Far-right politicians around the world have mastered the art of epistemic warfare, posing a serious threat to academic freedom. Iris B. Segers reflects on the challenges of feminist resistance to a bizarre political reality rife with lies

The far right has won elections in a growing list of countries, now including the United States and the Netherlands. At the same time, tech billionaires have opened the floodgates to online hate and disinformation. It is all, for lack of a more sophisticated term, very bad. My feelings about it all resonate with Rebecca Shaw’s article, 'I knew one day I’d have to watch powerful men burn the world down – I just didn’t expect them to be such losers'. As I expressed my dismay to a friend some weeks ago, I added: 'I didn’t expect it all to be so weird'.

The term 'weird' is in many ways problematic and often used uncritically to police the boundaries of the status quo. But I struggle to find a better word to describe the surreal tableau of the newly inaugurated US president – standing beside a giant cake topped with a model of Air Force One, sword in hand – dancing to Y.M.C.A. while his deeply conservative Vice President laughs gleefully at the scene. It’s an absurd image to associate with a far-right government hellbent on dismantling democracy in the US and beyond.

The art of epistemic warfare

As researchers, we now navigate a continuous influx of disinformation. We know where a lot of it comes from. Based on their recent study of 32 million tweets from parliamentarians across 26 countries, Petter Törnberg and Juliana Chueri argue that 'political misinformation should be understood as part and parcel of the current wave of radical right populism.'

This speaks to the broader epistemic dimensions of far-right attacks on liberal democracies across Europe, from Central and Eastern Europe to Germany and the Netherlands. Indeed, the Netherlands is feeling the effects of more than two decades of far-right mainstreaming. Geert Wilders’ Party for Freedom (PVV) is now the largest party in the coalition government, while Thierry Baudet’s Forum for Democracy (FvD) is pushing conspiracy theories from the margins.

The Netherlands' FvD party has mastered the art of epistemic warfare, spreading disinformation about vaccination policies, climate change, and 'gender ideology'

FvD has mastered the art of epistemic warfare, spreading disinformation about vaccination policies, climate change, and 'gender ideology'. Baudet has, for instance, falsely claimed that Dutch elementary schools provide information about 'sex change', 'threesomes' and 'blow jobs' to children from the age of four. Even when such lies are disproven, as they were by the Minister of Education, they fuelled a hate campaign against the expertise centre accused of spreading 'sexualising' content in schools.

When (gut) feelings trump facts

In a recent conversation with a colleague, we shared our concerns about the future. One thing they said stuck with me: I don’t know what things will look like in six months. It’s a frightening reality to take in'.

What distinguishes the populist-right response to feelings of uncertainty is their naked appropriation of such feelings to promote illiberal policies

This feeling may be shared by many, across political divides. What distinguishes the populist-right response to feelings of uncertainty is the naked appropriation of such feelings for the purpose of promoting illiberal policies. Dutch politician Caroline van der Plas, leader of the agrarian populist Farmer-Citizen Movement, which is currently governing in coalition with the PVV, argued in 2023 that 'gut feelings (onderbuikgevoelens) are also feelings. As representatives of the people, we have the task of taking this seriously, and to make people feel seen and heard'. Van der Plas, whose party takes a strict stance on asylum and immigration, continued to comment on the increasing distrust and loss of mutual respect in the public debate. She illustrated this by singing several lines from Simon and Garfunkel’s The Sound of Silence.

Experiencing an asylum crisis

One year later, Prime Minister Dick Schoof presented the coalition government’s 'strictest asylum measures ever', including a proposal to request an opt-out of EU asylum agreements, even though Dutch asylum reception rates lie around the EU average. Both Schoof and PVV minister of asylum and migration Marjolein Faber justified these measures by claiming that 'people are experiencing an asylum crisis', thereby leaning into the anti-immigration sentiment that the far right has been fomenting for decades.

What people seem to be experiencing, however, is a 'reception crisis'. The latter has been caused by the political choice to downscale the capacity to receive asylum seekers when given the chance, leading to long processing times for asylum claims and dangerously overcrowded situations at reception centres. It's compounded by a growing (social) housing shortage that successive liberal-conservative-led governments have failed to address. However, the current government has proven itself to be rather ineffective on all fronts, and remains stuck in disagreement over the execution of their own 'gut feeling' anti-asylum politics.

Feminist resistance and academic freedom

Populist-right 'gut feeling' politics often go hand-in-hand with an antipathy towards universities, presumed to be the bulwark of left-wing elites. It would, therefore, according to Léonie de Jonge, be 'naïve to assume' that the Dutch coalition government’s announcement of drastic budget cuts in higher education are 'unrelated to far-right policy'.

As researchers, challenging the lies constantly flung into the public sphere is highly demanding work. Responding to and protecting oneself from harassment, intimidation, and threats, is a costly exercise in terms of time and the emotional consequences of being a (potential) target. Indeed, there are valid reasons to stay out of the public eye, especially since some scholars, particularly women, researchers of colour, and those who are trans and gender-diverse, face higher risks of harassment. These challenges form a serious threat to academic freedom, because they may affect our ability to produce and disseminate knowledge freely and safely.

Regardless of whether researchers end up (un)willingly visible in the public debate, we need strong networks of care, solidarity, and protection to produce critical knowledge

Liberal democratic governments and research institutions should take this extremely seriously. For instance, in light of the horrific crackdown on research in the US and elsewhere, the Norwegian Socialist Left Party and the Norwegian Association for Researchers now advocate including academic freedom in the country's constitution.

Regardless of whether researchers end up (un)willingly visible in the public debate, we need strong networks of care, solidarity, and protection to produce critical knowledge. In a world sliding into authoritarianism, my hope lies in the promise that we will continue to find each other in feminist resistance against politicians trading knowledge for lies.

No.21 in a Loop thread on Gendering Democracy. Look out for the 🌈 to read more in this series