The true cost of relativism to democracy – Part 1

The true cost of relativism to democracy – Part 1

1. Nothing shows blackness like the exposure to the light. The Coronavirus pandemic is strangely revealing underlying truths about us as individuals, and the democratic society that underpins of our culture. It is a powerful spotlight exposing vulnerabilities peculiar to our democratic system of government; bringing into sharp focus the ineptitude of elected leaders, and more frighteningly, our collective relationship with the truth. What then is the true cost of relativism to democracy?

Democracy today is like the Biblical prodigal son lost in a swoon of excess

2. To many in democratic societies such as ours, truth is as good as dead. They say that living as we do in a globalised world, where everything appears to be interconnected albeit in a continuous state of flux, it is impossible to sustain a universal, objective truth; for each view or idea has within it its own sense of truth. They reason that because knowledge, truth, and morality exist in relationship to culture, society, and context; it is thus impossible to have an objective or absolute truth. I disagree. For I contend that there is such a thing as an objective truth, a truth that is independent of our subjective selves; and the absence of an objective truth is the ultimate threat to the fabric and wellbeing of democratic societies. Democracy today is like the Biblical prodigal son who lost himself by going into a deep swoon of excess; who played the fool, putting bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter. The want of this objective absolute truth is the true cost of relativism to democracy in the 21 century. But how can a democratic society, rather like the prodigal son, wake up from the deep swoon of excess, with a view of recovering and come to its former self? The answer may be found in democratic societies re-discovering the real meaning of an objective truth. It therefore begs the question: What is truth?

Truth is verifiable objectively and is visible to the naked eye

3. Writing as a professing Christian, albeit one with many failings; I beg your kind indulgence to allow me to steer clear of philosophy. For if I were to traverse into the realms of philosophy, I fear that there is a real risk of drowning in deep waters which will help neither you nor me. But rather, I propose we limit our discourse to the common everyday use of the word – truth. For the discovery of the meaning of truth is not the exclusive preserve of philosophy alone. Now keeping to the run of a simple, everyday usage of the word, truth; suppose I was to say to you that I am black, and therefore I’m not white. What would you make of such a statement, would it be true? I imagine your answer would be, sure! Because based on our everyday understanding of truth relying on common-sense, everything about me which is visible to the naked eye screams out that I am indeed a black man. The same is true with a statement that 6 million Jews, give or take, were systematically murdered under Nazi German-occupied Europe between 1941 and 1945, or that millions of black Africans were forcefully rounded up by White Europeans and shipped from Africa to the Americas to work as slaves on plantations. All these statements are verifiable objective truths based on real historical records, which anyone can go and see with their own eyes in a good public library. I hope we can all agree that the above represent a basic definition of truth.

Truth is not based on opinion or belief alone; it can be ‘fact-checked’

4. The above explanation suggests that for a statement to be true, it must agree with an established fact, that is, it must concur with what is really there, hence reality. In other words, if I say that I am a black African man and my physical appearance bears testimony to the fact that I am certainly a black African man, then the statement in question must be true. It is true because it is based on an objective reality of me, the author of this blogpost; that I am what I claim to be – a black African man. This statement can of course be ‘fact-checked’ by consulting various credible sources, including speaking with people who are alive today, and who enjoy an appreciable knowledge of me as a person. It means that the said statement is accurate and correct. Moreover, the above designation also denotes that for a statement to be true it must not rely on opinion or belief alone; else it will be discounted on the ground that it is based on mere belief or faith without necessarily establishing verifiable fact(s). Let’s take the argument a step further by way of illustration: Suppose I were to say to you that Stephen Kamugasa is a black African man because he was born to black African parents, and was raised in Africa. A statement that ‘Stephen Kamugasa is African by virtue of his birth’ must be correct. Why, because it answers to our common understanding of reason on the ground of context.

Truth must not offend the law of non-contradiction

5. Now, let us spice things up a little. We know that Stephen Kamugasa, having moved to England many years ago, met and fell in love with a Taiwanese girl, whom he subsequently married at a small English church in Buckinghamshire. As noted above, Stephen answers to a Christian faith, and the girl, at the time of their meeting and subsequent courtship, answered to a Buddhist faith. The Buddhist faith is as you know the world’s fourth largest religion with an estimated 500 million followers. Suppose then Stephen were to tell you that he is a Christian because he enjoys a personal relationship with the Lord Jesus Christ, the only Son of the one and only living God; and, suppose the Taiwanese girl (as she was then) were to tell you that, “my spiritual tradition focuses mainly on personal spiritual development and the attainment of a deep insight into the true nature of life. I have no personal relationship with any god as Stephen does, but I believe a path to enlightenment is through the practice and development of morality, meditation and wisdom.” These two statements beg the question: Who of the two is telling the truth? Clearly, it is impossible for both of them to be correct; for according to the law of non-contradiction, two contradictory statements cannot both be true in the same sense at the same time.

