Hang tight while we fetch the video data and transcripts. This only takes a moment.
Connecting to YouTube player…
Fetching transcript data…
We’ll display the transcript, summary, and all view options as soon as everything loads.
Next steps
Loading transcript tools…
Evaluating South Africa’s Challenges | Martin van Staden | TPP #74 | Ernst Roets | YouTubeToText
YouTube Transcript: Evaluating South Africa’s Challenges | Martin van Staden | TPP #74
Skip watching entire videos - get the full transcript, search for keywords, and copy with one click.
Share:
Video Transcript
Video Summary
Summary
Core Theme
The discussion critiques the current discourse surrounding "race laws" in South Africa, arguing that a deliberate manipulation of language and a rejection of objective meaning by the political elite and media prevent genuine debate and obscure the real issues of state-driven racial discrimination and socialist totalitarianism.
Mind Map
Click to expand
Click to explore the full interactive mind map • Zoom, pan, and navigate
There is a knee-jerk reaction from the
people who support race laws. When you
say there is race laws, they say, "No,
there aren't immediately." Knee-jerk.
And then they go on to explain why race
laws are justified, etc.
>> So, so they do both at the same time. >> Exactly.
>> Exactly.
>> There are no race laws and it's good
that we have them. >> Yes.
>> Yes.
>> And a lot of it, almost all of it
currently boils down to is there a
genocide in South Africa?
>> And so the claim is there's not a
genocide, therefore stop complaining. >> Yeah.
>> Yeah.
>> Do you think there's a misinformation
campaign? and who's spreading
misinformation. What's your view on this?
this?
>> I am no longer convinced that we can
engage friendly with our opponents and
convince them to stop with their status
and authoritarian and moreover
totalitarian designs. I am now more of
the view that we need to do what is
necessary to secure a base of power for
ourselves. And when I say we and and us,
I mean people who broadly support
freedom kind of who broadly don't want
the state to be kind of micromanaging
everything in their lives. The other
thing is about the success of the G20. I
mean so I I hate being perceived as a
negative Nancy. So that it's it's not
something that I embrace. Uh but but we
it it must be said that the G20 was not
a great success. The this is the first
G20 in Africa. This was supposed to be a
big thing and at this event was the
first time that we that consensus was
not achieved and the standards were
lowered to say that it was. They adopted
it with 18 out of the 20 G20 countries
and they said um Bob's your uncle we
have consensus and and everyone clapped
like seals. So that is not a a success.
That is standards being lowered again to
accommodate Africa. That agenda is clear
and this is probably the clearest thing
that we need to communicate is that the
agenda has not changed. They want
socialist totalitarianism in the world.
They want you to own nothing and be happy.
happy. [Music]
Martin Fardan, welcome back. It's good
to have you back on the Pioneer Podcast.
>> No, thank you for having me. It's great
to be here.
>> So, there's a lot to talk about. Uh you
were on previously when you spoke about
the race law project, uh which we're
going to touch on today as well because
it has become very famous. Um people
Elon Musk is quoting it. Donald Trump
has been quoting it and it it it also
became controversial
>> this 140 race laws which is basically
your work or your conclusion but I want
to start with something you wrote very
recently and I I'm going to quote and I
want you to explain this. You said it is
entirely permissible for us to debate
vigorously whether the law may or even
must be race conscious in order to
fulfill its functions in our
postapartate society. What is less
productive is a yearslong spat about
whether a legal provision requiring a
minister to set aside seats on a
statutory body for people on the basis
of skin color qualifies as racial. So
what what does this mean and why did you
write it?
>> Yeah, look, so I mean you mentioned the
race law index that I'm kind of
maintaining on behalf of the South
African Institute of Race Relations and
we launched it in December of 2022. The
intention of that was to kind of make it
clear that there is such a thing as
racialized legislation in South Africa
and that's where these numbers come
from. 145 race laws over uh uh well
still in force in South Africa today.
>> Um and what I expected the I I expected
a reaction let's let's put it that way.
Like I I expected a lot of people would
say okay sure yes we have these race
lords but for various reasons we need
them. Um we have historical injustice
etc. the the same story that everyone is
familiar with and these are the reasons
why we need them and then I was planning
for instance to respond by saying yes
there's better ways to do it etc. What
has instead happened rather than that
conversation where we're going to do a
battle of ideas and kind of persuade one
another about the merits of our
arguments instead of that we've had this
meta and I don't want to call it an
argument or a debate but rather just a
meta spat
>> about whether something that is on its
face obviously racial is or is not
racial. And that has been very
unproductive because it is a completely
kind of politically expedient um uh uh
opportunistic kind of discussion
happening whereby we were just
discussing before we started recording
whereby there is a knee-jerk reaction
from the people who support race laws.
