The sister of a colleague is having trouble with the truth, liars, lies, lying & falsehoods. She doesn’t know what they are. She has over a million Twitter followers & a huge media profile.
I worry for my colleague. Her sister. And the UK. I thought I might try to help.
A🧵/1.
The @OED will, I hope, forgive me for the inevitable process of simplification I’m about to apply to their learned entries. But I’ll try to avoid recreating the farrago of nonsense we’ve been seeing on the subject of truth & lying.
Let’s start with the meaning of “true”. /2.
This is quite easy really. For those not easily distracted by inverted pyramids of piffle.
To be true is to conform with reality & fact.
Which brings us to “truth”.
Truth is that which is true. Real. Factual.
Phew. We’re getting somewhere.
Bear with me. /3.
Let’s try our hand at “false” & “falsehood”.
If you were a person who criticises lawyers who get the better of you, but hires them to help you bend the rules, you’d be in heaven, looking for definitional loopholes.
If you had a moral compass you’d see “false” means “untrue”./4.
Getting warmer. “Falsehood”. Milton: “Let truth and falsehood grapple. Who ever knew truth put to the worse in a free & open encounter?”
A serious leader or commentator would stand for truth.
Lesser beings would first need to realise a falsehood is an untruthful statement. /5.
How about a “lie”?
Shall we just cut through it all? Perhaps with a smile. Whether or not that’s characterised by a great wordsmith as watermelon-like.
A lie is a statement which is untrue, or intentionally false.
Look carefully. Especially colleagues’ sister. Thanks. /6.
The verb to lie means to tell a lie. Or to make an intentionally false statement.
Pretty easy now. Or perhaps not. If you’re in the habit of describing entirely innocent people as looking like bank robbers. Or part of the postal infrastructure.
Let’s move on. /7.
This is quite exciting. We’re about to find out what a liar is.
We know a liar can’t be present in the House of Commons. The Speaker wouldn’t allow it. And no one’s permitted even to say it.
What a relief.
Because a liar is someone who lies. Tells falsehoods. Is untruthful./8.
Thank you @OED. What would we have done without you?
To recap.
A liar is someone who lies. Or tells falsehoods. Is untruthful.
The question of a liar’s intention isn’t an escape route from the requirement, on decent people, to tell the truth.
I’ll leave it at that. /9.
But not quite.
I said “the sister of a colleague”. That’s no longer true. If a “colleague” is someone working in the same corporation, institution or organisation, the strictly correct statement now is “former colleague”.
I wouldn’t wish to tell a lie. However small. /10. End
(Correction to tweet 6: “colleague’s sister”. Obvs).
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
The other day I took part in a seminar organised by perhaps the world’s most famous human rights organisation.
The subject was UN efforts to end mass atrocities & the need to prevent countries blocking the UN doing so.
Something unexpected happened.
A 🧵/1.
Much of the session focused on the use of international law, & on the role of the UN Security Council, particularly its veto-wielding five permanent members, China, France, Russia, the UK & the USA. /2.
So much was perhaps predictable &, although reasonably well-informed & coming from a humane & decent place, somewhat frustrating. We all know that nothing major is likely to change on the UNSC front for years to come, if then. /3.
The human suffering of 7 October & since renders any but sociopaths deeply distressed. We're all covered in blood. Perhaps you're now angry with me for "moral relativism" or another modern deadly sin. Reading on may not help. But I hope you will.
A long🧵/1.
The most obvious reason for distress is the carnage. Then feelings of impotence & rage. Then, for the more honestly reflective, a recognition of complicity & guilt.
There is no "clean" way out. Nor has there ever been.
Don't be angry. Be determined. And realistic. /2.
Let's start with our complicity.
To recognise that, it's unnecessary to rehearse the history of the Balfour Declaration, the collapse of the Ottoman Empire, the League of Nations (British) Mandate, the Holocaust, the multifaceted role of the UN & its major powers, & so on. /3.
The kinds of ultimate resolution under discussion require a few things.
I’ll start with acceptance by all of Israel’s right to exist within internationally recognised borders. (Presumably those would be, or would be no less than, the pre-1967 “six day war” borders). /2.
Perhaps there would be some negotiation about security zones beyond those, but I won’t assume that right now.
It would also require Palestinians giving up all claims on territory within Israel’s recognised borders. /3.
In the current situation much commentary appears to assume an understanding of the views of “Jews”, “Israelis” or “Israeli Jews” which … let’s just say, doesn’t obviously correspond to reality.
A few facts might help.
So here goes, from July 2023.
A 🧵/1.
Unless otherwise stated, the results quoted are views of “Israeli Jews”, excluding don’t knows.
“What political strategy should the next govt adopt on the Palestinian issue?”
60% support peace, based on a two-state solution or a single state with full equal rights for all. /2.
“Do you think Israel should seek the help of the Arab states that have established normalization with it to promote peace with the Palestinians?”
Just in case you’re sceptical, of course one photo isn’t proof on its own.
So: look back over the Oswald Mosley archive. And Mussolini, whom he imitated. And Hitler. And the (brilliant) representations of them in popular culture - eg Roderick Spode in “Jeeves & Wooster”.
Distill the content, emotional manipulativeness & political intent from Mosley’s & others’ speeches. Then, if you can bear it, look at the Mordaunt performance again. Miserably poor as it was, there’s no question: it was very carefully studied & deep-freeze chillingly calculated.