Reality Distortion

Jean-Francois Lyotard’s The Postmodern Condition (1979) diagnosed a world where overarching ideologies, like Marxism, lost grip due to societal fragmentation driven by mass media and technology. Lyotard didn’t reject truth but argued that what passes for truth often mirrors power dynamics—a process where dominant narratives shape perception. Critics like Michiko Kakutani and Jordan Peterson claim postmodernism’s skepticism fueled relativism, eroding objectivity. One can also see postmodernism as exposing a pre-existing shift, not causing it.

Jean Baudrillard’s Simulacra and Simulation (1981) warned that media saturation creates a hyperreality where symbols eclipse reality itself. This dynamic traps attention in curated content streams, a phenomenon now evident in platforms like X. Power’s ability to dictate perceived truth is intensified by digital technology and capitalism. Far from dismantling truth, thinkers like Lyotard and Baudrillard anticipated how media overload distorts our shared sense of reality. As information floods our consciousness, we lean on simplified narratives that reinforce biases, crafting personal realities that fragment collective understanding—a crisis postmodernism foresaw but didn’t create.

October 2005: Stephen Colbert coins “truthiness,” the belief or assertion that a particular statement is true based on the intuition or perceptions of some individual or individuals, without regard to evidence, logic, intellectual examination, or facts. Truthiness can range from ignorant assertions of falsehoods to deliberate duplicity or propaganda intended to sway opinions. The concept of truthiness emerged as a major subject of discussion surrounding U.S. politics, as propaganda and a growing hostility toward factual reporting and fact-based discussion.

Ron Suskind on what Karl Rove (?) said to him in 2004: “The aide said that guys like me were 'in what we call the reality-based community,' which he defined as people who 'believe that solutions emerge from your judicious study of discernible reality.' [...] 'That's not the way the world really works anymore,' he continued. 'We're an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you're studying that reality—judiciously, as you will—we'll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that's how things will sort out. We're history's actors...and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do'.

International relations scholar Fred Halliday writes that the phrase “reality-based community” was used "for those who did not share [the W administration’s] international goals and aspirations," or bullshit propaganda, call it what you will. Halliday contrasted them to the “faith-based community” who did share those “goals & aspirations,” mainly certain Christian groups.

Chris Cillizza (November 2015): “Let me start with this: I am rarely surprised by anything that happens in politics. Call it cynicism or pragmatism. But after spending two decades covering politics, I feel like nothing is shocking anymore. Except, that is, the remarkable disdain for facts in the context of this presidential campaign. Candidates have always done their best to bend numbers, statistics and stories to make themselves look as good — or as not-bad — as possible. But there was almost always a line that wasn't crossed in years past, a sort of even-partisans-can-agree-on-this standard.” (excerpted from Donald Trump is leading an increasingly fact-free 2016 campaign) https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2015/11/23/the-2016-campaign-is-largely-fact-free-thats-a-terrible-thing-for-american-democracy/)

The phrase "alternative facts" is similar to a phrase used in Trump's 1987 book, Trump: The Art of the Deal. In that book, "truthful hyperbole" was described as "an innocent form of exaggeration—and ... a very effective form of promotion." The book claimed that "people want to believe that something is the biggest and the greatest and the most spectacular." The ghostwriter of the book, Tony Schwartz, said he coined that phrase and claimed that Trump "loved it."

In 2017, in response to a question from Meet the Press’ Chuck Todd about Trump's false claims regarding the inauguration crowd and the loss of credibility, Kellyanne Conway said: “Our press secretary, Sean Spicer, gave alternative facts to that, but the point remains that...” Todd interrupted her by saying "Wait a minute. Alternative facts? ... Alternative facts are not facts. They're falsehoods." In her answer, Conway argued that crowd numbers in general could not be assessed with certainty and objected to what she described as Todd's trying to make her look ridiculous. Conway later defended her choice of words, defining "alternative facts" as "additional facts and alternative information."

Two days later, Spicer corrected his statements concerning the WMATA ridership levels, stating that he had been relying on statistics "given to him." He stood by his widely disputed claim that the inauguration was the most-viewed, stating he also included online viewership in addition to in-person and television in his figures.

