This essay attempts to rationalise current global shifts through a concept I term bullshit (BS) risk: whereby bullshit not only permeates and pollutes public discourse but becomes reality and policy, thereby generating systemic risks.
In a celebrated 1986 paper (and subsequent book), the analytic philosopher Harry Frankfurt defined the concept of bullshit as ‘speech intended to persuade without regard for the truth’.1 This is different from lying—for a person lying, the truth is of consequence; the liar tries to deceive people into believing a falsehood, whereas for a bullshiter, the truth is inconsequential. One of the key differentiators is intention, what the bullshitter says may or may not be true, but they do not care. This is a potential challenge for identification, as the intention of the speaker can be difficult to determine.
Whilst BS is clearly not a new phenomena, the current manifestation has emerged from the current media and information landscape. Following Marshal McLuhan’s framework that ‘the media is the message’2, BS could be an essential feature of the current media landscape.
Deploying bullshit as a deliberate political strategy, whether intentional or not, has been articulated, for example, by Steve Bannon, MAGA’s ideologue, who suggests that the ‘enemy’ are the media, and advocates a strategy of ‘filling the zone with shit’, and to do so at ‘muzzle velocity’ to overwhelm media channels.3 The speed and quantity of the bullshit is a crucial feature.
The rise of populist movements globally, turbo-charged by the election of Donald Trump as president of the USA, is giving rise to a novel global systemic risk which I call bullshit risk, and perhaps a resultant step change in systemic risk. This rests on the following propositions which I believe are testable:
- Bullshit is a persistent and growing phenomena: if this was just limited to one individual, even as important as President of the most powerful nation state, it would be less worthy of study than if it were part of a more general and pervasive phenomena. It has been observed that the deliberate deployment of misinformation was innovated in Russia and exported to the USA and the West, and in turn these have precedence in Totalitarian propaganda.4
- Bullshit becomes reality: Bullshit as defined by Frankfurt, means that reality or the truth are of no consequence. However, bullshit ideas are becoming policies of governments and are shaping global agendas.
Can Bullshit Be Measured?
Assessing bullshit is feasible with the development of AI and widespread fact checking. Identifying BS hinges on intention, which isn’t directly observable, but a methodology is required to demonstrate that BS is a measurable phenomena as opposed to a metaphor. A proxy for BS is the order of magnitude of false facts in any given speech or other text.
If a speaker is trying to deceive an audience their level of false information is low, except for the falsehood itself as they will try and gain the audience’s trust by generally speaking the truth. In contrast the bullshitter will have a high level of falsehoods. Supporting media and information environment will facilitate BS by not challenging falsehoods, but repeating and magnifying.5
Therefore, bullshit could be identified and measured from the mean and variance of falsehoods in politician or public figures’ speeches, as well as supporting media, and the extent to which the media highlights the falsehood. This can be viewed through time, and also, grouped by country/region, political affiliation or party etc.
The second part is to test whether bullshit-aligned views become public policy or affect policy or provide reaction. From the analysis of bullshit speeches, topics and policy areas could be identified, which could be then compared and aligned to broad actual policy areas. It could then be possible to map correlation from bullshit ideas to actual policy, and also to track whether the policy directly follows bullshit ideas or policy fields are influenced (positively or negatively) by the bullshit.
Type A and Type B bullshit
I wish to distinguish between two kinds of bullshit, whilst recognising that there is not necessarily a clear boundary between the two:
- BS as a means: that is the actor has an underlying strategy and/or policy, and is using bullshit to further the strategy or policy, possibly in part by using the BS to conceal it
- BS as an end: the bullshit itself drives polices, which arise as a result of influential and/or powerful bullshiters.6
Discussing some recent events to illustrate. Vladimir Putin had clear objectives and beliefs for invading Ukraine in 2022, as he has written elsewhere.7 However, the reason he gave, ‘de-Nazification of Ukraine regime’8 was clearly bullshit, and in this case bullshit is a mis-communication strategy.
