Read the full transcript of Afrikaner activist Dr. Ernst Roets’s interview on The Dr. Jordan B. Peterson Podcast titled “South Africa: What the West Needs to Learn”, April 15, 2025.
The Complex History of South African Settlement
DR. JORDAN B. PETERSON: Hello, everybody. I’ve watched over a very long period of time, the political and economic situation in South Africa both heat up and destabilize. And that’s taken somewhat of an accelerating turn in the last few years. Because of that, I’ve become increasingly interested in delving more deeply into the history of South Africa to understand the context and then also the political situation on the ground in that country now.
I came across the work of Dr. Ernst Roets, who wrote this book called “Kill the Boer,” which was published in 2018. He’s also a filmmaker. He made a film called “Tainted Heroes,” which is about the apartheid era in 2016, and another one called “Disrupted Land.” I hoped to talk to Dr. Roets about South Africa, its history, its current situation, and about hopes and concerns for the future. And that’s exactly what we did.
The first thing I wanted to do was to delve a little bit into the history of the origin of South Africa, because there’s a narrative in the West that the evil white Europeans came to a land dominated by black Africans and colonized it in their brutal and murderous fashion. Any territorial dispute has its bloody edge, let’s say. But the truth of the matter is that the settlement of South Africa is a hell of a lot more complex than that, and that the two primary racial groups that exist there today weren’t the original inhabitants of the land, whether they’re black or white.
We spent the first half of the podcast talking about the history of the settlement of South Africa. The original people there were Bushmen who aren’t particularly related genetically to the Bantu, the black people who live there now, and obviously not to the Europeans. So the situation with regards to ethnicity and race in South Africa is a lot more complicated than it appears on the surface.
So this is likely to be an unsettling conversation, so we might as well dive right in. The first thing I think that people who are watching and listening should know is a somewhat more detailed history of the settlement patterns in South Africa, because what most people in the West know about South Africa, you could put in a very small thimble with enough room left over for another thimble, and that includes me. People know nothing about South Africa, like really nothing. And they certainly don’t know anything about its settlement patterns.
I suppose people use the analog of the European settlement of the Americas, which is also a very complex story. By the time the pilgrims got to the eastern coast of the United States, there are estimates that 95% of the native Americans had already died from measles, smallpox, mumps, etc. The settlement story is extremely complex, but it’s even more complex in South Africa, and they’re not the same. So could you enlighten everyone who’s watching and listening about the settlement patterns, the relationship between the land and Europeans and the black Africans, and let’s just lay that out so we know where we stand first.
The Origins of South African Peoples
DR. ERNST ROETS: Well, let me firstly say thank you very much for speaking with me. And I can say with great self-assurance that a lot of people in South Africa would be very happy to hear that you are interested in what’s happening in South Africa.
DR. JORDAN B. PETERSON: Interested in and terrified by.
DR. ERNST ROETS: Well, hopefully we can flesh out a lot of that. You’re absolutely right to say that the history of, or the patterns of land ownership and the history leading to this is complex. We could do an entire interview just about that because there were so many events that happened in South Africa.
Broadly speaking, the people who live in South Africa who are of European descent, such as myself, arrived in 1652. That was the settlement when the Dutch East India Company arrived in what is today Cape Town, to start a refreshment station for ships traveling around Africa to trade with the East. It was initially the Dutch, and they were then joined by Germans and French especially, but some other Europeans as well.
We sometimes call them the Proto-Afrikaners because the Afrikaner people became a people. Obviously, it’s not just one singular event and then you are a people. But it happened over time when we developed our own language and culture in Africa. So that was about 400 years ago.
But what also happened in South Africa, in terms of the different black groups who live in South Africa, is we had, and still have, what is called the Khoisan. A lot of people know them as the Bushmen. That’s how they’re also known. A lot of them prefer to be called the Bushmen. People know them from the movie “The Gods Must Be Crazy” and so forth. And they are the true indigenous people. If you want to say who are the indigenous people of South Africa, it’s the Khoisan. They lived pretty much all over South Africa. They’ve been there for tens of thousands of years.
DR. JORDAN B. PETERSON: And they’re a very ethnically and genetically separate group. There’s a lot of genetic and ethnic diversity in Africa, more than in the rest of the world, by a lot. And the Bushmen are very distinct. In fact, I’ve read that genetically they’re more akin to Asians than they are to black Africans.
DR. ERNST ROETS: I’ve heard that too.
DR. JORDAN B. PETERSON: I’m just laying that out not to make any genetic claim of any sort, just so everybody’s clear about that. But just to know that these things are extremely complicated and all so-called black people aren’t the same by any stretch of the imagination, any more than—they’re probably less similar from a cultural and genetic perspective than Europeans are to one another.
DR.
DR. JORDAN B. PETERSON: I think you can make that case pretty bluntly. So there’s a lot of diversity in Africa.
DR. ERNST ROETS: And I’m very happy that you recognize this because a lot of people don’t, because all those black people are the same.
DR. JORDAN B. PETERSON: Yeah, yeah.
DR. ERNST ROETS: But there are also groups like the South African government who would like people to believe that all black people are the same because that’s their way of organizing as a collective on the basis of race.
DR. JORDAN B. PETERSON: Well, that way you can make the racial story, the racial oppression story, for example, a lot simpler than it actually is.
The Bushmen and Bantu Migration
DR. JORDAN B. PETERSON: Are there any estimates for the number of Bushmen people that were there, say, in the 1600s? How densely populated was South Africa and what part of Africa exactly are we talking about? Africa’s a wallopingly big continent, despite the Mercator projection. The people who Americans think of as black, they occupy mostly Africa south of the Sahara Desert, but north of where South Africa is. How far to the north were the Bushmen the predominant human population in the 1600s?
DR. ERNST ROETS: That’s a very important point. They were several thousands. I don’t know if they were 100,000—we can check those numbers. But they lived pretty much all over South Africa. They lived more to the eastern part, which is important because the eastern part is much more fertile land. It’s much more humid, and that’s where the most productive farming land is. The western part is arid. It’s more deserts and dry.
DR. JORDAN B. PETERSON: So they lived mostly in the east.
DR. ERNST ROETS: Yes, but they don’t anymore. And that’s important. If you go to the eastern parts, like the Drakensberg, you would find the cave paintings of the Khoisan. But they don’t live there anymore because they were pushed out by groups coming in from the north. It has become a controversial term, although I don’t know what the appropriate term then would be—by the Bantu people. The word Bantu is a word that means people. It just means people.
DR. JORDAN B. PETERSON: That’s typical. Anthropologically, most tribes refer to themselves as the humans as opposed to everyone else who aren’t the humans.
DR. ERNST ROETS: Exactly. So they’ve been known as the Bantu-speaking groups, but today it’s controversial to use that term.
DR. JORDAN B. PETERSON: Why is that?
DR. ERNST ROETS: Because it’s a term that refers to black people. And I think some people have used the term in the context of making derogatory remarks or something to that effect.
DR. JORDAN B. PETERSON: I see, I see.
DR. ERNST ROETS: But that’s how they were known historically, and that’s the Zulus and the Tswanas and the different groups that we know in South Africa today.
DR. JORDAN B. PETERSON: And they came down from the north.
DR. ERNST ROETS: They pushed out the Bushmen.
DR. JORDAN B. PETERSON: Right. Now also the Bushmen, from what I understand—I don’t know lots about the Bushmen either, although what I do know about them is that they were basically hunters and gatherers and trackers and they were very sophisticated. They used those little lightweight bows and arrows and poison darts, and they’re very good at running down prey. And they can live where no one else can live. But also, they weren’t agriculturalists, from my understanding. And there were no places where the Bushmen produced cities or dense population centers.
DR. ERNST ROETS: Correct. And they are fairly small also, which is one of the reasons when the bigger tribes came in from the north and there was conflict between these groups, they were pushed out. They were not able to take a stance against the Zulu people, who are typically a strong nation.