During the week following Conway's comments, she discussed "alternative facts," substituting the phrases "alternative information" and "incomplete information". Two days after the Todd interview she defended Trump's travel restrictions by talking about a nonexistent "Bowling Green massacre" (she later said she was referring to the arrest of two Iraqis in Bowling Green, Kentucky, for sending aid to insurgents in Iraq), and by falsely claiming that President Obama in 2011 had "banned visas for refugees from Iraq for six months". Her false statements were described as having "taken 'alternative facts' to a new level."

The claim, once voiced by Goebbels, that "relativism is the only absolute" reveals a profound contradiction now permeating modern ideology. Relativism, by asserting all truths are subjective, undermines itself: if every claim is relative, so too is relativism’s own assertion. Yet its spread, whether labeled postmodernism or deconstructionism, is reshaping societal consciousness. Many, unaware of philosophical roots, embrace relativistic principles, eroding the foundation of objective truth. This is no mere intellectual error; it is a systemic threat. By rendering truth contingent, relativism dismantles the basis for rational discourse, law, and science. Disputes—whether over empirical facts like the Earth’s shape or fantastical conspiracies—become unresolvable, reduced to "agree to disagree." Sciences like physics or biology, essential for societal function, are cast as mere "narratives," jeopardizing truth. This ideology aligns with power structures that thrive on fragmented realities, neutralizing critique and collective action. Rejecting relativism does not deny perspective’s role but affirms the necessity of shared, evidence-based truth for governance, inquiry, and progress. Unchecked, the thousand cuts that assault reality cause intellectual paralysis and social disintegration.

In 1984, Oceania’s power structure exemplifies postmodernist relativism, where truth is malleable and subordinate to Party control. The regime’s manipulation of reality—through "doublethink" and constant historical revision—renders truth relative, existing only to serve power. By erasing objective facts, the Party ensures no external standard challenges its authority, mirroring postmodernist skepticism of universal truths. Citizens, stripped of stable reality, accept contradictions as valid, reflecting relativism’s denial of absolute meaning. This enables total control, as dissent becomes impossible without a shared truth. Oceania illustrates how relativism, far from liberating, can entrench authoritarian power by obliterating the foundation for resistance.

The kayfabe-saturated world of professional wrestling, where scripted drama masquerades as reality, primed audiences for Donald Trump’s political ascent. Fans, accustomed to suspending disbelief for WWE’s staged spectacles—including Trump’s theatrical “fight” with Vince McMahon—were conditioned to embrace performance over substance. Trump’s role as a genius CEO on The Apprentice, another scripted kayfabe production, further cemented this image. These audiences, steeped in narratives where truth is malleable, were vulnerable to Trump’s doublespeak—his contradictory, reality-distorting rhetoric. Unaware of their manipulation, they followed this larger-than-life character to the ballot box, electing him the 47th POTUS, mistaking performance for authenticity.

Newsbits: (March 24) “…Trump is running this country as if it were his own personal reality TV show. He understands that the surefire way for a reality show to be successful is that in every episode, which airs every day, there must be chaos. The script must be over the top, and the more inflammatory the rhetoric, the better”… (May 17) “Trump's own 'Big Boss'? US Homeland Security is considering a TV show where immigrants will be made to go through a series of challenges to compete for US citizenship”…

The post-truth prophets: postmodernism predicted our post-truth hellscape. Postmodernism’s foresight into our post-truth era reveals how human cognition, wired to seek patterns, is swayed by narrative and media. In a 2019 CNN discussion, Brian Stelter and Andrew Marantz noted how Trump’s media ecosystem spins alternative realities, sidelining facts. This reflects a core human tendency to prioritize stories over raw data, a vulnerability amplified in today’s fragmented media landscape.

The Republican proposal to strip courts of contempt power, buried in a tax bill favoring billionaires, aims to dismantle America’s constitutional balance, granting Trump unchecked authority. By barring courts from enforcing rulings without a cash bond—a rarity in civil cases like those challenging Trump’s actions—it renders judicial orders powerless. The Founders’ three-branch system—Congress, presidency, courts—prevents tyranny through checks. Trump’s defiance of court orders, like those on Venezuelan deportations, already undermines this. With Congress subdued, this cripples the judiciary, leaving the presidency dominant. Legal scholar Erwin Chemerinsky warns that without contempt power, courts issue mere “advisory opinions,” paving the way for a 1984-style autocracy. This isn’t just legal maneuvering; it’s a cognitive assault,