The Age of Post-Truth

We are living, indubitably, in an age of post-truth — an era in which falsehoods, distortions, and manufactured narratives often prevail over facts and reason. Society appears trapped in a recurring conundrum: are we redefining what constitutes “truth,” or merely redefining “falsehood” itself? At times, we seem endlessly engaged in the futile exercise of reinventing the wheel.

As someone from the baby-boomer generation who spent most of a working life in academia, I have come to appreciate both the privileges and burdens of old age. There are the modest advantages of being a septuagenarian — yet these are accompanied by physical and psychological aches that no concession can alleviate.

The times we inhabit today feel increasingly dystopian and deeply unsettling. The United States, once widely regarded as a bastion of liberty, democratic ideals, and the rule of law, now appears to many observers to be drifting toward a more authoritarian political culture. This reality has kept me awake on countless nights, not out of fear of the unknown, but because it provokes relentless reflection. I often find myself contemplating how profoundly life — and indeed the world itself — has changed, and whether this transformation is destined to endure for generations to come.

Perhaps the greatest casualty of the post-truth era is truth itself. Genuine truth is too often buried beneath layers of misinformation, half-truths, competing narratives, conspiracy theories, and carefully manufactured realities. The proliferation of fake news and “alternative facts” has obscured what once seemed self-evident. Truth has become a fragile and increasingly contested commodity in this age of postmodernism, of which the post-truth condition may well be a natural by-product.

The familiar intellectual currents of moral relativism and historical materialism — the usual suspects, as it were — have contributed to this climate. Postmodernism originally sought to challenge entrenched structures of power, ideology, and authority. Yet its broader cultural legacy may also have contributed to a world in which no idea, institution, historical narrative, or moral principle is considered immune from skepticism, even when the skepticism itself rests on unstable foundations. Everything is questioned, yet very little is affirmed.

Truth, however, has never been easy to accept. It becomes especially unwelcome when it threatens the interests of those who hold power. We lament the erosion of democracy, due process, the rule of law, human rights, and even the principles enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Yet these ideals increasingly seem overshadowed by political narratives, ideological agendas, and strategic interests. Perhaps what we are witnessing is not merely political decay, but a profound shift in our collective moral and social consciousness.

Even “objective history” has become something of an oxymoron. In many ways, history has always borne the imprint of subjectivity — arguably since the time of Herodotus. Today, events unfolding in real time are instantly transformed into narratives tailored to particular interests or ideologies, while truth itself often remains obscured beneath layers of interpretation and propaganda.

What, then, is true history? Ideally, it is the faithful preservation of events as they occurred, free from personal bias and political manipulation. Yet history is seldom taught in such a manner. Schoolchildren often learn little of the oppression, exploitation, and abuses inflicted upon Indigenous peoples and colonized societies by imperial powers. And when these realities are acknowledged, they are frequently framed as part of a supposedly noble “civilizing mission,” rather than confronted honestly for the injustices they were. Such is the way history is too often sanitized and transmitted.

Another inevitable by-product of this age is the proliferation of charlatans, propagandists, and professional deceivers — what one might call “political illusionists” or, more bluntly and aptly, “bull-shitters.” They are everywhere: within our own social circles, across broadcast networks, among public intellectuals and media personalities, and especially within politics itself. Many are figures once regarded as thoughtful, serious, and accomplished. Today, deception, spectacle, and performative outrage seem not merely common, but pervasive.

When political leaders — presidents, prime ministers, and elected representatives — traffic in distortion and falsehood, the consequences extend far beyond politics itself. It corrodes public trust, damages civic culture, undermines mental well-being, and gradually normalizes dishonesty as an accepted feature of public life. Leaders who thrive on deception cultivate a culture in which lying becomes transactional, profitable, and politically expedient. It wins elections, pacifies disillusioned electorates, shields the powerful from accountability, and sustains entire industries devoted to manipulation, propaganda, and public relations.