DR. JORDAN B. PETERSON: Right. And very well armed, comparatively.
DR. ERNST ROETS: Yes. Very militaristic.
DR. JORDAN B. PETERSON: The Bushmen have those little bows and arrows with their poison darts, but those don’t make very effective weapons of war, partly because the poison is long acting.
For all those people who think, by the way, that the Bushmen were like peaceful agrarian communists and that there was no conflict amongst them prior to the Bantu or the Europeans, the most common pathway to death for a Bushman man, if I remember correctly, is through murder. So you can use those darts on other people quite effectively if there’s a feud.
I also know that the Bushmen, because they lived in small tribal groups, they didn’t evolve a real judicial system, and often their disputes would turn murderous. In some of these areas where the Bantus came down, the Bushmen would use the Bantu judicial system, which was more advanced, as a means of mediating their own disputes.
I just want to bring that up to put to rest any suspicions that the Bushmen were Rousseau’s noble savages, and that everything was peaceful before civilization came along. That’s not how the world works, even a little bit.
European Settlement and Early Interactions
DR. JORDAN B. PETERSON: Okay, so in the 1650s, the Europeans came to the very southern tip of Africa, and that was primarily a consequence of the trading routes, because people had to sail around the Horn.
DR. ERNST ROETS: Yes.
DR. JORDAN B. PETERSON: And they set up this settlement as a refreshment station, you said, for the European sailors who were starting to trade in India and so forth.
DR. ERNST ROETS: Exactly. And in Asia, and also to service the ships, building ships, repairing ships and so forth. They started there in 1652. Eventually they had what we call the Freiburgers or the free burgers, which was that some of them were employees of The Dutch East India Company, and some of them were then released from their contracts so that they could become farmers, so that they could start developing an economy.
There were some clashes with the Bushmen already there in the Cape between the Europeans and the Bushmen. But there were also examples of trading and cooperation and so forth.
DR. JORDAN B. PETERSON: Right. So that’s similar to what happened in North America. There were lots of peaceful and productive interactions between the natives and the Europeans. And it also depended on which Europeans. The Cree in Canada were much more likely to ally with the English, for example, than with the French. And so these things were very complex.
DR. ERNST ROETS: We had the same dynamics in South Africa with the Afrikaner people and the English as well. It’s unfortunate that when thinking about history, we tend to overestimate or overemphasize the conflict and downplay the cooperation. Because conflict is more newsworthy, you could say. So when we think about history, we think about war and conflict, but we forget the cooperation part. That’s very important.
DR. JORDAN B. PETERSON: Right.
# The Bantu Migration and Early Settlement
DR. ERNST ROETS: And so that was about the time when the Zulu people were settling in what is today KwaZulu Natal. And that calls our people in the Eastern Cape closer to where the Afrikaners or the proto-Afrikaners were.
DR. JORDAN B. PETERSON: When did the Bantu start moving south and why hadn’t they done that before?
DR. ERNST ROETS: I’m not sure why they haven’t done that before. But from what I know there was conflict up north in Africa and there were nomadic tribes and some groups.
DR. JORDAN B. PETERSON: So they were pushed down as a consequence of inter-tribal warfare in their own lands.
DR. ERNST ROETS: Yes.
DR. JORDAN B. PETERSON: It’s still surprising, isn’t it, that so much of Africa was essentially unsettled. I mean I know the Bushmen were there, but there weren’t very many of them. And it’s also a lifestyle that can’t support that huge a population. Pre-agricultural lifestyle.
DR. ERNST ROETS: Yeah.
European Settlement and African Potential
DR. JORDAN B. PETERSON: So I mean there weren’t very many human beings a hundred thousand years ago. Okay. And so all right, so the Europeans start settling in the southernmost part of Africa. It’s the Dutch East India Company. It’s primarily for trade. The employees of that company get acclimated to Africa. They realize that there’s immense productive farmland there.
Like I read, for example, I know Uganda’s farther north, but Uganda has enough arable land to feed all of Africa with no problem and a water table that’s 200ft below the surface of the country. That’s virtually everywhere in the country. So Africa’s God only knows how many people Africa could support if it was well managed.
DR. ERNST ROETS: Yes, which is why we have some of the best farmers in South Africa. So in terms of the history then, one major event was with the Napoleonic wars. We sometimes joke as the Afrikaner people, we say we skip the Enlightenment because we have this joke. We say in Europe they were reading Jean Jacques Rousseau while we were hunting elephants.
DR. JORDAN B. PETERSON: That was probably a better use of time than reading Jean Jacques Rousseau anyways.
DR. ERNST ROETS: Yeah, but that’s important because I think it in a way shaped our culture in a particular way, which is why the Afrikaner people at least are much more conservative, much more religious than many of our friends in Europe.
British Colonization and Conflict
DR. JORDAN B. PETERSON: Should outline a little bit probably too the conflict between the Dutch, the Boers and the English.
DR. ERNST ROETS: Yes, I want to get to that now.
DR. JORDAN B. PETERSON: Okay, so we’ve got the setup now. So really what happened in South Africa was that there was a relatively small population of pre-agricultural tribesmen, the Bushmen, who were very ethnically distinct from this, let’s call them Central Africans for the time being. And that in around 1600, 1650, let’s say to 1750, there was an influx of Bantu speaking people who were larger from the north. And there was an influx of Europeans.
DR. ERNST ROETS: Before, I think they came in before the Europeans came, but they were coming in from the north. In the same century.
DR. JORDAN B. PETERSON: You could say in the same century. Anyways, and so the Bushmen were starting to feel pressure from an invasion, so to speak, from the north, and also an influx from the south.
DR. ERNST ROETS: Yes.
DR. JORDAN B. PETERSON: Okay, so that’s more accurate. And none of this was agricultural to begin with.
DR. ERNST ROETS: Yes.
DR. JORDAN B. PETERSON: Right. So now were the Bantu also interested in agricultural settlement?
DR. ERNST ROETS: Yes, they were more. Less nomadic than the Bushmen. The Bushmen were more nomadic, they moved around much more. And the Bantu groups were also in a sense nomadic, but they settled in like the Zulus built the Zulu Kingdom in KwaZulu Natal in the eastern part of the country. And they had more degrees of settlement.
DR. JORDAN B. PETERSON: Okay. So we’re also seeing an anthropological struggle in the broader sense between the archaic mode of human existence, which was nomadic, hunter-gatherer, and the developing agricultural and settled communities. Some of them were black in Africa and some of them were white. And so now we’ve got at least a three-way conflict going on, not counting the conflicts inside the groups.
DR. ERNST ROETS: Yes.
DR. JORDAN B. PETERSON: Okay. And so by mid-1700s, what’s the status of the white settlements in South Africa?
DR. ERNST ROETS: It developed, it grew, and the borders shifted out toward the east. Then the reason why I mentioned the Enlightenment is after the French Revolution, the Napoleonic wars took place, specified the time frame. 1810.
DR. JORDAN B. PETERSON: Yep.
DR. ERNST ROETS: And that’s when the British came to colonize the Cape, partly as a result of the wars in Europe. And so we had some battles with the British, the Battle of Blouberg, the Battle of Meissenbergen. And eventually the Cape was colonized.
British Empire Expansion
DR. JORDAN B. PETERSON: Right. So that’s while the Brits are really expanding their empire. And so now they come into what’s now a European settlement in South Africa. And the battle for dominion is between Europeans.
Now you see the same kind of thing in a sense play out in North America. Because it was New Amsterdam before it was New York. And of course much of the United States was settled by Germany and a huge chunk. Well, that was eventually the Louisiana Purchase was French and of course Quebec remained French. And so who the colonizers were, it’s not like they were a monolithic group. And there was plenty of fighting between them.
