Maedoc Ellis: "The Stories We Tell Ourselves: Post-Truth Politics And The 'Great Replacement'"

I'm pretty sure this is bullshit and, in fact, borders on self-refutation.
Might go into details later.
I could, of course, be wrong.
But, in brief, I don't buy the idea of combatting "post-truth" politics (or "post-truth" whatevers) with "narratives." The very idea of a "narrative" is basically a part of the whole post-modern / post-post-modern rejection of the true/false distinction. The term 'narrative' caught on with the pomos (as I understand it) because it suggests that a story's a story, and the idea of there being true ones and false ones is passe.
Also, Medoc's argument seems to come awful close to boiling down to:

• As a matter of fact, there actually is a great replacement; but we can't combat that idea with facts because, well, again, the great replacement is real...but also: post-truthism has made facts...something (less facty? rhetorically ineffective?); so what we need is a better "narrative." 

And that is some grade-A thermonuclear bullshit.
But I could be wrong about what's being argued.