When you say there is race laws, they
say no there aren't immediately
knee-jerk and then they go on to explain
why race laws are justified etc.
>> So so they do both at the same time.
There are no race laws and it's good
that we have them.
>> Yes. Exactly. And that's to like uh I'm
doing studies in in in law as well and
my kind of area is on legal discourse or
legal ideology. So I I I put a lot of
value on discourse. The ability of
people to communicate across kind of
community lines, across social lines,
across ideological lines that becomes
impossible. It's difficult for us now
but for our children and our children
and their children after that it will be
virtually impossible to have any kind of
conversation when we have such
fundamental differences about the basic
meaning of words. I mean I think you can
kind of attribute this partly to the
rise of postmodernism in the west
>> um and and to kind of what's called
neoarxism and so on. Um, but if we can't
agree on what is a woman, um, what is,
uh, what is race, is is this a racial
thing, um, in in the context of the G20,
what does consensus mean, if we can't
agree about those things, then we
actually can't have a conversation. Then
we actually just have to stay, we we
shouldn't even speak to each other
because that leads to tension, that
leads to conflict. Um, and and in that
article that that you quoted from, I'm
I'm calling it gaslighting because the
the the South African government
>> uh and the political elite more broadly
and their press lackey basically um are
encouraging this. They are um kind of uh
embracing it and pushing it as as hard
as they can. And it's it's creating a
situation where the South African public
and I think maybe the the the global
public actually doesn't really know
what's going on anymore. um they they
see something with their own eyes and
then they're told do not believe your
lying eyes as as
always likes to say and I think that's
very appropriate of him to say that is
that is what's happening. We are being
told do not believe our lying eyes.
Yeah, South Africa is a perhaps a even
an even better example than what's
happening in the US um if it's not the same
same
>> uh of this phenomenon that was coined by
Michael Anton as celebration parallax.
And so the celebration parallax as he
explains it is two people can look at or
you can look at the exact same thing but
uh depending on on who says it or let's
put it differently two people can say
the exact same thing but the identity of
the person that says it determines how
you should respond to it.
>> And so his example was when Joe Biden
said I chose Kamala Harris as my VP
candidate because she's a woman of
color. it was celebrated.
>> But when someone like Trump says Kamala
Harris was chosen because she's a a
woman of color, it's it's denounced as
racism and as bigotry. How dare you say
this? And it's the same thing in South
Africa. If the um Employment Equity
Commission or the Black Management Forum
or the president says we need more race
laws are good, we need more of them.
People celebrate that.
>> And when someone like you say there are
race laws,
>> then you're attacked for that. And the
response is there are no race laws. You
are lying. So it's this strange
phenomenon where
>> two people can say the same thing but
depending on the person who says it
>> determines how you respond to that.
>> Yes. Yeah. And it it seems to all come
down to kind of an extrapolation of
intention. Um it's like what is Camala
Joe Biden's intention when he says that?
What is Trump's intention when he says that?
that?
>> When I say or when you say there are
race laws immediately and and rightly we
are assumed to be meaning that there are
race laws. That's a bad thing. Be
critical of it. Yeah, we we oppose that.
We think that's a problem. When the
employment equity commission says there
are race laws, it's like what a
celebration of thereof.
>> Thank you.
>> Yes. Yeah. And and kind of I experienced
this as well again in the context of the
index whereby um and then we we
discussed this specifically last time on
the show whereby this there's this idea
that because the apartate government
apparently adopted race laws with very
bad intentions. Those race laws are race
laws number one and they're completely
unjustifiable. They are the most evil
thing that could ever happen.
>> And because the new South African
government has good intentions, we're
told um those are are they might be race
lawless, they might not be race lawless
depending on the situation, but whatever
it the case, they are good. They are
good because they are they are informed
by this good intention. And of course
the the rebuttal of that is that we
cannot peer into the minds of other
people. We can give them the benefit of
the doubt and to say, well, you have
good intentions and you probably should
do that, but not just for the people you
like. when I mean there's there's a a
rule in legal interpretation as as you
all know that you can't you have to you
cannot assume that there is an ulterior
motive in the adoption of legislation
like the legislation tells you what the
motive is in in the beginning and that
is the intention you have to assume that
is the intention of the legislation and
no a partate legislation said that our
intention is to impoverish the majority
of the South African population they
always said that it's all for kind of
good neighborliness and all these things political
political
>> development was used always absolutely
yeah and it's kind of all these statist
terms, all these kind of whitewashing
terms which are again repeated today.