So what motivated the English to show up in South Africa per se in the 1800s? You said it was in the aftermath of Napoleonic wars, but it was part of the colonial expansion. No doubt it’s a trade issue as well, I presume.
DR. ERNST ROETS: I think it’s all of that. It was part of the British expanding the British Empire. The strategic importance of the southern point of the African continent, especially trade that was before the.
DR. JORDAN B. PETERSON: On the richness of the land. There’s gold. Was gold discovered?
DR. ERNST ROETS: Not yet.
DR. JORDAN B. PETERSON: Not yet. Okay.
The Great Trek and Mfecane Genocide
DR. ERNST ROETS: And so they settled, which led to the great event in our history that many people say is the event during which we became a people, which was the Great Trek. So some of the Afrikaner people or the Dutch speaking peoples in the Cape at the time felt that they cannot be governed by another nation. They were very aggrieved by the idea that someone came in from another continent, took over. And they wanted to be free.
And so they eventually opted to move into the interior of South Africa, which was a very dangerous thing to do because people didn’t know what they would find in the interior. They sent in what they call the commission track. They sent in some scouts. And actually the scouts came back and said that they found some people in certain areas, but largely speaking, they were vast open tracts of land.
Because what’s also important, and this is again why the history of land ownership is so complex, that was shortly after the Mfecane genocide, which was a genocide. Some figures estimate that about a million people were killed as a result of Zulu expansionism and a conflict between the Zulu king and Mfecane or Msilikati. Who was a soldier in the Zulu Kingdom. And he eventually had the Matabeles or the Ndebele people. And it was expansionist wars and it spread out throughout the southern part of Africa and there was mass extermination campaigns.
So the scouts came back and they said in some places they found peoples living. In some places there was just no one. And in some places they just found bones, skeletons.
DR. JORDAN B. PETERSON: So there was good reason and possibility to get the hell away from the British and to move farther north and into the central parts of South Africa.
DR. ERNST ROETS: Yes.
DR. JORDAN B. PETERSON: What sort of size, geographical area are we talking about?
DR. ERNST ROETS: South Africa is about twice the size of Texas. So it’s a pretty big country compared to the U.S. it’s small. You could say it’s the size of Western Europe if you take away Spain. So it’s a pretty big country.
DR. JORDAN B. PETERSON: Right, right. Okay. So there was plenty of northward geographical area to move towards. Yes. And how many Boers, what year was the trek?
DR. ERNST ROETS: The 1830s.
DR. JORDAN B. PETERSON: 1830s. And how many Boers participated in the trek?
DR. ERNST ROETS: I think about 2000, if I recall.
DR. JORDAN B. PETERSON: Okay, okay.
DR. ERNST ROETS: So it’s a fairly small group initially.
DR. JORDAN B. PETERSON: Right, right, right. And now. And they used wagons?
DR. ERNST ROETS: Moving wagons, yes, ox wagons.
DR. JORDAN B. PETERSON: So it’s kind of like the settlement of the American west in that way.
Parallels with American History
DR. ERNST ROETS: Very, very similar. The Afrikaner story is remarkably similar to the American story. Also we had our wars with the British. It’s remarkably similar our interactions with local communities, the trek towards the interior. It’s a fascinating story just how comparable it is also culturally speaking.
DR. JORDAN B. PETERSON: Right, so there was plenty of vacant land in the Western U.S. when the pioneers went westward. There was occupied land as well. There’s still plenty of vacant land in the western US like plenty, although a lot of it’s desert.
And so I suspect that, although I don’t know this for sure, but I expect that there was more habitation in North America than there was in South Africa at that time. I guess I really don’t know because I don’t know how extensive the Bantu settlements might have been. But you said that was also complicated by the fact that there was a genocide and that many people were wiped out.
Of course, the situation in North America was complicated by the fact of the mass deaths that were a consequence of the illnesses that spread across North America. Like a plague, actually like three plagues. And so, well, all that to just say how complicated these things are. Okay, so these 2,000 people spread north and then what was the consequence of that?
Conflict and Cooperation
DR. ERNST ROETS: So they, again, going back to the issue of conflict versus cooperation, there were many examples of cooperation and treaties, dozens of treaties that were signed with local tribes cooperating, but there was also conflict.
And one of the most significant or the most well known battle was the Battle of Blood River, which was when the Voortrekkers, as they were known, which essentially means pioneer. Also another similarity, it means those who go out ahead, they were known as the Voortrekkers. And so they had conflict with the Ndebele people of Msilikati. This soldier from the Zulu who was part of this.
DR. JORDAN B. PETERSON: You know, so he was a rebel in the Bantu.
DR. ERNST ROETS: Yeah, yeah, yeah. He had conflict with the Zulu king and then they also had conflict with the Zulus. And one of the battles, I should just mention this in passing, was the Battle of Vegkop where the Voortrekkers were attacked by the Ndebeles of Msilikati. But it was an ambush. They didn’t expect it.
And so it was men and women and children who had to defend themselves. And it’s an important part of our story because the women were there in the field next to the men with their, as they called it, these front loading rifles. The very primitive guns that they had at the time, and they had to defend themselves as they were attacked.
DR. JORDAN B. PETERSON: And from what I understand, too, the victory of the Europeans over the Zulus, the Bantus, let’s say, was by no means foregone conclusion that they were very formidable fighters. And there was a difference in weaponry, as you just pointed out, but it wasn’t like the Boers had machine guns.
Here’s the formatted and cleaned-up version of the transcript:
The Great Trek and the Battle of Blood River
DR. ERNST ROETS: Yeah, it took quite some time to reload the gun. Sometimes you had to get people to help you reload. They also had sheer numbers against them. I mentioned this story before, but maybe I should tell you about the vow that was made in 1838.
The Voortrekkers had a democratic election internally, and they elected Peter Retief as their leader. He went to negotiate with the Zulu king, King Dingaan, who was the younger brother of Shaka. Dingaan had actually killed his brother to become king. They negotiated for a piece of land between the Tugela and Umzimvubu rivers in exchange for returning cattle stolen from the Zulus by another tribe.
Retief was warned that this was dangerous, but he insisted they needed to buy land. They went to the Zulu king, returned the cattle, and signed a treaty. The king made a cross on the contract and invited them to celebrate, telling them to leave their weapons outside. During the celebration, the Zulu king suddenly chanted “Bulalani abathakathi” which means “kill the wizards.” They took the entire group to a nearby hill and slaughtered them. Retief was forced to watch as his men were killed, including his son, before being killed last.
The Zulus then attacked the Voortrekker camps, killing about 185 women and children in surprise night attacks. The Voortrekkers decided to retaliate. A group of about 300-400 men went to attack the Zulus but found themselves completely surrounded by 12,000-20,000 Zulus.
DR. JORDAN B. PETERSON: How many of them?
DR. ERNST ROETS: They were about 300 against 12,000. Surrounded by 12,000. They thought, “Well, we’re going to die. This is it.”
DR. JORDAN B. PETERSON: That’s kind of what you’d think, all right.
DR. ERNST ROETS: Then a man I’m very proud to descend from, Sarel Cilliers, who was the religious leader, said they needed to make a vow to God. They wrote a vow stating that if God protected them in the upcoming battle, they would commemorate the day as a Sabbath, tell their children to commemorate it, build a church where God wanted, and give the honor of victory to Him.
That battle took place on December 16, 1838. Not one of the Voortrekkers was killed, while 3,000 Zulus died. Some people say this is the origin story of our people. It’s why we’re so conservative, why we love the land so much, and why we’re still so religious.
After that, they went further north and established Pretoria, which is the capital of South Africa today. Many of the northern towns and cities were eventually developed during this period.