Relativism is inconsistent in and of itself

6. The law of non-contradiction challenges the very notion upon which the concept of relativism is founded; namely, that there is no such a thing as the ultimate truth and that truth is relative to individuals, time, context or culture. The notion that there is no ultimate truth has some degree of validity in a sense. Let me illustrate by way of an example: A statement that in Taiwan, it is the law of the land for motorists to drive on the right-hand side of the road is just as true as a statement that in the United Kingdom of Great Britain, the law of the land is for motorists to drive on the left-hand side of the road. Both statements are accurate because the truth of each statement is dependent upon the context in which it is stated or applied. Applying this logic to the above scenario in which Stephen claims to enjoy a personal relationship with the Lord Jesus Christ, while his Taiwanese girlfriend claimed to believe in a non-personal deity; a relativist may argue and in my view quite properly, that both statements are correct on the basis that truth is here based on an individual’s understanding of reality, which is, dependent upon context. But the reasoning falls on all fours when tested against the non-contradiction law – because one of the tenets of relativism is that there is no such a thing as an absolute truth. There is a problem with this analysis however. For a principle that there is no such a thing as an absolute truth comes across, for all intents and purposes, as absolute in and of itself. If this is true, it most certainly flies in face of our understanding of logic. It therefore renders the concept of truth as understood from a relativist perspective to be inconsistent. This inconsistency is also noticeable in the realms of ethics – blurring what is morally acceptable.

Pluralism does not pretend to aver whether or not something is an absolute truth

7. So then: What becomes of the above contradictory statements which were made by both Stephen and his Taiwanese girlfriend with regard to their understanding of religion? The blurring of truth in the realms of ethics in the name of relativism has bequeathed us ‘pluralism’ in our interactions with world’s diverse religions. Religious pluralism suggests that all religions are equal; that is, when considered from our respective understanding of how we relate to the divine. Religious pluralism has been especially useful in name of tolerance in our increasingly globalized world, where many cultures constantly collide and compete with each other in the public square. Thus Stephen’s assertion that he has a ‘personal relationship with his God, as expressed by his confidence in the Lord Jesus Christ’ is just as correct and acceptable as his Taiwanese girlfriend’s assertion that ‘my spiritual tradition focuses mainly on personal spiritual development and the attainment of a deep insight into the true nature of life…’ Both statements are, on the face of it, true because they are interpreted in the context of their respective and different cultures. They do not contradict each other and as such, do not violate the law of non-contradiction. You can see why the concept of pluralism is acceptable and championed in progressives circles; for it avoids conflict because it does not pretend to aver on whether or not something is an absolute truth. It is therefore a poor basis upon which to investigate an absolute objective truth. Because whereas the above two statements may be considered to be true based on their pluralistically accepted cultural contexts; however, pluralism says very little about absolute truth as both statements cannot be true if we were to follow the law of non-contradiction. For two contradictory statements cannot both be true in the same sense and at the same time. This begs the next question: How then may we establish truth, that is, what is an absolute truth?

God Almighty is the absolute objective truth; He is reality

8. In answer, please continue to indulge me as Stephen’s Taiwanese girlfriend converted and was baptized into the Anglican Christian faith before they were formally married. They now both believe in the one and only living God, through the Lord Jesus Christ. They accept God Almighty as an objective reality, and they both behold him as the absolute source of all truth. While they place it on the record that their lives have experienced many challenges since they got married and therefore their lives are far from perfect; and yet, they have found that keying-off God as their measure of reality has been, and still is, a source of much consolation. They endeavour, even in the face of many challenges, to live by faith, in order to reflect the reality of God as an absolute objective truth in their personal day-to-day lives. Now I am aware that writing thus, I most probably come across as a tad presumptuous; for the above is an exceedingly bold statement to place on the record. No doubt some might even call me arrogant. Accordingly, it is only fair for this claim be put to the test – to determine whether or not there is any merit in his so-called belief. So then, is God an absolute reality, an objective truth as Stephen claims?

