Karel Combrinck: Too good to be true

Recently it was announced that very large sums of money emanating fom various sources have been ear-marked for aid to the South African government to help it address problems arising from the Covid-19 epidemic. An amount of 4,3 billion Dollars (US$ 4 300 000 000) was among others allocated by the International Monetary Fund. Even more amazingly, a loan was made to the South African government by (believe it it not ) by the African Development Bank. As is generally known in South Africa, a considerable portion of these funds have already been stolen or misappropriated (in South Africa “misappropriated” is a euphemism for stolen). How much, if any,  of these funds will ever go towards relieving the plight of ordinary South Africans remains to be seen. What we do know is that nothing will go to South African whites as has been decided by the racist ANC government.

Questions that arise are first of all, where do the immense sums of money come from which the IMF so lavishly throws around and whence the generosity towards the incompetent and corrupt South African government? The question is made more poignant by the fact that all three the most important credit-rating agencies have awarded South Africa the well-deserved distinction of junk status.

The IMF was established in 1944 at the UN Monetary and Financial Conference in Bretton Woods, USA. The original purpose was to place the world economy back on track after the devastation of the World War. Twenty-nine countries signed the treaty at the time and 189 countries subsequently joined. The activities of the IMF are therefore funded largely by contributions made by member states on a quota basis, that is to say each member contributes according to the size of its economy. The moneys in the final instance come from the pockets of ordinary tax payers as usual.

A further question concerns the generosity of the IMF towards South Africa. Voices have been heard expressing surprise, indeed dismay,  at the billions “lent” to a bankrupt state from which there is little chance that the moneys will ever be recovered. Over the explanation for this apparent idiocy we can only speculate. A purely economic initiative it is clearly not. One possible explanation is that the ” international community ” represented in the IMF which were largely responsible for the creation of a junk democracy in South Africa cannot stand by idly while their creature is failing. Under normal circumstances too many questions would have been asked, but now, of course, they have the Covid-19 smokescreen to hide behind.

In the unlikely event of the loan ever being repaid after having been plundered,  then it will be at the expense, once again, of the South African taxpayer. Paying taxes is the one right to which white South Africans are fully entitled. But, we suppose, this is what the international community regard as ” fair “.

There is also the possibility that in the case of non-repayment of their loan that the IMF could force the South African Government to sell national assets as happened in Greece where the Greek government had to sell their main sea port of Piraeus, a number of islands, historical monuments and art works as well as fourteen airports in order to repay their loan debts. It is dangerous to place oneself at the mercy of the great financial forces of this world. Such concerns are however immaterial in the eyes of the ANC fat cats interested only in the short-term gravy train. And at the moment, for them, the going is too good to be true.

Truth

What a subject, you may say. Yes indeed.

The best minds on earth from Socrates to Solzhenitsyn have applied themselves to the question of truth. The Oxford Dictionary defines truth as « the quality or state of being true.» Not very helpful one may think, but can one blame them? Not all the philosophy and all the art of this world, are able to represent the truth adequately. Everything in heaven and on earth point towards determining what truth is. And when everything has been said, it still leaves us with infinity. Hegel said, “truth is All” . Defining the truth is simply an impossible task. But if we are to use the word at all and whatever we discuss it is difficult to avoid it, we had better have some idea of what we are talking about .

Christ, when He appeared before Pontius Pilate was asked what was the meaning of truth. He did not answer. Why? It cannot be that He did not know. It cannot be that He sensed a trap, as is sometimes suggested, because at that moment He knew that He was already trapped. It could be that Pilate did not give Him the opportunity to answer. If he was given the opportunity He could have answered: I am the way and the truth, as he had done on another occasion, but he knew that the Roman functionary, steeped as he was in Greek rationalism, was not equipped to understand this. He could have answered that the totality of His teaching and the example of His life constituted the Truth, but would there have been any point? Pilate was not familiar with the totality of His life and teaching.

So, there was no answer. And then, on the other hand, there was, and Pontius Pilate provided it himself. After he had finished the questioning he went outside and said to the mob gathered there: “I find no guilt in him”. This was the truth. He was innocent. In the circumstances no other definition of the truth was required. And yet, in the interest of political expediency, he delivered Him to be flogged and crucified, cheaply washing his hands of all guilt. If Christ was to say in his deepest suffering: “Forgive them, for they know not what they are doing”, who are we to judge, we, the hollow men, the straw men.