[Advertisement removed]
Population Growth and Demographics in South Africa
DR. JORDAN B. PETERSON: Okay, now let’s skip ahead a little bit. Since then, the Bantu people have multiplied and the Europeans have multiplied. I don’t know the population ratios or the absolute numbers. So maybe you can fill me in on that. I’m curious about where the bulk of the population growth has come from. How much more European influx from Europe directly has there been to South Africa? How much of it is multiplication of the Afrikaner stock? And I’m curious about the same thing with regards to the Central Africans who came down and also invaded the Bushmen territory.
DR. ERNST ROETS: Well, it’s certainly both. The population in South Africa grew quite rapidly in the centuries that followed among both the white communities and the black communities. Now there are about 60 million people in South Africa.
DR. JORDAN B. PETERSON: Okay, and what’s the racial mix?
DR. ERNST ROETS: The white section, which includes the English-speaking and Afrikaner people, is just below 5 million. The Afrikaners are about 2.7 million. The African or black African population has grown rapidly. Interestingly, it’s often said that the apartheid system was a genocide. There’s a lot to criticize about it, but genocide is not the right term. The black population in South Africa doubled in the first two decades of the apartheid system and then doubled again after that. There was massive population growth among black South Africans, especially in the last century.
DR. JORDAN B. PETERSON: Right. And so now you said 60 million people in South Africa as a whole and 5 million are of European descent and 2.7 million of them are Afrikaner.
DR. ERNST ROETS: Correct.
DR. JORDAN B. PETERSON: And what about Indians and Asians?
DR. ERNST ROETS: They would be slightly fewer. There’s also what we call a colored community, or mixed race in some countries. They’re quite significant, bigger than the Afrikaner community. They generally speak Afrikaans, the same language as us, but they have their own culture that they’ve developed over time. They also live mostly in the southern part of South Africa.
From a racial perspective, South Africa is very diverse. But as you mentioned initially, races are not homogenous. Within the different racial groups, there are different cultures and communities. The complexity of South African society is something people should take note of. It’s easy to oversimplify by simply saying there are white people and black people in conflict. That’s so oversimplified that it’s a false narrative.
Challenging the Colonial Narrative
DR. JORDAN B. PETERSON: Right, right. Well, and a false narrative that can be usefully repurposed. Okay, so now my suspicions are, and we’ll get back to this as we proceed in our discussion, that the history that you briefly outlined, which puts things in context quite nicely, would be criticized by leftist and radical historians. So what would be the counter story?
[Jordan Peterson continues to discuss the complexity of South African history and challenges the simplified colonial narrative]
DR. ERNST ROETS: Unfortunately, that narrative is so oversimplified that it’s almost farcical. One claim would be that Europe is the continent for white people and Africa is the continent for black people. So it doesn’t matter that the groups who live in South Africa came from the north of Africa. They still came from Africa.
DR. JORDAN B. PETERSON: That’s kind of hard on the North Africans.
DR. ERNST ROETS: Yes. And my answer to that is that it implies if you apply that same argument to Europe, then you should say black people in Europe are not welcome. They should go back to Africa. Because the narrative in South Africa is whites must go back to Europe because this is for black people.
DR. JORDAN B. PETERSON: Well, it also begs the question of which black people. Like, is it the San, the Bushmen, or the Bantu? Let’s say it’s not like that’s the only kind of black people that are in Africa.
DR. ERNST ROETS: The political slogan is that when the Dutch came, they didn’t bring any land on their ships. That’s sort of the joke. They wouldn’t say that South Africa was densely populated because they know it wasn’t, but they would say that all of it belonged to the black groups who were living in South Africa.
[The conversation continues discussing the complexities of land ownership concepts among different groups in South Africa’s history]
DR. JORDAN B. PETERSON: That’s your frame of reference.
DR. ERNST ROETS: Exactly.
DR. JORDAN B. PETERSON: And then you encounter these other sophisticated civilizations and you think, “Well, wait a second. Maybe we’re not right.” And then you start to doubt. And then you start to think, “Well, maybe we’re wrong.” And then you start to think, “Well, maybe we’re evil.” And that’s kind of the progression. And I think that’s part of what happened to Rome. They encountered these other civilizations and they lost faith in their own ethos.
DR. ERNST ROETS: Yes, and I think that’s a very good point. It’s this idea of cultural relativism that comes into play. And it’s not just about encountering other civilizations, but also about how we view our own history.
The Complexity of Historical Narratives
DR. JORDAN B. PETERSON: So let’s return to the question of why the simplified narrative about land ownership in South Africa persists in the West. You mentioned the sense of guilt and self-hatred among Westerners. How does this manifest in the South African context?
DR. ERNST ROETS: I think it manifests in the way that many Westerners, including some South Africans, are quick to accept a simplistic narrative of colonial oppression without considering the complex historical realities. There’s a tendency to view everything through the lens of white guilt and black victimhood, which doesn’t do justice to the nuanced history of the region.
DR. JORDAN B. PETERSON: And this simplified narrative serves a political purpose as well, doesn’t it?
DR. ERNST ROETS: Absolutely. It’s much easier to rally support for radical policies like land expropriation without compensation if you can paint a clear picture of historical injustice. The complex reality doesn’t lend itself as well to political slogans.
DR. JORDAN B. PETERSON: So we have this situation where the actual history, as understood by serious historians, is at odds with the popular narrative. How does this impact current debates about land reform in South Africa?
DR. ERNST ROETS: It creates a significant disconnect. Those pushing for radical land reform often base their arguments on this simplified version of history. When you try to introduce nuance or point out the complexities, you’re often accused of defending apartheid or colonialism, which isn’t the case at all.
DR. JORDAN B. PETERSON: It’s a classic example of how historical narratives can be weaponized for political purposes.
DR. ERNST ROETS: Exactly. And it makes having a rational, evidence-based discussion about land reform incredibly difficult.
The Challenge of Addressing Historical Injustices
DR. JORDAN B. PETERSON: So given this complex history, how do you think South Africa should approach the issue of land reform? Is there a way to address historical injustices without creating new ones?
DR. ERNST ROETS: That’s the million-dollar question. I believe we need to start by acknowledging the full complexity of our history. We can’t right historical wrongs by creating new injustices. Any approach to land reform needs to be based on respect for property rights and the rule of law. It should focus on expanding opportunities for land ownership rather than simply redistributing existing land.
DR. JORDAN B. PETERSON: And how do you see this playing out in the current political climate in South Africa?
DR. ERNST ROETS: Unfortunately, the current political rhetoric often leans towards more radical approaches. There’s a push for land expropriation without compensation, which I believe would be disastrous for the country’s economy and social stability. We need to find a middle ground that addresses legitimate grievances without undermining the foundations of our economy and legal system.
DR. JORDAN B. PETERSON: It’s a delicate balance to strike, isn’t it? Addressing historical injustices while also ensuring a stable and prosperous future for all South Africans.
DR. ERNST ROETS: Absolutely. And it’s made all the more challenging by the oversimplified narratives that dominate public discourse. We need to have more nuanced, historically informed discussions about these issues if we’re going to find sustainable solutions.
DR. ERNST ROETS: Yes, so maybe a different way of putting this, as opposed to referencing Enlightenment philosophy, is to say the West has had to make this recognition that the Western frame of reference is not the frame of reference, but a frame of reference. I think a lot of people in the West are not quite sure how to deal with that.
DR. JORDAN B. PETERSON: We still aren’t.
DR. ERNST ROETS: Which leads to a lot of conflict. One way of dealing with that is to say that our way is right and everyone else’s way is wrong and we need to enforce our view on the rest of the world.
DR. JORDAN B. PETERSON: You get a kind of ethno-fascism that can develop out of that.
DR. ERNST ROETS: Yes, and that doesn’t work.
DR. JORDAN B. PETERSON: Yeah, well, that’s got its problems, let’s say.
DR. ERNST ROETS: Another way of dealing with it that is equally bad is to say we need to dissolve. We have an identity crisis as a result of this, so maybe those guys are better than we are. I think the appropriate solution lies in the middle. The golden mean is to say that we have a particular frame of reference.