But again, we have to we have to make
that concession and assume they are well
intended. But we cannot then presume to
look into the minds specifically not of
people 50 years ago and say they have
bad intentions and but we also can't do
it today and say that well you you're
referring to race laws therefore you
have bad intentions but the employment
equity commissioner when he refers to
race laws he has good intentions. Again,
this is kind of where the conversation,
the real conversation is not happening
between us. It's happening somewhere
like in an amorphous space where we
can't see like what we say doesn't
matter anymore. It's our imputed
intentions when when in fact we should
just be having a conversation. We mean
what we say.
>> Yeah. But but you're right there. So
there's that saying that in order to
have or having a gentleman's agreement
implies that there must be two gentlemen
on the agreement side. But the problem
here as you point out is everyone agrees
that conversation is good and dialogue
is good. I I don't know people who say
we should not have dialogue.
>> Um and especially Saporza the president
is very much in favor of dialogue or at
least he says so. The question is if
he's really in favor of dialogue um if
we can conclude that by his actions. But
it's very difficult to have a dialogue
on this issue if we cannot even agree
that a law that discriminates on the
basis of race is a race law
>> and and so the question is where does
that put us? What what do we do? How do
we go forward then?
>> Yeah. I I guess there is there's two
answers to that. On the one hand, the
index of race law is there as a source
of information and it has spread around
the world. I'm very kind of happy that
it's gotten the attention that it I
think it deserves. So, that's the one
thing. It's information that's out
there. On the other hand, there is a
question about whether we should be
having that conversation. Um, I I know
I'm probably kind of going off the
reservation in in this answer, but I am
no longer convinced that we can engage
friendly with our opponents and convince
them to stop with their statistitarian
and moreover totalitarian designs. I am
now more of the view that we need to do
what is necessary to secure a base of
power for ourselves. And when I say we
and and us, I mean people who broadly
support freedom kind of who broadly
don't want the state to be kind of
micromanaging everything in their lives.
Um we need to be not just going into
forums and having conversations because
the rules of debate have changed
implicitly. No one has told us that the
rules have changed, but there's an
underlying gaslighting. Again, there's a
gaslighting where terms are just
>> So, let's take a step back. 50 years
ago, this this would have been a
problem. If if you came into a debate
into a formal debate or a discussion and
you were just using words where you have
sub subjectively defined it differently,
the debate would be halted and people
would say let we have to define our
terms first. >> Yes,
>> Yes,
>> that is now inappropriate. That is
completely inappropriate to do that
today because postmodernism has become
part of the kind of the the logic of
discourse and now it's okay that lived
experience and kind of what you feel a
word means is in fact the word the
meaning and you're allowed to use that
and if we stop you then we're we're kind
of bigots or something and we're we're
doing something wrong. So the there's
been that change in discourse.
>> So let me just because this is
important. So what you're saying is the
the the fundamental requirements for
having a fruitful conversation
>> are not there anymore and it cannot be
there because it's in it's regarded
getting to those requirements. In other
words, some agreement on terminology is
regarded as some form of oppression or
something that is not acceptable. So we
cannot agree on the words that we used.
So what's the point on in having a
conversation in that in that sense?
>> Yes. Unfortunately. So the the kind of
broad postmodern left I think the the
the newest term I saw for this is
privilege preserving ep epistemic push
back. If you say something like um we
have to uh agree that um uh sexual
violence for instance uh is something
that can happen to both genders. A woman
can commit sexual violence against a man
and a man can commit sexual violence
against a woman. you'll be labeled as
you're you're you're you as a man, if
you're saying that as a man, you're
engaging in privilege preserving epis
epistemic push back and you're not
allowed to do that because that's just a
manifestation of your subconscious
misogyny or whatever your sexism. And uh
no, no, you actually just have to be
quiet and listen to what we're saying.
