mind virus. They don’t speak truth, they twist everything to fit their narrative. Ideologies are not the place to look for truth. You need to study facts. Historical facts, scientific facts, medical facts, and so on. They are the starting point, as opposed to starting with a spin and trying to rationalize the facts to fit your vantage point. Or to just ignore them.

You could have started making excuses, or laying the blame on someone else, or even pleading ignorant that you didn’t realize that it was cherished tree. Maybe it was in the way, or you mistook it for a weed, or an alien invasive species? But no, you respected your father’s authority and you fessed up. Good form, sir!

Going from specific to general, I believe that denying the authority of our Creator is leading to the death of truth. We need to obey revealed truth and where we fail, to confess and try again. A father is proud of his children’s honesty and integrity.

Britain’s guest panelist - Malcolm Muggeridge

Yes, picking up on that challenger’s answer, let me address my question to the challenger on the left. One of the most cowardly things that ordinary people do is to ignore the facts. So do you think that the extraordinary lengths that the deep state went to, in order to suppress the emerging story of the discovery of Hunter Biden’s laptop was in order? Or was it basically a cover-up, in the weeks running up to the 2020 elections?

Challenger on the left

That story simply had to be discredited. The impact that it otherwise could have had on the election outcome was too big a risk. Winning is everything. There was a history of news stories (true or false) about alleged Russian disinformation efforts, intended to undermine Donald Trump. A first allegation of Russian collusion – which was later proved to be a fairy-tale – had been used to impeach him. So that pointed to the way forward, to a familiar narrative. High-profile intelligence leaders were invited to sign an open letter stating that the Hunter Biden laptop story had all the features of another Russian disinformation effort. It was not genuine, it was expedient. It may have been CIA-induced?

Some years later, the same media platforms that helped to suppress that story in 2020 concluded that it actually was the real deal. Sometimes it is hard to discern the truth. The public has a tendency to believe what is in print, simply because it is in print. Obviously news services can lean on their laurels, knowing people will believe what they print. And worse yet, politicians, parties and their king-makers can coerce the media to emphasize a certain narrative.

Election campaigns do not wait – they cannot wait - for the judiciary or special investigations. Those processes take forever. Truth is sometimes sacrificed for expediency. Once a winner is declared and validated, there is no going back. Some things are just more important than getting down to the truth.

Years later, it has come to light that law enforcement already knew about the Biden family’s wheeling and dealing, and had already opened a docket – before the emergence of the laptop from hell. They probably knew that the truth would come out – in due course. It always does, by its very nature. But they could suppress it long enough to win the election. Cover-ups have a way of causing way more problems than the wee crimes being covered up.

South Africa’s guest panelist – Desmond Tutu

I did not like the tone of that last reply, so I will direct my question to the challenger in the middle. First, please fill me in on terminology – what are truth bombs? And then, is there a difference between deception and pretending? In other words, is it sometimes OK, even playful, to bend the truth a bit, without breaking it?

Challenger in the middle

Your question about truth bombs is pertinent. Because in a world full of propaganda, telling the truth can be quite explosive at times. For example, when whistle-blowers come forward unexpectedly. Especially if they bring evidence with them to corroborate their eye-witness accounts. This can blow apart the prevailing narrative. That’s what truth-bombs do.

Take the open letter already mentioned by my co-challenger on the left, for example. It was at work in the back-ground, in 2020, to get buy-in from the media that would discredit the Hunter Biden laptop story. But in 2023, a whistle-blower came forward with that open letter just as the truth about that story was being recovered. Suddenly we got a credible explanation – who drafted the letter, what his reward was, and who refused to sign the letter (seeing it for what it was). Exposing that the open letter was really an intel-decoy was an example of a truth bomb.

The term truth bomb seems a little violent, but that whistle-blower remains in hiding, under protection, because his or her life is in danger. The stakes are very high because the sitting president could be implicated by this investigation. The validity of the 2020 election is in question. The media now says that Hunter Biden’s attorneys are