We see that in South Africa all the time, that there’s a Western frame of reference. But people who aren’t Westerners don’t have that frame of reference. One practical example in South Africa is property rights. We believe in individual ownership of property.
DR. JORDAN B. PETERSON: Because we also believe in individuals.
DR. ERNST ROETS: Yes. But the Zulu culture is much more one that emphasizes a monarchy and communal ownership of land. So the king owns the land. I don’t think the correct way to deal with that is for me to go to the Zulu people and say, “You guys are wrong. You need to change your culture. You need to adopt our way of thinking.”
It’s not that easy to navigate. I think that’s why South Africa is such an important case study for the world, because we have these communities living on this piece of land. How do we deal with that? People think about things like history, as we mentioned, differently. They think about property rights differently. They think about ownership and so forth in different ways.
The appropriate way to deal with that is not to try to enforce your way of thinking onto the other, but to try to find a way where there’s mutual recognition and respect between different perspectives.
DR. JORDAN B. PETERSON: Yeah, but even that presumes that there’s something like boundaries. So that you can each have your space, so to speak. There’s a metaphysic under that even, which is that there can be treaties. And the treaties are made between sovereign individuals, or at least sovereign peoples. And even that can be, as pointed out in the massacre, there was a treaty there.
DR. ERNST ROETS: Yeah, which to us was very important. But in their culture, it’s not that big. A signed document is almost irrelevant.
DR. JORDAN B. PETERSON: Well, the fact that there’s eternal war between different tribes is an indication of the complexities of negotiating such things. But it is the case as well that there are two streams in human history. One stream is “kill the foreigner,” and the other stream is “No, we’ve got our differences, but they have something to offer and we have something to offer. If we can get the trade arrangements right, we could both be better off.”
That’s the battle. Can you get the trade arrangements right? That’s really hard. And if you don’t, well, then it’s capitulation or mayhem. So we’re trying to figure out how to get the trade arrangements right. And you guys are right on the cutting edge of that.
The Complexities of South Africa’s Transition
DR. JORDAN B. PETERSON: Okay, now this book of yours, “Kill the Boer,” let’s flip to modern times. I can remember in the 1980s going to McGill, and at that time, apartheid was a major issue. We should let everybody listening and watching know what the apartheid state was exactly.
There was immense pressure, especially from the more radical end of the political belief spectrum, to divest any investment in South Africa, to put pressure on the government to dispense with apartheid. I watched that and thought, well, apartheid’s a pretty brutal regime and it has its marked catastrophic disadvantages. But you bloody radicals, you’re messing with things you don’t understand and you’re virtue signaling like mad, and you’re not going to have to bear the consequences of your idiot interference.
I figured, and I still do, that the most likely outcome for South Africa is that because of the vast disparities in population size and distribution of wealth, the white South Africans are going to find themselves in serious trouble. That already happened in Zimbabwe. That already happened in Rhodesia. We haven’t talked about the relationship between those states and South Africa at all yet, but we might.
The most likely pathway forward is the one that requires the least intelligence and effort, because there are way more ways for things to deteriorate than for them to improve. The wealth disparity in South Africa is a major, major problem, like a massive problem. That has to do with land ownership as well. It seems to me that there’s great danger, at least in that as an outcome.
I’ve watched, especially in the last few years, because let’s say for the 35 years since the 1980s – I don’t remember exactly when the apartheid state disintegrated. When was that?
DR. ERNST ROETS: 1990 was when it started to disintegrate.
DR. JORDAN B. PETERSON: So 94 was basically 35 years away from that. Things maintained a somewhat stable equilibrium until five years ago. Is that about right?
DR. ERNST ROETS: Let me just say something about the dismantling of the apartheid system. Initially, it started out as an attempt to deal with these complex dynamics that we’ve been discussing. The broad idea was, let’s give everyone homelands. We have a strong central government to keep everyone in check, and then the different nations have their own homelands.
That sounds great, but in practice, it’s not quite that applicable, especially when you still have a strong central government that manages everything. By the 80s, the Afrikaner people knew this wasn’t working. We needed to change.
DR. JORDAN B. PETERSON: What was the relationship between the apartheid state per se and this notion of separate homelands? So there were nations or states set up like a federation, essentially, and they were racially or ethnically or both. How were the states configured culturally?
DR. ERNST ROETS: The argument was that South Africa should be thought of as Europe, which I don’t think is a bad argument, because it’s a big piece of land that’s very diverse. How do we deal with that? The solution to Europe is not to have one big European government.
DR. JORDAN B. PETERSON: Yeah, well, we’ve seen where that goes.
DR. ERNST ROETS: Exactly. So the solution must be some form of decentralization. But the way to do that, they thought, was to have one big centralized government that manages the decentralization. Then, of course, there were all these laws that were implemented. It was also during the time of the Cold War, so they had the Suppression of Communism Act, which said that if you promote communism, it’s a crime and you’re going to be prosecuted.
DR. JORDAN B. PETERSON: Yeah. Well, the whole suppressing communism thing is a very complex rabbit hole as well. The communists turn out to be quite a lot of trouble, especially in places where there’s a lot of wealth disparity.
DR. ERNST ROETS: Yeah. The concerns about the threat of communism weren’t exaggerated. That’s certainly true.
DR. JORDAN B. PETERSON: It’s hard to exaggerate the threat of communism. Especially in parallel with wealth disparity. Because it’s a revolutionary ethos. And one that results in nothing but bloody, brutal murder and mayhem, starvation. As a solution to the problem of disparity of wealth, it’s not a good one.
DR. ERNST ROETS: So the point I want to make is, by the end of the apartheid era, the metaphor that was used was like riding on the back of a tiger and having to get off. You know, you have to get off this tiger. But the question is, how do you get off without getting eaten? That was the question that at least the Afrikaner people were grappling with. How do we end this in a way that is peaceful?
DR. JORDAN B. PETERSON: And sustainable?
DR. ERNST ROETS: Yes. The transition, I would say, was at least peaceful, fairly, I think, not bad. The violence in townships I think is underestimated, but especially black-on-black violence in South Africa.
DR. JORDAN B. PETERSON: Tell people who the townships were and are.
DR. ERNST ROETS: So that’s the urbanized areas that are very poor in South Africa where the majority of black people live. At the time, there was some very vicious rival warfare, you could say, between competing political groups who were competing for support of black people, as if that’s one whole. The ANC, who’s currently governing, was not the biggest initially, but they became the biggest because they were supported by the Soviet Union and the Chinese and they got weapons and so forth.
DR. JORDAN B. PETERSON: Well, in terms of getting off a tiger, things went not too bad. It could have been like the fall of the Soviet Union. It could have been a lot worse. It’s quite the miracle that it wasn’t just absolute bloody mayhem immediately. There were a lot of remarkable people who took leadership at that point to make sure that it did go well.
DR. ERNST ROETS: Nelson Mandela, miraculously.
DR. JORDAN B. PETERSON: Well, all things considered.
DR. ERNST ROETS: Nelson Mandela probably being the prime example of someone who continually called for peaceful solutions. He was criticized for that within his own party. But I think to use your phrase, safe but also sustainable. So the solution we got was a safe one, but not sustainable.
DR. JORDAN B. PETERSON: Okay, well, walk through that. Tell everybody what has unfolded and what the current situation is.
DR. ERNST ROETS: Well, there’s so much that has unfolded, but one way to think of it is that we have two problems. The first is that the ship is headed in the wrong direction. What I mean by that is those in power openly say they want to implement socialist solutions. They want to take property rights. They think the way to help uplift the poor is to attack the rich. There are many examples of this happening.
DR. JORDAN B. PETERSON: Right, well, we should rephrase that a bit. There’s a difference between rich and productive. Productive people have something for themselves, but they produce a lot for other people. From what I understand about Zimbabwe, Rhodesia and South Africa, the South African farmers feed the country.