War, too, is seldom presented honestly. Political leaders frequently construct narratives portraying themselves as noble defenders of civilization, security, or freedom, while concealing the more complex realities of power, geopolitics, economic interests, and strategic calculation. Publics are often treated less as informed citizens than as audiences to be persuaded.

Let us recall two historical examples — among many others — lest their complexities be buried beneath simplified narratives.

The Cuban Missile Crisis

The dominant narrative surrounding the Cuban Missile Crisis portrayed the crisis primarily as the result of the Soviet Union secretly deploying offensive nuclear missiles in Cuba, thereby creating an immediate threat to the United States and the Western Hemisphere.

A broader historical interpretation, however, suggests that the crisis emerged from several interconnected factors: Soviet efforts to deter further American aggression against Cuba after the failed Bay of Pigs invasion, Moscow’s desire to narrow the strategic nuclear imbalance with the United States, and the deployment of U.S. nuclear missiles in Turkey near Soviet borders.

From this perspective, Cuba’s willingness to host Soviet missiles was driven largely by fears of another U.S.-supported invasion following the Bay of Pigs operation and ongoing hostility between Washington and Havana. The enduring estrangement between the United States and Cuba cannot be understood without acknowledging this broader geopolitical context.

The U.S.–Iran Confrontation

Relations between the United States and Iran since 1979 may similarly be viewed as part of a prolonged geopolitical confrontation shaped by ideology, regional power struggles, security concerns, and energy politics.

One major historical turning point was the 1953 overthrow of Iranian Prime Minister Mohammad Mosaddegh after he nationalized Iran’s oil industry, arguing that the country’s natural resources should remain under Iranian control for national economic development. The coup — widely understood to have involved both the CIA and Britain’s MI6 — restored the rule of Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, whose increasingly authoritarian monarchy maintained close ties with Western powers for decades.

At the time, Mosaddegh was portrayed by some Western officials as dangerously susceptible to communist influence. In retrospect, many historians have argued that such claims were exaggerated and politically expedient, serving primarily as justification for foreign intervention motivated by strategic and economic interests.

The situation changed dramatically with the Iranian Revolution led by Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, which overthrew the Shah and established the Islamic Republic. Since then, relations between Washington and Tehran have remained deeply adversarial, marked by sanctions, proxy conflicts, diplomatic isolation, and recurring military tensions.

Critics of U.S. policy argue that strategic interests — particularly energy security and regional influence — have played a central role in sustaining the confrontation. They also contend that public narratives surrounding Iran’s nuclear ambitions and regional influence have often been framed in alarmist terms, including repeated claims over decades that Iran was perpetually on the verge of acquiring nuclear weapons.

Supporters of U.S. policy, along with allies such as Israel and several Gulf states, counter that Iran’s missile development, support for armed regional groups, and nuclear activities justify sustained international pressure and containment efforts.

Herein lies a striking irony: Israel is widely believed to possess nuclear weapons, despite maintaining a policy of deliberate ambiguity, while Iran, as of now, is not publicly known to possess an operational nuclear bomb. Yet global discourse remains overwhelmingly focused on the hypothetical danger of a nuclear-armed Iran, while comparatively less attention is directed toward Israel’s existing nuclear capability or toward the broader historical realities of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict since 1948.

One may reasonably ask: if the international community fears the possibility of Iran one day using nuclear capability as leverage, should it not also scrutinize the risks inherent in any state already possessing such weapons? Nuclear accountability, if it is to retain moral and political credibility, must apply universally rather than selectively according to geopolitical alignment

At the same time, it is important to distinguish between criticism of state policies and broader generalizations about peoples or identities. Serious discussions about nuclear proliferation, regional security, and Palestinian rights are best grounded in consistent principles, factual accuracy, and equal standards for all states.

In the end, dishonesty has become not merely tolerated, but monetized. Truth, meanwhile, struggles to survive amid the noise.

 

*Saif Zaman, PhD is a Sessional Professor at York University, Canada and a concerned citizen. He welcomes comments and replies at [email protected]

 

Source: https://www.counterpunch.org/2026/05/14/the-age-of-post-truth/