There is more than one way of looking at the truth. One way is to see it as Truth (T), that is to say, the truth in an absolute , universal sense, the abstract concept of truth. Socrates was of the opinion that “the only absolute truth is that there is no absolute truth”. But Socrates was a philosopher in the Greek tradition of rational scepticism, which did not function in a framework of absolutes, but rather more in terms of questioning accepted truths, doctrines and beliefs.

And then there is truth (t). While truth(t) as a concept is divisible, Truth (T) is not. One can speak of truth or truths. The judge who swears in a witness to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth is not interested in Truth (T). He is merely interested in the truth as it relates to the facts of the particular case before him. It is not possible to speak in this way of The Truth, let alone “the whole truth”.

We, as human beings are capable of uttering and understanding truths and untruths as well. Are we however capable of uttering absolute Truth (T)? Perhaps, although it is not certain that when we do so, we fully understand what we are saying. “God is love” would be an absolute truth. We can use the expression, even believe it, but can we really grasp its true meaning?

Truth (t) is determined by circumstance. In the course of the past century, thinking people have become less prepared to accept, as truth, the notions adhered to by their church or their community or their society as had been the case over centuries. Truth for them became more personal and individual and less dependent on the more absolutist claims of religion and church. Does this mean that truth has become totally subjective and that one can fabricate truths as seems fit and advantageous from case to case? Surely not.

It is furthermore an important feature of modern society that “truth” is being determined to a large extent by mass indoctrination through the media. However in this case we are not dealing with the efforts of fully functioning minds seeking to determine what is right and good and true, but with the conditioned responses of man as a phenomenon of mass, reacting not from a basis of knowledge or reflection, but purely as an automaton. (See Pavlov’s dog dribbling when he’s expected to).

There is a school of thought which would have it that the notion of truth is determined purely by one’s education or point of view or one’s social class. In the case above, the social class to which Pontius Pilate belonged and the education he had received may have determined his decision, but ultimately he bears a personal responsibility for the dishonest and cowardly way he dealt with the truth. So, perhaps we can say that our understanding of life is composed of many different truths, but the truths to which we adhere, should all answer to the greater principle of The Truth. Subjective truths which are mere rationalizations for doing as one pleases, or what is expedient can hardly be seen as truthful at all.

Friedrich Nietzsche refuted the existence of any objective reality. (God is dead”). Hence all truths are relative. But if like Friedrich Nietzsche and his post-modern disciples, we refute the notion of absolute reality we run the risk of being driven to distraction by paradoxes of our own making as was the case with Nietzsche in fact. Because, if there is no objective reality, no absolute truth against which to measure the truth of our propositions, we end up with the problem of explaining what then is the validity of our own assertions. If God is dead and there is no objective truth and all thought is socially and culturally determined fiction, then our own assertions would be worthless also. Thus when Nietzsche states “there is no truth”, or “there are no facts”, that would include his own statements. A Nietzsche critic (Scruto: An intelligent person’s guide) wrote: “Don’t come down this path for this way madness lies.” Nietzsche chose to travel that road and madness was precisely the result.

If a simple and straightforward definition of truth is beyond our reach we can understand that a lie cannot be the truth and that already helps. There can be as many untruths as there can be truths. There can be half truths, distortions, evasions. There can be the situation of knowing the truth but failing to act accordingly (Pilate). At the same time we sense that the concept of truth is associated with what is positive, noble, inspiring.

The frightening thing is that when people are at their worst, they may think they are doing the right thing. The (Holy) Inquisitors, probably thought so too when they were torturing people to confess just about everything they wanted, (such as, for example, owning, reading, translating or printing a Bible), so that they could burn them alive. (The live burnings, incidentally, were called Auto da Fe, which is Spanish for Act of Faith!). Did Mr Blair and Mr Bush, when they were “informing” the world about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq also believe they were doing the right thing or did they simply lie to us for purposes of sordid self-interest? You remember? “…tugging painfully uphill their two ridiculous shadows of unequal length without disturbing a single blade of grass”.

Joseph Conrad (him again!) in Heart of Darkness: “There is a taint of death, a flavour of mortality in lies – which is exactly what I hate and detest in the world – what I want to forget. It makes me miserable and sick, like biting in something rotten would do.”

And what better testimony than Aleksandr Solszhenytsin, who spent his life in the shadow of lies and cheating and persecution, that is to say the part of his life he did not spend in jail: “The first step of a courageous man is not to take part in the lie. One word of truth outweighs the world”.

There will be those who would counter: How do you know that your particular truth is more true than the truths of others? And they would be right in asking that. The only possible answer would be that if my adversary presents a case that is convincing and makes sense, I would have to give him credit even if continued to disagree. And if I disagreed, I would have to make sense also. To make sense in a way is to be truthful. What we encounter so often in our world is that the ones on the side of the popular and therefore official doctrines and dogmas do not even credit their opponents with the minimum of respect and courtesy of trying to make sense. Much of what passes for argument or fact or sense merely goes towards expressing prejudice and bias and hatred and is therefore antagonistic to the truth.