DR. ERNST ROETS: Yes, that’s correct.
DR. JORDAN B. PETERSON: So if you do what was done in Zimbabwe and confiscate the land because the rich people own it, the “oppressors,” you confiscate the land, then what happens? Everyone starves to death. Then everyone’s equal because they’re all six feet underground.
Part of the problem we have in the West is that language has been captured so completely by the left that it’s almost impossible to have a discussion like this without using their terms. Most pro-free market people in the West talk about capitalism. That’s a really bad idea. It’s not capitalism, it’s free market.
DR. ERNST ROETS: It’s not ideology.
DR. JORDAN B. PETERSON: Exactly. In South Africa, it’s as if the rich only have what they have because they took it from the poor. No, the South African farmers, most of whom are white, actually know how to farm.
DR. ERNST ROETS: They’re some of the best farmers in the world.
DR. JORDAN B. PETERSON: Right. They were Dutch, a lot of them. Look at what the Dutch do in Europe.
DR. ERNST ROETS: I think the Dutch are probably the best, productively the best farmers.
DR. JORDAN B. PETERSON: They are. That’s their status in the European West. So go Dutch farmers. They’re rich because they make stuff.
[Advertisement section removed]
The Triangle of Unemployment, Poverty, and Inequality
DR. ERNST ROETS: One thing the ANC did, which is very smart and very strategic, is when they took power, they said the single biggest problem in South Africa is a triangle. It’s a triangle of unemployment, poverty and inequality. They lumped those three things together, and so the quest is to find a solution for these three things, which is essentially the same thing.
Unfortunately, they don’t seem to know how to encourage production. They don’t know how to fix the unemployment problem because they think the solution is socialism. Ironically, they’ve gotten to a point where they can only think about inequality. Margaret Thatcher had that famous line saying, you would rather have the poor be poorer provided that the rich is less rich.
DR. JORDAN B. PETERSON: There’s actually an anthropological theory about human beings that’s relevant to that. We evolved in our genetically modern form 350,000 years ago. For about 330,000 years before the ice age, we were engaging in non-stop inter-tribal warfare. Within our own tribes, every time anybody got something that everyone else didn’t have, we just killed them.
DR. ERNST ROETS: Yeah, we had to figure out how to…
DR. JORDAN B. PETERSON: We had to figure out how to let some people have more than other people some of the time. Because the alternative solution is like, imagine a new product comes along like a flat screen TV. The first people to get the flat screen TV are the billionaires. But if you wait five years, then everybody gets a flat screen TV, an iPhone. You have to wait.
The socialist idea is something like, well, if a new innovation comes along that makes people wealthy, it can’t be implemented until every single person can have exactly the same amount all at once. It looks to me like the cost of innovation is inequality because things have to start somewhere.
In the West, if you’re really rich compared to just middle class, it means your house has exactly the same amenities but three times the square footage. Or your car is more luxurious while you’re stuck in the same traffic.
DR. ERNST ROETS: Right.
DR. JORDAN B. PETERSON: The incremental difference is truly trivial between middle class and ultra-wealthy. If you’re middle class, you’re rich. And if you’re too stupid to realize that, you know nothing about the world.
Inequality and Violence
In South Africa, we know one of the things that promotes violence is absolutely crystal clear from the anthropological, sociological and psychological literature. Extreme inequality breeds male violence like mad because low-status poor men have nothing to lose by engaging in mayhem. You see this in gang warfare.
For example, if you look in North America, this is true across the world. Places where everyone’s poor, there isn’t much violence. And places where everyone’s rich, there isn’t much violence. But places where some people are poor and some people are rich, look out. And South Africa’s got that in spades.
The easiest solution for a politician, especially an unscrupulous one, is to say, “Well, you see those people over there in that house? They took it from you.”
DR. ERNST ROETS: Exactly.
DR. JORDAN B. PETERSON: That’s what the Bolsheviks said to the peasants. And that worked very effectively. Soon there were no people who were rich. None. And then everyone was dead. So you guys have this problem in spades. And the communist influence, it’s stronger now than it was 40 years ago.
DR. ERNST ROETS: Yes, but also not. That’s the irony. That goes to the point about the ship I mentioned. The ship’s headed in the wrong direction, but even though the ship is heading in the wrong direction, the ship is sinking.
DR. JORDAN B. PETERSON: That’s a bad combination.
State Failure in South Africa
DR. ERNST ROETS: Yes. The fact that the ship is sinking has become a bigger problem than the fact that it’s headed in the wrong direction. When I say the ship is sinking, I mean that we have massive state failure in South Africa.
They want to implement all these very radical policy ideas, and they have become more radical because they talk about a two-phase revolution. Phase one is getting control of the levers of power through democracy. Phase two is once you have power, you need to use the levers of power to implement your socialist ideas, which is where they are now.
So we have this plethora of new, very radical leftist policy ideas in South Africa. But they’re not really able to implement this because of large-scale corruption and sheer incompetence within the South African government. Every sphere, everything that the government is supposed to be doing in South Africa, with the exception of tax collection, is collapsing.
DR. JORDAN B. PETERSON: Okay, tell us what that looks like. Can we start with the stability of the power grid? What’s the difference between South Africa now as a modern industrialized state and South Africa, say, 10 years ago? What are you seeing fraying? What does it look like in the streets?
DR. ERNST ROETS: We can literally take any example, but let’s take power as an example. We started having rolling blackouts maybe a decade ago. At first, you would have an hour without electricity because they’re not able to provide electricity for everyone since they didn’t build power stations.
DR. JORDAN B. PETERSON: Well, providing electricity for everyone turns out to be very difficult. You better stay on top of it.
DR. ERNST ROETS: So you have to build stations, but you also have to maintain them. And neither of these two are happening. We’re at about half of the capacity we would have if the power stations were maintained.
DR. JORDAN B. PETERSON: With a massive population increase.
DR. ERNST ROETS: Yes, exactly. So that’s one part of the problem. Cyril Ramaphosa, who’s the president of South Africa now, was the chief negotiator for the ANC during the negotiations for the transition.
DR. JORDAN B. PETERSON: The African National Congress.
DR. ERNST ROETS: That’s it. Yes, the ruling party. One member of parliament, who was an opposition member, wrote in his memoirs that he was part of the negotiations. He asked Ramaphosa, “What’s your plan for dealing with the whites?” To which Ramaphosa said, “Well, that’s easy. You deal with them like boiling a frog alive.” You know that metaphor, putting the frog in the water and just lifting the temperature gradually, and the frog doesn’t jump out.
DR. JORDAN B. PETERSON: We hear that metaphor a lot nowadays in many places.
DR. ERNST ROETS: Just lifting the temperature gradually. We really see how things get worse. We hear that we have, for example, one hour of rolling blackouts, and everyone complains. That’s fine for a week or a month, and then it’s two hours, and then it becomes three hours.
DR. JORDAN B. PETERSON: People can adapt unbelievably well, and the new normal becomes normal so fast. I remember during COVID, six months in, it was like, “Oh, this is how life is.” And you just forget about what it was like before. Part of that’s a testament to human adaptability, but it’s also an indication of the fragility of our fundamental expectations.
DR. ERNST ROETS: Now we have times where there are up to 12 hours a day without electricity.
DR. JORDAN B. PETERSON: That’s everywhere. How do you deal with that? Diesel generators?
DR. ERNST ROETS: Yeah, we put up solar panels. So people adapt to that, those who can afford it.
DR. JORDAN B. PETERSON: So the richer people still have power.
DR. ERNST ROETS: Exactly. Ironically, making the gap between rich and poor bigger.
DR. JORDAN B. PETERSON: Well, look, as soon as your infrastructure starts to deteriorate, the poor people die from the bottom up.