Is God the absolute objective truth – really?

9. The answer is a resounding, YES! And I do not answer frivolously. I am dead serious. Writing as a professing Christian, I endeavour to live my life with an eye to God, both as the maker of heaven and earth and the Father of my Lord Jesus Christ, and in him as my Father. I believe God is an objective reality and living as we do in the world of social media; God is the kind of reality that cannot be tweeted away, after the fashion of the machismo Donald Trump, the 45th President of United States of America. God Jehovah is a reality that is just there; it really does not matter what you or I think of this reality, He is simply there, an objective reality which is independent of us all. My belief is premised upon the contents of a God-inspired Book, commonly known as the Holy Bible. The Bible is a written record of many instances in which God interacted and continues to interact with His created order; first, through a select band of people(s), as a representative of all humanity of which you and I are but a number; and secondly, individually, hence a personal relationship I presently enjoy. What is extraordinary about this is that although you and I may be a number in a sea of humanity, and yet, paradoxically, we are known by Him personally and individually.

The Bible is a reliable book – of both history and authority

10. Instances of God’s dealings with that select band of people, His Covenant people, are too many to number here; but they are all in the public domain and therefore impossible to make up, they are the basis of much what we take for granted in our democratic societies in respect of justice, equity, sound government, and the rule of law. I do accept that their historical accuracy may be open to dispute, as they often are, and yet, thanks to the science of archaeology, we now know that the whole history of buried cities and departed civilizations testify to the fact that the Bible is indeed true. Moreover, every strip of land in the Middle East is but an exposition and an affirmation of the truth of the Biblical narratives, which include among others, the patriarchs, Moses and the great exodus, the conquest of the land of Canaan; the deeds of the judges, and the exploits of the Jewish kings; and, the Jewish exile and restoration. Truly, I am yet to find any historical or archaeological scholar whose body of work categorically refutes the reliability of the Bible as a book of both history and authority. Not wishing to hold myself out as an accomplished scholar; and yet, I am persuaded that based on the evidence cited above, that I stand on terra firma when I say that the truth set out in the Bible transcends both time and culture. It is the absolute truth!

The Lord Jesus Christ is not an ordinary man

11. Keeping to the track of ‘God’s dealings’ with his creation, I have often heard it argued by some very clever people that the Lord Jesus Christ was just another wise teacher in say, the traditions of an Indian Guru or a Maharishi; some have even gone so far as to suggest that He was and still is a figment of His followers’ imagination. The argument is that it is impossible for a physical human being to die as Christ Jesus did, and after three days, to rise from the dead. It is contended that the death and resurrection story is completely made up, a fabrication of people’s fertile imagination. Having successfully, I hope, shown that the Bible is a credible source of truth, and that the scholarship of both history and archaeology independently verify its authenticity, let us now delve a little deeper in order for me to show you that the Lord Jesus Christ was and is indeed not an ordinary man.

The Protestant Christian Bible

12. Seeing that my background lies both in the Anglican Church and the Methodist Church, I stand astonished even to this day at my discovery that I am acquitted of all my sins, accepted by God, and justified by faith in Christ Jesus ‘Alone’ as clearly portrayed in the scriptures which are set out the Protestant Christian Bible. I will therefore, for the purposes of this blogpost, refer to the Protestant version of the Bible. But first, a little note about this particular Bible. The Protestant Christian Biblical Canon is split into two halves: the first half is made up of 39 books, which correspond to 24 books of the Hebrew Bible, also known as the Torah. The additional number of books reflects the splitting of several texts, namely: Kings, Samuel and the Chronicles, Ezra – Nehemiah, and the 12 Minor Prophets – into separate books in the Christian Bible. The second half of the Canon is a collection of 27 books, which form the New Testament. The New Testament is a biographical account of the life and teachings of the Lord Jesus Christ; and the life and times of the first-century Christians – all written, initially, in the koine Greek language – at different times and by different authors. The 27 books are as follows: the 4 Canonical Gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John), the Acts of the Apostles, the 14 Epistles of Paul, 7 Catholic Epistles and the Book of Revelation. All these books; that is, both the Old Testament and the New Testament, are especially remarkable for their astonishing accuracy. The books are amazingly accurate largely because of their seeming improbability.

