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”.

Nihilism: South Africa’s new religion

nihilistBy Joseph Secrève.

What does nihilism mean? That the highest values devaluate themselves. The aim is lacking; “why” finds no answer. – Nietzsche.

I’ve recently perused an old interview dating back to 1983 between Dutch author Willem Frederik Hermans and a well known journalist of the same country. Hermans was residing in Paris at that time, having turned his back on his home country due to various irreconcilable differences between himself and his former colleagues in his native land. The author had just returned from a visit to South Africa during the forbidden years of National Party rule and the reactions he received from his kinsmen varied between curiosity to outright contempt. The level of scorn he endured was nothing short of a national outrage, and even a brief visit to Amsterdam three years later was met with bomb threats from the radical left.

In this interview Hermans correctly foresaw important turning points that were about to come, mentioning the role that journalists played to destroy South Africa by any means possible, and especially the communists “who would benefit enormously to turn South Africa into chaos the way they did in Angola, Mozambique, Sudan and Rhodesia.”

Since the demise of National Party rule, the veracity of this statement has been proven time and time again. Everything that was once taken for granted, our core values, our identity, our sense of morality, and our deference to our culture have been uprooted, and what was once thought of as demeaning, cruel and evil have been watered down to banality. Conversely, holding on to our customs and morals is the new anathema. Of all the severe crimes and savagery in South Africa today, the gang rapes of infants, cannibalism, farm murders and the torture of the elderly, the most heinous crime by far is an Afrikaner who wants to mind his own business.

This was clearly displayed the past week when a group of mainly Afrikaners held the Red October protest, demanding an end to savage violence, rampant government corruption and laws depriving minorities of a decent existence. As many commentators and historians have confirmed, the discriminatory practices from blacks against whites today are much more intense and profound than ever during National Party rule.

For some former left-wing activists, the savagery came as a complete surprise and made them recant much of their former rhetoric. For others however, their hatred towards any semblance of Afrikanerdom is still in full swing. In fact, many key players in South Africa today including academics and politicians do not hesitate to throw everything including the kitchen sink at Afrikanerdom. Ten years ago, no one would have believed that the ANC would start openly disowning land from white farmers the way it was done in Zimbabwe. Intellectuals who dared point this out were lampooned and considered mentally unsound. However, nowadays even the most formidable “opposition” party, the Democratic Alliance, is supporting this destruction of South Africa’s agricultural industry, apparently impervious to the tremendous suffering taking place which has already been upscaled to genocide.

And all the while we are misled into believing that this is only a transitional phase. Once the goals have been met, things will start to stabilise again. The same thought pattern prevailed in Eastern Europe and was expounded by Arthur Koestler in Richard Crossman’s The God that Failed. The level of terror and poverty were seen as temporary, and the victims “were class enemies anyway”. Thus the terror perpetrated by communist agitators was looked upon by their eager followers with their eyes wide shut.

The question is why. Other than some foolish joy they might feel by behaving like intellectual juveniles, it would be important to ponder on the more important reasons behind this antisocial ideation that seem to trickle down from the top.

One would be inclined to side with the above quoted philosopher Nietzsche on this matter. The notion that “God is dead” and consequent abolition of religion has indeed left us with no moral certitude. The only forces remaining are will and power, the law of tooth and claw. This statement, in combination with the communist ideal of the dictatorship of the proletariat forms a perfect hammer and anvil for society’s two important classes, the extremely powerful and extremely poor. These two classes have something in common, i.e. both want more power and both have nothing to lose. The moral majority caught up in-between would then necessarily become the new villains.

In the wake of the Red October protest certain radical News.24 columnists did not hesitate to consider this display an embarrassment, harping on their favourite platitude of ‘racism’ and commenting that all population groups are equally affected by the high levels of violence, regardless of the fact that Africans also participated in the protest.

Their message is clear: Afrikaners should stop whining. The conscientious care these leftist opinion makers claim to have for all people of South Africa does not appear to stretch very far though, since none of them ever undertook a single event to protest on behalf of the victimised masses, regardless of skin colour. The only people voicing their concern seem to be the Afrikaners. It is apparently no problem that murderers and rapists are banking on their apathy, but as soon as you speak out against this tide, you are vilified. The age-old reflex of the Brits hating the Boers constantly turns up in their rhetoric, once again demonstrating their inconsiderate attitude towards the magnitude of the daily violence. A deep undercurrent of chauvinism appears to be the motive.

The sanctimonious love the radical left have for the poor could be explained by means of this paradigm: By shunning everyone who represents orderliness, kinship and personal development (in this case Afrikaners) they hope to procure their meal ticket to fame, fortune and glory. They want to prove to their masters at the top that they are capable of rather reigning in hell than serving in heaven. Destroying a people’s religion is a tactic designed to send people into a moral tailspin and the need for a strong state would become justified, which is not possible if people had a well-internalised sense of right and wrong. A cold, sickly and cynical world would be the result, not much different to some of Lady Gaga’s music videos where morbidity, violence, and mind-controlled sex slavery is idolised.