DR. ERNST ROETS: Literally, yeah. Water is another example. We lose about 40, almost 50% of our water as a result of leakages, pipes not being maintained. In one town, they didn’t have water. The municipal manager said, “Remember these pipes were built by the apartheid government, so we should blame the pipes.” They’re not maintaining the pipes, but the fact that they were built by the previous government means that the pipes are the problem, not the lack of maintenance.
DR. JORDAN B. PETERSON: That’s right. Well, that’s like failure as an indication of our moral virtue. That’s what the degrowth people have been doing in the West too.
DR. ERNST ROETS: And so they would make these speeches, and then once the speech is finished, they would start chanting “Kill the Boer.” The crowd would join in, and they would sing and dance to this chant.
DR. JORDAN B. PETERSON: It’s a call to action, not just a metaphor.
DR. ERNST ROETS: Exactly. And this isn’t just happening at fringe events. It’s happening at major political rallies with thousands of people in attendance.
DR. JORDAN B. PETERSON: So it’s becoming normalized.
DR. ERNST ROETS: Yes, and that’s the concerning part. It’s not just a few extremists on the fringes. These are mainstream political events where this rhetoric is being used.
DR. JORDAN B. PETERSON: And the authorities aren’t cracking down on it?
DR. ERNST ROETS: There have been attempts to challenge it legally, but so far the courts have ruled it as protected speech. The argument is that it’s part of struggle songs from the anti-apartheid era.
DR. JORDAN B. PETERSON: But the context has clearly changed. It’s no longer about resisting an oppressive system, but targeting a minority group.
DR. ERNST ROETS: Exactly. And that’s the point we’ve been trying to make. The historical context doesn’t justify its use today when it’s clearly inciting violence against a specific group.
DR. JORDAN B. PETERSON: It’s a dangerous game they’re playing. History has shown us where this kind of rhetoric leads.
DR. ERNST ROETS: That’s our concern. We’re seeing the early warning signs of something potentially catastrophic if it’s not addressed.
DR. JORDAN B. PETERSON: Oh, no, that’s the standard claim. Of course it is. You know, that’s analogous to the claim “Well, they’re conspiring against us. We better act before they do.” That’s a genuine precursor to genocide. Like when that kind of rhetoric starts, that’s what happened in Rwanda. It’s like “Those people, they’re preparing to attack you. You better get ready.” Then you add the disgust and you add the economic inequality and you heighten that with some ethnic tension. And you give people the excuse to go. Plus, they’re so angry. And you can see why people who are young and absolutely poverty stricken with no hope, they’re so angry. And if they have the opportunity to turn that anger into vengeance, even for a day, especially the worst of them, it’s like, oh my God. Mayhem breaks loose and then there’s nothing for anyone. Well, oh well, that’s tomorrow, you know. Yeah, brutal.
DR. ERNST ROETS: So they would then burst into this chant. And it’s not even a song, it’s just a chant: “Kill the Boer, kill the farmer.” And there are different variations there.
DR. JORDAN B. PETERSON: Often they kill the farmer there, that’s a slogan aimed at death.
DR. ERNST ROETS: Yeah.
DR. JORDAN B. PETERSON: Kill the farmer. Okay, well, what are we going to eat?
DR. ERNST ROETS: That doesn’t matter.
DR. JORDAN B. PETERSON: Yeah, that’s what happened in Ukraine because they descended into cannibalism.
DR. ERNST ROETS: Venezuela as well.
DR. JORDAN B. PETERSON: Yeah, right. You know, at one point in the not too distant past, I mean, in the last decade, it was illegal for doctors to list starvation as the cause of death. That’s how the communists dealt with hunger. It’s illegal to die of starvation. Oh, problem solved.
DR. ERNST ROETS: Problem solved.
DR. JORDAN B. PETERSON: Problem solved.
DR. ERNST ROETS: Yeah, it’s bizarre. But you know what’s really shameful is that I and many others have been campaigning against this for quite some time, and I can honestly say I’m not aware of a single cause in South Africa for which you get more viciously attacked by people in the media, the government and so forth.
DR. JORDAN B. PETERSON: In South Africa. In South Africa and in the rest.
DR. ERNST ROETS: And largely in the rest of the… No, I mean, I’m talking about a South African cause for which you get attacked more than campaigning for the farm killings to stop and for the hate speech to stop.
DR. JORDAN B. PETERSON: So explain that.
DR. ERNST ROETS: You would be accused of fear mongering.
DR. JORDAN B. PETERSON: Right.
DR. ERNST ROETS: And so we had this term “Rooi Gevaar.” The red danger was the fear about the communists. And now the accusation is “Swart Gevaar.” So you are depicting black people as dangerous when it’s a minority. It is a minority who’s doing these things. But you get viciously attacked, picking resentful.
DR. JORDAN B. PETERSON: Communists as dangerous like they are. Right.
DR. ERNST ROETS: So I think there’s a reason why. I think there’s some form of a hierarchy of recognition in terms of who should be recognized for the hardships that they face. And when it comes to recognizing hardships in South Africa, it’s Oppression Olympics.
DR. JORDAN B. PETERSON: Yeah, yeah.
DR. ERNST ROETS: And this is an inconvenient reality when you talk about oppression.
DR. JORDAN B. PETERSON: Yeah, yeah.
DR. ERNST ROETS: So people don’t want that conversation.
The Oppression Olympics and Victimization Narratives
DR. JORDAN B. PETERSON: Jews, you know, that’s a rough one because the radicals who play the Oppression Olympics game won’t let the Jews play because they’re successful. Right. So you don’t get to play. You don’t get to be in the Oppression Olympics, even if you have reason to be terrified out of your skull.
DR. ERNST ROETS: Say, because it’s inconvenient to us.
DR. JORDAN B. PETERSON: Yeah, yeah. Well, it goes against the narrative in a terrible way. The victimization narrative.
DR. ERNST ROETS: Exactly.
DR. JORDAN B. PETERSON: Right, right. So, yes, that’s definitely playing out in South Africa. There’s no doubt about that. Because the fundamental rule of that narrative is if you’re poor and dispossessed, you’re moral and oppressed. And you know, some people who are poor and dispossessed are moral and oppressed and some aren’t. And look out for the ones that aren’t because some of them are vicious, psychopathic, murderous criminals. And you don’t need that many of them. And they’re generally about 3 to 4% of the population. So heaven help you when they organize.
People are so naive about that. You see that especially on the left. Well, you saw this again in the Soviet Union because the rule was, well, if you’re a criminal, then you’re part of the victim class, which is why the Russians let the criminals run the gulag camps. You’re a socially friendly element. Well, why are you a criminal? Well, it’s because you were oppressed by the landowner. It’s like, no, I’m a murderous thug. No such thing, just victims.
DR. ERNST ROETS: So the criminal is a victim.
DR. JORDAN B. PETERSON: And the worse the criminal, the more the evidence for the victimization. And it’s partly because, to give the devil his due, a lot of the radical progressive leftists, especially the sheltered middle class type, they’re very agreeable by temperament. They’re empathic, they’re maternal. They have no idea. There’s no space in their worldview for the sort of person you don’t want to have hiding under your bed at three in the morning when you come home from a party. It’s like those people don’t exist, they’re just victims. It’s like you wait till you run across one, you’ll change your mind. But if you’re protected enough, you never have to deal with that reality, you know, because you’re Jean-Jacques Rousseau and everybody’s a noble savage.
Well, most people, most people are peaceful, even if provoked. Some people aren’t. Right. And you better be able to draw the distinction between those kinds of people because otherwise you’re at the mercy of the worst of them. Right. And this is a lesson that’s very hard for people to learn. Well, you guys are going to be facing this in no time flat while you are all already.
