The past few weeks have moved South Africa into the international spotlight as U.S. President Donald Trump accused South Africa of expropriating property and mistreating various groups. He then offered a form of refugee status to Afrikaner farmers affected by the South African government’s actions.

This produced howls of opposition and derision from liberal media and commentators in South Africa, variously accusing the American administration of lying, deceit and, unsurprisingly, racism. People were quick to ‘fact-check’ the U.S. President and respond with everything from crying foul to thumbing their nose at the cancellation of U.S. money sent to South Africa. Conservatives applauded the U.S. for finally revealing the racism in South African politics and law.

Both liberals and conservatives claim to have the facts on their side. Why is there so little consensus when we supposedly all have the same facts available to us?

For example, take the issue of land expropriation. On the one hand, it is true that the South African government has not begun large-scale expropriation of farms without compensation as was done in Zimbabwe. However, it is also true that a law has been passed to make expropriation without compensation legal in certain circumstances. This is a question of which side of the issue you tend to emphasise in your interpretation.

Take the issue of genocide. If genocide is a form of seeking the murder of a particular ethnic group, then some point to the number of farm murders in the last 30 years, which is under 4000, as evidence that there is no deliberate targeting of a people group. On the other hand, given the vast areas that farms occupy, and the relatively small number of farmers, the murder of between 2000 and 4000 farmers represents a staggering amount of land and a rather targeted demographic. It is also true that many of the farm murders involve extreme torture before the actual murder, representing something other than incidental crime. To emphasise the low number of farm murders in contrast to South Africa’s generally high murder rate is to choose to interpret the facts so as to dismiss the reality of targeted farm attacks.

The same pertains to the government’s destructive policies of Black Economic Empowerment (BEE). Proponents claim that BEE was the only way to redress a badly skewed apartheid economy. Opponents point out that race-based economics is bad for any country, whether it was the old National Party promoting it, or the current ANC. The fact that South Africa’s economy has stagnated, that unemployment is at an all-time high, and that South Africa is not attractive to investors seems to be ignored by the liberal media, intent on appearing supportive of BEE.

Finally, South Africa has become obnoxious to the United States because of its international alliances. It has cosied up to Russia, China, and Iran. It has taken Israel to the International Court of Justice, accusing it of genocide. To add insult to injury, it appointed as its ambassador to the United States a Hamas-supporting Ebrahim Rasool, who called Trump a white supremacist.  Small wonder that on the 14th of March, the Secretary of State announced that they had expelled Rasool from the U.S. and that he was persona non grata. Yet many on social media denounced the U.S. and rallied in support of Rasool.

Again, why is there so little consensus when we supposedly all have the same facts available to us?

In 1990, a book came out titled The Flight From Truth. It was written by a French intellectual Jacques Revel. He wrote the book just before the collapse of the Soviet Union. Revel said he penned the book because he was bewildered to see journalists in the West frequently ignoring obvious facts, undisputed events and known situations. Liberal journalists in the 70s, 80s, and early 90s, acted as if the countries behind the Iron Curtain and those South American and African countries ruled by communist dictators were real paradises on Earth, wonderful places ruled by benign, kind leaders. These journalists routinely ignored events such as massacres, purges, civil wars, and coups, because they didn’t match the story they wanted to tell.

Revel wrote at the beginning of the book that he wanted to find out “why human beings so frequently neglect the genuine knowledge that is available to them and prefer to base their [ideas] and their actions on false information, even though it is often against their interest to do so.” To put it another way, why do people flee from truth? Why do they knowingly turn away from reality?

Jesus explained why in John 3. “And this is the condemnation, that the light has come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil. 20 For everyone practicing evil hates the light and does not come to the light, lest his deeds should be exposed.” (John 3:19–20)

In other words, the human heart prefers interpretations it finds convenient and not convicting. Even when the light of truth is available, people actively suppress the truth to prefer those notions we find comfortable.  People like to talk about doing a ‘fact check’. But even those who do the ‘fact-checking’ choose to emphasise some facts, and omit others, highlight some, and skip over others. There are no neutral facts. All facts are harnessed to strengthen an interpretation of the world.

Those who seek the truth accept the facts of reality, even when they are unflattering, condemning, or unpleasant. Those who love darkness think that closing their eyes to reality will mean they do not eventually bump into it. It appears South Africa is about to bump into realities it proclaims are not there.