The ‘why’ in this piece still needs to be fully answered. At the end of the day, what do these power hungry prigs really want? One could also obtain power by being an anti-conformist rebel in the spirit of Che Guevara. One would imagine that protest writers at least not be in favour of policies enforced by an oppressive government, yet these columnists can’t seem to get enough to venerate top government officials while writing crushing columns about their desperate fellow countrymen, in fact laughing at their ill-fate.

With nihilism being their new religion and spreading apathy their mission, one would guess that after all the historical progress that mankind has made, the Freudian death instinct ultimately is never far off.

Perhaps we don’t have to seek any theoretical answer on dusty bookshelves or made up by brilliant theoreticians to explain their bizarre behaviour. At the end of the day it boils down to nothing but “good sports”. As Michael Cane’s character explained in Christopher Nolan’s The Dark Night, the answer is in fact right in front of us.

“Some men just want to watch the world burn.”

On different kinds of Untruth

Stoic

by Albert Brenner

[followbutton username=’albertbrenner1′ count=’true’ lang=’en’ theme=’light’]

Man is not affected by events but by the view he takes of them. Epictetus

It is simply not a winning recipe anymore to use Reason as a tool to counter the irrationality inherent in modern discourses on race. It is as if the methods of the natural sciences – and positivism in the social sciences – have become all but redundant.

For example, the use of statistical analysis to prove that black-on-white crime is vastly more prevalent than white-on-black crime has proven to be ineffective when it comes to calling for even-handedness in academic debates, good faith in politics and legal justice for white individuals and their communities. Similarly, (most) white liberals and their black disciples have no problem acknowledging the scientific validity of IQ test scores when it suits their purposes. Yet when it does not, they deny its validity. This is completely irrational, for the litmus test of rationality demands that one cannot hold A and non-A simultaneously.

Even the utilisation of precise scientific measurements leading to empirically-valid facts are denied by (most) liberals. For example, the average male body has ten times more testosterone than the average female body. Testosterone plays a huge role in behaviour, as any expert in physiology and human behaviour would readily attest to. Meaning that it is simply false to believe that gender is a social construct, because the amount of testosterone in the human body hugely impacts average gender – ergo, role – behaviour.

The above-mentioned examples, and numerous others, proves that traditional forms of truth-validation do not hold sway anymore in the irrational universe of modern discourses on race. Meaning that we are, literally, back in the days of Galileo and the Inquisition… where even 100% proof of heliocentricity could not negate the dogma underpinning geocentricity.

It is therefore imperative that conservatives devise new forms of critique – hence, a new methodology – in order to regain their foothold in the narrative on/of race in the academic and public spheres.

In order to do so, it is necessary to isolate and examine the core rationale, the thesis, holding the (still dominant) liberal race-narrative together. Once this has been done, one only needs to define its antithesis and, if present, exploit the synthesis.

The two most salient characteristics of the liberal race narrative are individual agency and emotionality. The former flows (mostly) from the aestheticism of Nietzsche, Heidegger, Foucault and Derrida. The latter obviously flows from Freud.

Both the above-mentioned are, generally, present in academic discourses in the form of interpretivist theory. This theory is, in very basic terms, underpinned by epistemological assumptions that hold that the “truth” is in man. This is obviously the dialectical opposite (the antithesis) of the classic modernist view that the “truth” is out there somewhere. In short; man creates knowledge, s/he does not discover it… in the Cartesian sense.

These two theoretical perspectives were the main combatants in the so-called Paradigm Wars, as initiated by Thomas Kuhn – in lieu of his relativization of (a single) Truth. It suffices to say that a compromise, a synthesis, has been found after the fog of battle has cleared, namely, sociocultural theory. This theory, albeit a synthesis, is inherently antithetical (to the liberal race narrative) because it emphasises collective agency. Meaning that conservative thinkers would be well-advised to use it as a truth-validating method/ology to counter the emphasis on individual agency, as espoused by liberals. In short; sociocultural theory has the potential to become a marvellous instrument of/for exposing “untruths” in the irrational universe of liberal discourses on race.

To the trickier one, emotionality: what is the antithesis of emotionality? As mentioned in the introductory paragraphs of this column, cold hard scientific facts are unable to function as untruths in the wacky irrational universe inhabited by (most) white liberals. Could indifference be the antithesis of emotionality? This seems to be happening in the public sphere… where the normal white conservative citizenry is becoming increasingly immune to the incessant screams of “Racist, Hater, and Nazi baby-seal clubber!” by bleeding-heart white liberals.