In contrast is Donald Trump’s proposal to turn Gaza into the ‘Gaza Riviera’ adorned with gold statues of Donald Trump. Whilst this proposal is typical Trump BS, it has become aligned with Israeli government policy, of removing Gazans from Gaza and who are working with USA to identify African countries to send Gazans to.9
Trump’s BS objective that Canada should become incorporated into the USA is almost inconceivable to ever become reality, in particular because it has the predictable effect of uniting Canadians against the USA. However, this goal has driven Trump to impose tariffs on Canada to ‘impoverish’ it so that they would welcome a union. As observed by Paul Krugman “But once Trump realized how ridiculous the performance made him look, he refused to let go…annexing Canada seems to have become a fundamental plank of Trump’s foreign policy.”10
Under A, information channels become overwhelmed, and the body-politic becomes confused, bewildered and ultimately fatalistic. Institutions rely on information and data in decision making, this is harder and more costly to parse if it is hidden amongst reams of bullshit.
In functioning democratic societies, policies are subject to scrutiny, but this becomes increasingly difficult when analysis, or even understanding what these policies might be, is drowned out by bullshit, and the scrutiny itself magnifies the BS, therefore making it more effective.
Preponderance of bullshit hides underlying policy goals – politics being the art of marshalling coalitions of interest and getting widespread support for policies. However, when masked by bullshit this becomes increasingly unlikely, with arbitrary decisions being made by specific interest groups, often deliberately concealed.
Risk B includes all of the issues with A, but adds a further element of arbitrariness, which multiplies uncertainty. Which country will Trump or Putin or Xi decide to pick a fight with or want to annex tomorrow? Who knows? The arbitrariness itself causes uncertainty and makes actors increasingly unable to make long term decisions, increasing focus on the short term.
BS as Systemic Risk
Systemic risk arises from the dynamics of interconnected systems. BS alters how systems perceive and react to threats. Institutions and individual can become overwhelmed with BS information, with ‘real’ information being drowned out, leading to a breakdown of policy coherence. Pluralistic democratic societies are especially vulnerable in that they rely on transparent dialogue and evidence-based policymaking to improve social outcomes and hence social coherence.
BS can lead to bullshit epistemologies — where groups of people live in alternative realities and belief systems (such as the QAnon conspiracy theory), making dialogue and mutual understanding between groups almost impossible. In this paradigm, rational institutions like courts and media become enemies of the groups operating under BS epistemology.11
Type B BS adds arbitrariness—unpredictable actions that erode the ability to plan or manage risk. This uncertainty paralyses governance, diplomacy, and long-term thinking.
I would postulate that bullshit risk is already causing a systemic reaction and re-direction in (at least) 2 crucial ways:
- The international global order and architecture, which to some extent had a rationale and was underpinned by the USA, is now reformed into (dis)order driven by type A and/or type B bullshit
- Information channels are being taken over or overwhelmed by bullshit, and deliberately undermined which either renders them ineffective, or means that information is disseminating, computed and viewed via a bullshit ‘logic’
The ultimate effect is that societies become increasingly unable to assess or deal with real problems such as climate change, healthcare or poverty as attention is overwhelmed by BS issues, making them increasingly vulnerable, fragile and fractured.
Decision-Making Under Deep Shit (DMDS)
The shift to a bullshit-dominated world demands a reassessment of core assumptions of risk analysis, particularly those rooted in the previous global order.
I haven’t yet developed a full DMDS framework, but some key ideas emerge:
- BS filtering is essential: Information sources are increasingly becoming corrupted. While openness to diverse views was once virtuous, it’s of limited use in a bullshit-saturated environment.
- Type A vs Type B BS need different responses: Type A should be analysed like fiction—trends and implied belief systems; Type B, by contrast, needs literal policy tracking and analysis of real-world consequences.
- Don’t confuse BS with normal political spin.: there is a tendency amongst (systemic) risk practitioners to be of a similar political outlook, typically (though not necessarily) liberal, progressive, and technocratic. This perspective means that they may be more alert to bullshit coming from the right/extreme right whereas bullshit can manifests across the political spectrum.. The key is developing systematic approaches to identify BS regardless of its political origin. Conversely many, probably most, public figures can and do occasionally bullshit, but this needs to be differentiated from bullshit being a primary means of discourse.