The Messiah is God’s chosen one

13. When we run our eye over the pages of the Old Testament, we see the introduction of the idea of a Saviour for our instruction in a form of a story. The Messiah is God’s chosen one, an anointed one of God; one who is sent by Almighty God to the earth to reconcile to Himself a people, a Covenant people; and to usher in a kingdom in which all the peoples of the world will be blessed, and live together in God’s peace and righteousness. The story starts in the Book of Genesis 1:27 where we learn that God “created man in his own image, in the image of God he created them; male and female he created them.” An exposition of Genesis makes it clear that God intended for them in live in the Garden of Eden, which he had created for them to enjoy in full. But sin entered into the heart of man and sinned against God through an act of disobedience, after God had strictly forbade them from eating of a fruit of a specified tree; causing them to fall from grace, and to be expelled.

Our God does not do an ‘Oops!’

14. Now there are some who argue that the fact that man sinned against God, thus necessitating Him to expel man from the Garden of Eden suggests that God is something of a bungler, and is not entirely in control of events. In other words, God committed what you and I might properly describe as, an ‘Oops!’ We Christians profoundly disagree with this analysis. We disagree on the basis that God Almighty, unlike man, does not do an ‘Oops.’ We contend that it was God’s plan to allow sin to enter into the Garden of Eden; that He may draw us in into His creative purposes, and the Messiah is part of the process of creating a peculiar people, a holy people who are to enter into His kingdom at a designated time. The creative process, which is beyond the scope of this blogpost, is coming into being by degrees; and is set out with remarkable accuracy in the Books of the Prophets, and the Book of the Psalms. Indeed, our God does not do an ‘Oops!’ All is set out according to a carefully laid out divine plan, a plan we now turn to in sundry particulars below – albeit briefly.

Abraham and the promise of a Messiah

15. After Adam and Eve fell from grace through sin and were expelled from the Garden of Eden, God continued his creative work by calling an obscure Moon worshipper named Abraham, to leave the house of his father Terah and follow him. Thus we discover the first prophesy about the Messiah is set out in the Book of Genesis 22:18 in which God makes a promise to Abraham, “…by your descendants shall all the nations of the earth bless themselves, because you have obeyed my voice.” This promise is re-affirmed in another prophesy, this time made to Abraham’s grandson, Jacob in the Book of Numbers 24:17, “I see him, but not now: I behold him, but not nigh: a star shall come forth out of Jacob, and a sceptre shall rise out of Israel; it shall crush the forehead of Moab, and break down all the sons of Sheth.”

The Messiah is in the line of King David

16. If we quickly turn to the Book of Isaiah, chapter 11:1-2, we read: “There shall come forth a shoot from the stump of Jesse, and a branch shall grow out of his roots. And the Spirit of the Lord shall rest upon him, the spirit of wisdom and understanding, the spirit of counsel and might, the spirit of knowledge and the fear of the LORD” This prophesy clearly alludes to the fact that the Messiah is in the line of King David, the son of Jesse. Again, in the Book of Jeremiah 23:5-6 we see that the same prophesy is restated, namely, “Behold, the days are coming, says the Lord, when I will raise up for David a righteous Branch, and he shall reign as king and deal wisely, and shall execute justice and righteousness in the land. In his days Judah will be saved, and Israel will dwell securely. And this is the name by which he will be called: ‘The Lord is our righteousness.’”

The Messiah’s birth place

17. For the avoidance of doubt, as lawyers are wont to say when drawing up contracts, for the New Covenant sealed in Jesus Christ’s blood is a binding contract; the above prophecy implying that Jesus is from the line king David is repeated in the Book of 2 Samuel 7:12-13, “When your days are fulfilled and you lie down with your fathers, I will raise up your offspring after you, who shall come forth from your body, and I will establish his kingdom. He shall build a house for my name, and I will establish the throne of his kingdom forever.” It is interesting to note that God does not leave anything to chance, for He goes on to describe the exact geographical location of the Messiah’s birth. Look at how He names the town and the region precisely in the Book of Micah 5:2, “But you, Bethlehem Eph`rathah, who are little to be among the clans of Judah, from you shall come forth for me one whose origin is from old, from ancient days.”