The Road Ahead for South Africa
DR. ERNST ROETS: Can I say something about that, about sort of the road ahead? Because that’s probably the most important part. So President Trump has started speaking out about what’s happening in South Africa for which we are very grateful, which has led to quite a backlash from the South African government. And their response is it’s not happening. That’s the official response.
DR. JORDAN B. PETERSON: Yes, yes.
DR. ERNST ROETS: It doesn’t exist. There are no farm murders, fear mongering. So I do think one of the issues that’s on the table now is refugee status for the Afrikaner, especially the farmers, to flee to the US or to get some form of protection from the US. And I know some people are interested in that. But what I should also say, and that’s why I’m so grateful that we spoke about the history part at first, is our concern is that if we just leave the country, our culture dissolves and our communal identity dissolves and we become Americans or whatever.
DR. JORDAN B. PETERSON: Well, plus the entire country descends into lawlessness, chaos, and everyone dies.
DR. ERNST ROETS: Yep.
DR. JORDAN B. PETERSON: Right. Because if all the white South African farmers leave, that’s 100% what will happen. Right.
DR. ERNST ROETS: So, well, and then you can look at the rest of Africa as an example, Zimbabwe and so forth.
DR. JORDAN B. PETERSON: Yeah.
DR. ERNST ROETS: So we need to find some form of a, what I would call dispensational solution. The solution is not simply to say we need a different president or we need a different party to take over Parliament because there’s fundamental structural problems with the political system. It’s like trying to repaint the skirt things when there’s a problem with the foundation of the house. And the reason why I say that is because the country is very big, it’s very diverse. It has a very strong central government.
DR. JORDAN B. PETERSON: Yeah.
DR. ERNST ROETS: And also the country is quite poor, and poor countries tend to have more socialistic governments that are not necessarily…
DR. JORDAN B. PETERSON: That’s because they want to be poorer still.
DR. ERNST ROETS: Yeah. And they’re not necessarily interested in economic investments. It’s just about blame shifting and scapegoating.
DR. JORDAN B. PETERSON: Yeah, definitely.
DR. ERNST ROETS: So, and I think, and this is our message also to people in America is it’s great if there are people who want to flee or get out to help them, that they should get help, but we must also look towards some form of a solution for the problem.
DR. JORDAN B. PETERSON: Well, we’ve got five minutes left on this side. One of the things I would… So for everybody watching and listening, most of you know that we do another half an hour behind the Daily Wire paywall, and I think I’m going to concentrate mostly on what South Africa, what the Boers, let’s say the Boers, who were concerned about this, what they would want to see from the west politically and sociologically. So I’d like to do that on this side. We’re only going to be able to do about five minutes here, but you can come and join us on the Daily Wire side for an additional half an hour. If this is a topic of particular interest, that’s what we’ll talk about there.
Okay, so let’s at least lay out the outlines of that. Like, what do you see? What can the west, the rest of the west, offer under these circumstances to everyone in South Africa? Because it’s a catastrophe. This is an impending catastrophe for everyone. Like it might be the white farmers that are first on the chopping block, and that’s highly likely. But as soon as they’re gone, everyone else dies.
DR. ERNST ROETS: They came for the Jews…
DR. JORDAN B. PETERSON: Good.
DR. ERNST ROETS: Yeah. So there could be many different solutions. But I think what we are quite certain about is the direction that we need to head in, and that could lead to different outcomes. But the direction, the way I see it, is it’s some form of a combination between decentralization of political power so that those in power have much less power.
DR. JORDAN B. PETERSON: So that turns South Africa into something more like Europe, let’s say, where there…
DR. ERNST ROETS: Are a multitude of nations. Yeah. It could be a federation, it could be some form of cultural autonomy, it could be territorial autonomy, it could take different forms, it could be Balkanization.
DR. JORDAN B. PETERSON: Yes.
DR. ERNST ROETS: So decentralization. And the other aspect is sort of the bottom-up approach is self-governance because people, and that’s not just for the Afrikaners or the white Anglos or it’s South Africa is people call it a community of communities. There are so many different nations and tribes and so forth and they don’t get to make decisions about their own affairs because the central government decides and the central government regards things like cultural identity and so forth as backwards tribal things.
DR. JORDAN B. PETERSON: Right. Well, you see the same thing playing out with the European Union at the moment.
DR. ERNST ROETS: It’s very similar. It’s very similar to the European dynamics with the European Union.
DR. JORDAN B. PETERSON: Yeah. The problem is that as the size of government mounts, the proclivity for society to become tyrant and slaves magnifies. Right. You need those intermediary structures which are something like, well, families, towns, cities, states, you know, maybe separate countries in some sort of federation with serious limitations on the top-down power. Right, right. That’s a subsidiary structure, the classic alternative to tyranny and slavery.
DR. ERNST ROETS: And there’s a big problem in South Africa with traditional leaders, or let’s say the king of the Zulus, for example, not being recognized by the government for his role that he’s playing. And so the government, the way we talk about it is the difference between natural identity and artificial identity. They have this slogan that says, “For the nation to prosper, the tribe must die.” But the nation for us is something else in the way a lot of Westerners think about the nation. Because the nation in our context is an artificial thing. It’s a construct. It’s putting all these people together, lumping. It’s like saying you are all just Europeans now. And so Europe is the nation and the nations or the countries.
DR. JORDAN B. PETERSON: Yeah. Well, that enlightenment emphasis on the atomized individual leaves no place for the town, the city, the family, the state. Right. We haven’t sorted that out well in the west at all. Yeah.
DR. ERNST ROETS: I think the west has gone too far.
DR. JORDAN B. PETERSON: (01:37:07 – 01:37:38)
Yeah, we missed the idea of subsidiarity. We don’t know what to do with the complexities of structured social identity. We figure the autonomous individual is the only unit of analysis. And that’s true under very limited conditions. One of the conditions might be something like first approximation to cultural homogeneity and a Judeo-Christian metaphysic. Where that doesn’t apply, you don’t have atomized sovereign individuals.
DR. ERNST ROETS: (01:37:38 – 01:37:38)
Yep.
DR. JORDAN B. PETERSON: (01:37:38 – 01:37:39)
Yeah.
DR. ERNST ROETS: (01:37:39 – 01:38:17)
And when it gets to the point where the community dissolves and the atomized individual finds himself against the Leviathan, there’s nothing you can do. You can’t do anything against it. You can pray. That’s the only thing you can do.
So the only solution is, again, what we call natural community or natural identity, as opposed to these artificial communities we see today, is for communities to be well organized in the context of their communities, to have community institutions. That’s very Tocquevillean. Alexis de Tocqueville, when he wrote Democracy in America, he said this is what is going to make America great in the 1830s.
DR. JORDAN B. PETERSON: (01:38:17 – 01:39:11)
Well, America’s got that right with its 50 state experiments. Americans are always doing something intelligent somewhere, no matter how many stupid things they’re doing other places. They keep renewing because of that. It’s a miracle to see.
Conclusion
Okay, we should stop on this side. Everyone join us on the Daily Wire side. We’re going to talk more about solutions. We’re going to talk about what the Boers, for example, in South Africa, need to see from the West. And what’s the pathway forward? What are we trying to avoid in South Africa? Mass murder and starvation, which is by far the most likely outcome as far as I can see at the moment.
So join us on the Daily Wire side to continue the discussion. And thank you to the film crew here in Scottsdale today for facilitating that and the Daily Wire for making this distribution of this podcast widely possible.
Related Posts
- Neil deGrasse Tyson on UFO Files, Trump & Alien Existence (Transcript)
- Professor John Lennox: AI Is Humanity’s Attempt to Make God (Transcript)
- What’s Changing, What Kids Must Learn w/ Sinead Bovell @ SXSW (Transcript)
- How Emotions Are Made: The Secret Life of the Brain – Dr Lisa Feldman Barrett (Transcript)
- The AI-Generated Intimacy Crisis – Bryony Cole (Transcript)