It is as if indifference has become a potent weapon in the fight against the emotion-laden zealotry of the white liberal establishment in the public sphere. But now the question obviously is; how does one colloquialize indifference into solid academic theory with which to counter the still dominant left-wing narrative on race-related issues?

I can only think of one school of (Western) philosophy that was passionate about indifference (pun intended): Stoicism. Maybe therefore a re-evaluation of Stoicism could assist in developing the necessary theoretical foundations from which to utilise indifference as weapon – alongside sociocultual theory – with which to expose untruths in Cloud Cuckoo Land.

Stoicism was, after all, the moral backbone of the old British Empire… which, as we know, was very successful. So why not try a winning recipe…?

[followbutton username=’albertbrenner1′ count=’true’ lang=’en’ theme=’light’]

The failure of South African democracy

Let’s face it: South African democracy has failed. There may still be the trappings of people voting every five years and the annual ritual of parliament being opened, but it has turned out to be just a white elephant.

Every election is a racial census. The average “voter” is answering to a vague ethnic calling of voting ANC in order “to show those goddamn whites”, but has no inkling what the economy, foreign policy or the myriad laws streaming out of parliament are all about. You might as well ask him to vote on the latest theory in astrophysics. He is voting on the colour of the document’s cover, not on the contents thereof.

But the ignorance of the electorate is only the start of the problem. This system of government, the so-called Westminster system, was designed in Britain to suit British people. South Africa is a jumble of languages, races and ethnic groups, a real multiethnic society that has nothing in common with the British isles except that we use British spelling conventions. If anything, we should have had the Swiss cantonal system as Leon Louw and others have suggested, where each district could rule itself and even secede from itself if it no longer found the cantonal policies to its liking.

It is true that the National Party was stupid. But the stupidest thing it ever did was to concede to this insane political system that is destroying our country and leading to massive waste, corruption, genocidal violence, books in rivers or rubbish dumps and a small number of politically connected people living like the mediaeval Pope while the rest of us only scrape by.

Both Aristotle and Plato were skeptical of democracy and considered it even outright dangerous. There are other ways of deciding issues than having a bunch of would-be parasites put their faces on placards and making a cross next to their names, knowing full well that these people are going to steal from the very parliament where they are making laws that we are supposed to obey. I am here referring to the parliamentary travel scandal, of course. But the constant stream of scandals around South Africa’s “leaders” reads like a report from some pirates’ island in the Caribbean, in the days when being a buccaneer was nothing to be frowned upon.

There is no moral principle like “democracy”. An elected leader is no better than a king or an aristocrat or a dictator, unless he behaves better of course. Evidently, South Africa’s elected representatives comport themselves like robbers and the state is their Cave of Ali Baba.

Democracy, at least in theory, should lead to good government. With all the apartheid revisionism going on at the moment, most thinking, honest people are starting to agree that we actually had better government, education and health services when the Afrikaner minority governed South Africa from 1948 to 1994. A Canadian political scientist, Heribert Adam, actually called the thing by its name, an oligarchy. It would have warmed Aristotle’s heart. Or that of Nietzsche, who saw in democracy the most degenerate system ever devised by man.

The old system was an oligarchy and it served us fairly well, a lot better than the current, criminal free-for-all. Of course, in some respects it was slightly feudal and unfair. But no more unfair than the present system, with its “modern”, liberated appearance but dark, primitive underbelly.

The only concept that adequately describes the South African political system is sadism, or taking pleasure in hurting people. It is the rule of people over others who are aware that such rule will cause the others pain. You have to take the punishment and follow ever more complex rules, while they, being sadists, are above the rules.

Our South African rulers are a law unto themselves. Who could disagree with that statement?

Democracy, like any system, is a means to an end. It is not end in itself. To make it more understandable: a political system is like the operating system of your computer. You choose the most functional one that gives you the least problems. If Windows had to crash every second day, then you would change to a Mac or Linux or whatever. Ultimately, you need the system that will run the most smoothly. It must be there in the background and not bother you with constant error messages or sudden freezes, slowness and mood swings.

In the ancient Greek city of Athens democracy existed for less than 200 years before it was done away with under the Macedonians Phillip and Alexander. Even in modern Europe, democracy has not been universal. In Africa, as in South Africa, it remains an experiment and has caused more wars and problems than it has solved.

Apparently one third of all our taxes get lost due to corruption, “tenderpreneurs” and the like. Financially, democracy therefore costs us a third of the annual budget or about R330 billion. This must be the most expensive system we could ever think of, which is destroying the country bit by bit. Even a dictator like Idi Amin or Robert Mugabe would be cheaper as no dictator could possibly embezzle such a large amount every year. In a certain sense, South African democracy means having 5000 dictators raping the country all at once.

Democracy has failed us utterly. Whosoever would deny that, is either stupid or dishonest. Or both.