The Messiah’s divinity

18. This precision not only goes beyond naming the place of birth, but it also points to the divinity of the Messiah. For example we learn in the Book of Isaiah 7:14, “Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign. Behold, a young woman shall conceive and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.” The divinity of Jesus Christ is further confirmed in the Book of Psalms 72:10-11, “May the kings of Tarshish and of the isles render him tribute, may the kings of Sheba and Seba bring gifts! May all kings fall down before him, all nations serve him!” Moreover, through the mouth of a prophet in the Book of Jeremiah 31:15, God predicts the slaughter of innocents after Jesus is born: “Thus says the Lord: ‘A voice is heard in Ramah, lamentation and bitter weeping. Rachel is weeping for her children; she refuses to be comforted for her children, because they are not.’” And, finally, see the prediction of the infant Jesus’s flight to Egypt in the Book of Hosea 11:1 “When Israel was a child, I loved him, and out of Egypt I called my son.” What makes all the above prophecies remarkable is that they were all fulfilled at the birth of the Lord Jesus Christ – His first coming. Events surrounding His first coming have been confirmed as a historical fact. Moreover, prophecies concerning Israel, the world and end of time, are as I write being confirmed, unfolding before our very own eyes.

Jesus Christ is God – the absolute truth

19. “Alright, alright, I get it – all about those prophecies,” I hear you say. “But what I do not understand is the so-called uniqueness of Jesus Christ. I don’t get what he has to do with the so-called absolute truth.” Well then, here’s the thing: We Christians take the Bible to be the inspired word of God. We make our assertion to be the absolute truth; that is, we believe God is real, and is therefore worth our complete trust. We also believe that the Lord Jesus Christ is divine; He was and is very God of very God, in the beginning with the Father. Thus, logically speaking, we believe that Jesus Christ is God and therefore ‘The’ source of absolute truth. We base our claim on the Gospel according to John 1:1-5 where we read: “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God; all things were made through him, and without him was not anything made that was made. In him was life, and the life was the light of men. The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome it.” Also see John 14:6, where Jesus is on record to have said, “‘I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father, but by me.’” Now I grant you our claim is on the face of it, outrageous. But your outrage will quickly be silenced when it is put to the test under the microscope of logic; that is, by subjecting our claim to actual established facts.

The Lord Jesus Christ’s own prophesies about Himself and their fulfilment

20. Let us consider some other shocking claims the Lord Jesus Christ made during his brief time on this earth. We start with one recorded in the Gospel according to John 2:19, namely, “Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up.” Then there is a claim, again, in the Gospel according to John 10:18, where Jesus speaks about his life before he was put to death thus: “No one takes it from me, but I lay it down of my own accord. I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again; this charge I have received from my Father.” Now I ask you: Who in the world speaks like that? In answer, let us compare these outrageous statements to what actually happened. We know it as a matter of historical fact that the Lord Jesus Christ was tried by Pontius Pilate, a Roman governor in Judea. It is a fact beyond dispute that the Lord Jesus Christ was sentenced to death by crucifixion, an event which took place in public and was therefore witnessed by many; He actually died and was buried and on the third day, He was raised up – just as He had said. No physical body was ever found to disprove the resurrection as a matter of fact. You would think, would you not, that the discovery of the Lord Jesus Christ’s dead body would be sufficient to put to an end any speculation that He was raised from the dead, which indeed He was!

The risen Lord Jesus Christ was not and is not a ghost

21. And no, the Lord Jesus Christ was not a ghost when he was raised up; for He was seen on ten different and independent occasions after His death; and, in one particular instance, we read in Paul’s 1st Letter to the Corinthians 15:6 that “He appeared to more than five hundred brethren at one time.” Thus, if we were to apply the Law of Moses as set out in the Book of Deuteronomy 17:6, which requires that there must be at least two witnesses for a truth to be credibly verified; it is clear that this rule of evidence is well and truly satisfied on all fours. Moreover, the above happening confirms the Lord Jesus Christ’s own predictions about his own death and resurrection as absolutely true. And finally, with regard to a specific issue that the resurrected Jesus Christ was not a ghost, we read in the Gospel according to Luke 24:41-43 thus: “And while they still disbelieved for joy, and wondered, he said to them, ‘Have you anything here to eat?’ They gave him a piece of boiled fish, and he took it and ate before them.” Nowhere is it recorded that a ghost eats solid food – let alone eat boiled fish!