- Fact-checking isn’t enough: the practice of traditional fact-checking can inadvertently magnify BS because it leads to increased debate and media attention focused on the bullshit itself, drawing resources and attention away from substantive policy discussions. This plays directly into the BS strategy of 'flooding the zone'—the goal isn't to win individual arguments but to overwhelm the information ecosystem. Bullshit aims to flood the zone, not persuade on individual claims. Aggregate-level analysis – this is or isn’t BS - may better gauge its prevalence and effect.
- Refocus on long-term thinking: BS fosters uncertainty and fatalism, making it harder to plan and easier to ignore real risks like climate change or an ageing population.
- Avoid engaging with bullshit epistemology: Debate becomes impossible when truth is irrelevant or replaced by conspiracy logic. Instead of dialogue, we may need to rebuild truth-based frameworks. Ultimately, risk management relies on shared values, access to trustworthy information, and rational analysis.
Coping and Resistance
Possibly the main requirement for a risk analyst/manager. is to rely on an information landscape which is transmitting ‘real’ information. When the zone is being flooded with shit at muzzle velocity and real information is being actively suppressed it is easy to feel viscerally overwhelmed. How to cope?
Firstly, one needs to be personally resilient, and wellbeing strategies are becoming essential such as mindfulness in its more general sense. Mindfulness is the ability to focus the mind, and the BS world provides an ultimate challenge. Then, secondly, there is one’s posture towards the world, and to risk professionals with a historical interest, we are living through a fascinating experiment which allows us to test our methodologies to their limit. Finally, much of the antics of regimes such as Trump’s, were they fiction would be darkly humorous.
Just as the current situation is difficult for a risk professional to cope, it is also difficult for a person who has some concern for other human beings and the natural world, or worse to be a person seriously affected by the BS, be it an innocent person who has been arbitrarily locked up in a prison or someone living with AIDS who is no longer supplied with antiretroviral medication. In this case risk management has graduate to active resistance.
Thanks for reading The Rethink series. All views expressed are the writer’s own and do not necessarily reflect those of ASRA, its members, or host organization, UN Foundation. Stay connected and keep exploring — discover more Rethink pieces suggested below and under “View” on the Events & News page.
Footnotes
1. Frankfurt, Harry (2005). On Bullshit. New Jersey: Princeton University Press.
2. McLuhan, M. (1964). Understanding media: The extensions of man. [1st ed.] McGraw-Hill.
3. Remnick, David (July 30, 2018). "Trump vs. the Times: Inside an Off-the-Record Meeting". The New Yorker.
4. Pomerantsev, P. (2014). Nothing Is True and Everything Is Possible Public Affairs. Snyder, T. (2018). The Road to Unfreedom Tim Duggan Books.
5. There are increasing numbers of fact-checking organisations, and an international standard organisation the International Fact-Checking Network https://www.poynter.org/. These generally focus on fact checking individual statements and the spread of misinformation. I have not done an extensive survey but to carry out the analysis I am suggesting would require considerable data collation.
6. This could be a leader or official, but could also be an influencer.
7. http://en.kremlin.ru/events/president/news/66181
8. http://en.kremlin.ru/events/president/news/67843
9. https://www.timesofisrael.com/israel-in-talks-with-congo-and-other-countries-on-gaza-voluntary-migration-plan/ and https://www.axios.com/2025/03/28/israel-move-palestinians-gaza-indonesia-somalia
10. https://paulkrugman.substack.com/p/worthwhile-canadian-observations
11. See for example Ylä-Anttila, Tuukka (2018). "Populist Knowledge: 'Post-Truth' Repertoires of Contesting Epistemic Authorities." European Journal of Cultural and Political Sociology, 5, 356–88 and Baća, Bojan (2024). "QAnon and the Epistemic Communities of the Unreal: A Conceptual Toolkit for a Sociology of Grassroots Conspiracism." Sociological Review