Modern man has not been through the pangs and pains of dismantling the foundations of truth and meaning for nothing. Truth is therefore the last thing most people of influence in politics and the media want to hear. They react to it with insult or invective or by simply ignoring it. Many are those who will only admit “truths” that are prefabricated by the mass media. In some western countries there are laws against commenting on certain aspects of history and even current politics. Where is democracy? Where is freedom of expression? Socrates’ motto that “ a life unexamined is not a life worth living”, clearly implies that a truth unexamined is not a truth worth believing either.

Søren Kierkegaard
Søren Kierkegaard

Truth (T) can be a universal and unalterable reality or it can be a highly personal conclusion forged in the crucible of self-search and suffering. Truth (T) and truth (t) probably come close together in a statement like the one by the Danish philosopher Søren Kierkegaard, made towards the middle of the Nineteenth century:

“I must find a truth which is true for me…I must find that idea for which I can live or die… something which reaches to the deepest roots of my existence and wherein I am connected into the divine and held fast to it, even if the whole world falls apart.”

Perhaps we are not all capable and willing to make this sort of commitment, but we must surely all agree, the sentiments are noble and profound.

Mistah Kurtz

In previous contributions to Praag, mention was made of the modern tendency to career helter skelter after all manner of doctrines and ideologies, mostly peddled by the fashionable media and their muftis, the “opinion formers”. In the paragraphs that follow a few brief remarks will be made about interesting and influential figures of the modern era who reacted against, what one may call, the popinjay syndrome. ( a popinjay is a parrot!)

The intellectual and cultural climate of the Twentieth Century was marked, above all, by an ever increasing sense of absurdity and senselessness, arising not only from a loss of faith, encapsulated in Friedrich Nietszche’s famous announcement that God was dead, but also from a general and growing awareness of the ultimate futility of man’s best and worst endeavours.

On the road towards nihilism no small role was played by the church itself, including the (Holy!) Inquisition and the wars of religion, with as its glorious climax, the infamous Bartholomew night when the flower of French protestantism was massacred Dingaan style by a crazed and fanatical Catholic mob. The great blood-letting of the French Revolution was as much a revolt against a corrupt and self-serving religious establishment as it was against the aristocracy. The colonial experience and the unspeakable barbarity of the two world wars in the last century gave the coup de grâce to what little was left of modern man’s belief in our civilization and its values. Were the forces of evil then to be victorious in the end? Was the heart of man the “Heart of Darkness” after all?

The Irish poet and mystic William Butler Yeats wrote these lines in 1921, three years after the end of the First World War:

“Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold;
Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world,
The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere
The ceremony of innocence is drowned;
The best lack all conviction, while the worst
Are full of passionate intensity.”

Wherever we look around us we can recognise what Yeats is talking about. Societies in decay, family life disintegrating, marriage cheapened, nations abandoning their identity and their birthright, culture becoming more and more vulgar and superficial, language corrupted and perverted to serve some or other obscure political agenda, economies in tatters. And then, “The best lack all conviction while the worst are full of passionate intensity.” What can be more real and more true than that? One simply has to open a newspaper.

(The fact that Yeats ascribed the situation of our world largely to the growth of democracy, we shall leave aside for the moment.)

Closer to our time there is the ideologically-driven obsession of the churches with social justice and racial equality which alienated millions more. Since the social gospel preached by the churches can be served so much better by politicians, academics and the media, why trouble oneself with warming the hard church benches for a watered down version of Karl Marx?

In a letter to a friend Joseph Conrad wrote: “Faith is but a myth and beliefs shift like mists on the shore; thoughts vanish; words, once pronounced, die; and the memory of yesterday is as shadowy as the hope of tomorrow. In this world – as I have known it – we are made to suffer without the shadow of a reason, of a cause, or of guilt. There is no morality, no knowledge and no hope; there is only the consciousness of ourselves, which drives us about a world that is always but a vain and floating appearance.” Conrad must have been in a particularly dark mood when he wrote this, because, if he consistently held these views, it is difficult to see how he could have written anything at all. As he says himself in the novel, Victory: “woe to the man whose heart has not learned while young to hope, to love – and to put his trust in life”. But are the two statements contradictory or do they merely illustrate the ambivalence of the modern psyche?