The truth set out in the Bible is absolutely secure

22. One more note concerning the uniqueness and divinity of the Lord Jesus Christ for the sake of completeness: There is absolute security in what is written in the Bible. And to this end, let us take a look at another personal eyewitness account, which is recorded for our benefit in two books – the Gospel according to Luke and the Acts of the Apostles written by Luke the Evangelist. Luke was probably the most educated of all the writers of the New Testament, a very thoughtful man; for he was both a companion and a personal physician to Paul, the Apostle. In the Gospel according to Luke 1:1-4, where we read: “Inasmuch as many have undertaken to compile a narrative of the things which have been accomplished among us, just as they were delivered to us by those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the word, it seemed good to me also, having followed all things closely for some time past, to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophius, that you may know the truth concerning the things of which you have been informed.” And if we turn to verses 31-35, still in chapter 1, focusing on the divinity of the Lord Jesus Christ, Dr Luke continues to write thus: “‘And behold, you will conceive in your womb and bear a son, and you shall call his name Jesus. He will be great, and will be called the Son of the Most High; and the Lord God will give to him the throne of his father David, and he will reign over the house of Jacob for ever; and of his kingdom there will be no end.’ And Mary said to the angel, ‘How shall this be, since I have no husband?’ And the angel said to her, ‘The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you; therefore the child to be born will be called holy, the Son of God.” But why is absolute truth such a big deal?

Absolute truth explains our astonishingly complex world

23. Britain’s decision to vote Leave in the 2016 Referendum opened my eyes to a reality that we now live in a society where absolute truth is treated as something of a fairy tale. Many in England today treat truth as antiquated, an insult to intelligence; reducing us as British citizens to believe whatever we like, pleasing ourselves, doing whatever seems good in our own eyes regardless of any detriment we may happen to cause – one to another. In recent years, we have been treated to bewildering tales of how our elected leaders are dismissive of experts; and that we, the ordinary British citizen, care more about what the so-called real people in the world actually think. It is often forgotten that absolute truth actually helps us explain an increasingly complex world in which we are all citizens; that is, absolute truth gives us a basis upon which to make sound decisions, especially in areas of government policy. Without an absolute truth to key-off from, we become hostage to fortune – severely circumscribing our ability to save ourselves in the face of a disaster.

24. Yes, yes, I hear you say: “I am not a Christian. I don’t care about Christianity for love or money. I don’t see what the fuss regarding absolute truth is all about! Why should I care? Can you think of anyone else who can help me see the big picture respecting this so-called absolute truth?” Yes, I can. To those of you, especially you who are learned in the Classics, I summon Aristotle, that great philosopher and polymath of Ancient Greece, and the father of Western philosophy. Pray, my good fellow, Aristotle, please kindly take to the witness box. What is your evidence? “My evidence is,” I hear the great man answer that: “The high-minded man must care more for the truth than for what people think.” There you have it! I rest my case. For although there is no evidence to suggest that Aristotle was ever a Christian, for he lived between 384BC and 322BC, way before the Lord Jesus Christ was born; it appears from what is known about the great man that, his chief concern was that we must all of us, seek the truth and not to submit ourselves to mere opinions. His evidence bares testimony to the importance of truth, especially absolute truth. Truth helps us make sense of our world.

Every lie we tell incurs a debt to the truth

25. Let me conclude this blogpost by praying in aid of a wonderful line I heard recently. It is a line, which was taken from ‘Chernobyl’ – the 2019 HBO historical drama television mini-series. It went something like this: “When the truth offends, we lie and lie until we can no longer remember it is even there. But it is still there. Every lie we tell incurs a debt to the truth. Sooner or later, that debt is paid.” British democracy has in recent years been particularly and peculiarly vulnerable to astonishing lies. A whole political campaign was inspired and sustained with lies – lies about our priorities on, among other things, how we spend our tax-payer’s money; it led to a decisive vote to leave the European Union precipitously. Whereas I would never wish the ongoing Coronavirus calamity upon anyone, not even upon my worst enemy; and yet, this pandemic may turn out to be the ‘Vehement East Wind’ which I predicted in my last blogpost, ‘Opportunity lost to democracy.’ This pandemic may be the means by which those cruel lies are exposed for what they really are; for it will disproportionately affect the most vulnerable people in British society, the so-called ‘left behind’ – the very same people Brexit is purportedly intended to help.


Facebook’s role in Brexit — and the threat to democracy | Carole Cadwalladr -10 June 2019


26. In the second part of this blogpost, I will explore the possible consequences to the new world order of Post-Brexit Britain, in which based on available published proposals, it appears that the will of the ‘Strong’ may take precedent over will of the weak. I will endeavour to show that in the world where the concept of humanity is stripped from the commonwealth of the United Kingdom of Great Britain, no one is safe. The blogpost will explore this theme by asking a very simple question: Who is my neighbour?

Kindly share this