It is clear that the spiritual, existential, call it what you will, crisis of our age is first and foremost a crisis of faith and a loss of a sense of direction. Estranged from God, from nature, from our age-old values and rituals, from each other, from ourselves,

“We are the hollow men
We are the straw men
Leaning together
Headpiece filled with straw. “ (T.S. Eliot)

Note the head filled with straw.

We are witnessing at present the astounding spectacle of thousands of Western youths leaving their countries to go and fight for an Islamic state in Syria and Iraq. Absurd? Yes probably absurd, but made possible by a spiritually and morally bankrupt society no longer capable of offering young people the sense of purpose they need in order to exist.

Consciousness of the precariousness of our civilisation and the relativity of its values have become deeply engraved in the soul of modern man. What is right in one place is wrong in another, what is good for you, is bad for me, what is true today is false tomorrow.

Which brings us to Nietzsche. Friedrich Nietzsche is a landmark figure which cannot be avoided if one is to say anything about the modern age without burying one’s head in the sand. He was enough of a genius to see the impossibility of his statement that God was dead”: If God exists He cannot die and if He does not exist He cannot die either. No, Nietszche’s quarrel was not as much with God as it was with a society for whom Christianity had become an empty shell to which no more than lip service was paid, in search of respectability and a comfortable conscience, or even worse, for political and ideological expediency. (To borrow a phrase from Conrad: One of the dead cats of civilization). Then rather get rid of the shell as well and found a new ethic on different grounds. A full blooded atheist is to be preferred to a phoney Christian.

Was Nietszche therefore a nihilist? To a certain extent yes he was. But on the other hand he did not create nihilism. As someone put it somewhere, to describe nihilism is not exactly the same as being a nihilist. Nietszche is certainly not a nihilist in the sense that he rejects all traditional moral principles out of hand. His doctrine, if one may call it that, was rather that every man should create his own values or rediscover existing ones and stand by them, live them.

There is a lot about Nietzsche that we can disagree with. The last thing that he would probably have expected, is to be followed blindly. But we can learn lot from him too, above all to have the courage of one’s convictions, to say no, to disagree, to refuse to conform, to refuse to follow slavishly the prescriptions of ideology. For the greatest enemy of a meaningful existence is to subscribe, to agree, to conform and to obey.

Another landmark figure then is Joseph Conrad. On the 3rd of August, the Polish author, Teodor Jozef Konrad Korzeniowski (Joseph Conrad) died ninety years ago in Bishopsbourne, England. After a career at sea he started writing and produced a long series of novels, and novellas, among others Almeyer’s Folly, Lord Jim, Nostromo, Under Western Eyes, The Secret Agent and Heart of Darkness which served as the scenario for Francis Ford Coppola’s film Apocalypse Now.

In his novel, Heart of Darkness, Joseph Conrad describes two company officials: “… leaning forward side by side, they seemed to be tugging painfully uphill their two ridiculous shadows of unequal length, that trailed behind them slowly over the tall grass without bending a single blade”. One may be entitled to ask, was it they who were dragging their shadows or their shadows that were dragging them? But, whatever the case may be, it is certain that neither way did they manage to disturb the grass.

Elsewhere in the same novel Conrad talks about one of the same company officials: “….it seemed to me that if I tried, I could poke my forefinger through him, and encounter nothing but a little loose dirt.”

From the despair of his spiritual vacuity modern man clutches at all manner of straws (straw again!) whether it be materialism , “social justice”, democracy, egalitarianism or heart breaks over the oppression of (black) minorities. In South Africa a clique of black oligarchs have enriched themselves horrendously in the space of twenty years, mostly through nepotism, fraud, straight embezzlement and corruption, while millions of others have remained poor or have become poorer. But to this the human rightists, the egalitarians, the social “justicers”, the prayer groups and the media remain oblivious and impotent, ever so reminiscent of Joseph Conrad’s ineffectual fops.

When man had thrown off what he considered to be his moral and religious fetters and shackles he could have been expected to feel liberated and relieved. At last he had fulfilled the ideal of Adam and Eve and become the centre of the universe. Yet never before has man seemed more confused, forlorn and empty than since the “ death “ of God. Hence when the character Kurtz, in Heart of Darkness senses the end approaching, he can only hiss “The Horror, the horror” – the horror of a life and death without meaning.

Shortly afterwards when the manager’s servant announces: “Mistah Kurtz – he dead” the effect is: so what, he has been dead all along.

What room does all this leave for trust and confidence in the future? Not much. But do we have any other choice but to keep trying? As the Irish playwright, Samuel Beckett said somewhere: “Ever tried? Ever failed? No matter, try again, fail again, fail better”.