>> Um and that you can't have that kind of
conversation. I think that is changing a
little bit. Not in the West, in the
United States at this moment. I don't
know if it's sustainable. But in South
Africa at least that is not the case
that there is there are two completely
different conversations happening. When
for instance we say um race law is a bad
thing and they say race law is a good
thing. We're not even on the same plane
of of conversation. It's a there's
totally different logic informing both
both ends of the discussion. And
therefore I don't think we can have a
discussion. And that is why I mean we at
the free market foundation taking our um
our cue I think from places like from
afreform life from solidarity is that
>> we do not mean anyone harm but our
intention now our goal now is to create
and encourage others to create centers
of leverage and power outside of the
political elite because going kind of
capinand to the political elite and say
please we see you have these race laws
please stop. they're going to laugh at
you because you're coming at them from a
position of weakness. Um, so
>> I mean my job is to engage in
conversation, but I do not think that's
the most productive use of our time
anymore. We need to consolidate
resources. We need to consolidate power.
Um, and then from a position of
strength, we can have conversations.
Currently, there's there's no equality
of of of leverage. Um, and therefore
kind of trying to use
merely good arguments. And I'm a big
believer in the battle of ideas. Again,
that's kind of my whole job.
>> But I don't think that takes you far
enough. You you can have a battle of
ideas when both parties are more or less
on the same level of leverage. Um but if
one is completely kind of weak and
completely powerless and the other one
has in a very real sense control of the
language itself, uh then then you're in
trouble. And I take my cue here from the
neo-Marxists. I mean, this is their
whole thing. They say that your your
enemy to them, the capitalists, have
created a cultural hegemony effectively
by by um imputing new meaning into into
the the normal vocabulary,
creating a new conventional wisdom kind
of subconsciously and creating a popular
religion. And they accuse capitalists of
this for instance to say that we have
this thing called pactamun agreements
must be kept. And this is now this
overriding important thing in our
western capitalist culture. But why?
That's completely arbitrary for us to
say that. But even the poor accept that.
>> And we're in that exact situation now
with the political elite in South
Africa. They have created terms like
transformation, a perfectly innocuous
word uh that uh everyone uses in various
contexts. They've taken terms like
social justice, which was originally, I
think, a Christian term from the
Catholic Church. kind of a completely
different idea uh back then that has now
just been changed um implicitly into
meaning socialist totalitarianism.
>> And our our enemies, our opponents, they
control all of that. They control the v
vocabulary. They control the
conventional wisdom. They control the
popular religion of our society. And we
can't pretend like us being powerless
relative to that can just engage in a
conversation using their words, using
their conventional wisdom, using their
logic. Um so we need to actually just
elevate ourselves first and then we can
have that conversation because
everything comes back to how much power
do you have, how much leverage do you
have. So with that said,
>> very recently, President Suramapora
addressed the nation uh in a live feed
or a live stream of course in the in the
in response to the G20 or in the
aftermath of the G20 and he said one
thing that I found somewhat funny which
is sort of part of the public discourse
currently is that the G20 was a massive
success because it wasn't a failure. So
there was no um major bloopers or
blunders and therefore it was a big
success. uh which says something about
standards and expectations but other
than that he spoke about the criticisms
that South Africa is getting the
political elite in South Africa is
getting especially from the US and he
said a few things but the one is that
South Africa is being criticized based
on misinformation
and the other thing he said is we must
have a dialogue those spreading
misinformation should stop doing so and
should participate in the national
dialogue what's your view on that.
>> So he said this before I think some it
was probably earlier in the year after
solidarity and after reform went to the
US he and his colleagues said something
along the lines of why are you going
outside the circle going to talk to the
Americans? Why are you not just talking
to us the South African government? And
I think Caliko and Flees have responded
very appropriately and that is that
we've spent the last 20 30 years trying
to speak to you and at every turn you
have kind of kicked us away and kind of
with with contempt really um and and
even most recently just you mentioned a
key example that manifests this is that
there was dialogue between Solidarity
Trade Union and the Department of Labor.
They even went to the LLO. They had an
agreement turned into a court order
about putting a um let's say an expiry
date the sunset laws on affirmative
action in the workplace and the South
African government said of course yeah
cool we agree and immediately they just
went back on that the second they came
back from the ILO landed in South Africa
it's like we're going to just do what we
want uh we're not going to pay any
attention to you that is the motus
operandi of the South African political
elite so it would actually be very
irrational of us to stay inside the
circle and try to kind of debate things
out with the South African government.
So that point that Ramapoa makes is
something he's always going to come back
to because he knows his sick of fans in
the media love it when he says that. He
seems like this kind of consiliator.
He's trying to ride the coattails of
Mandela and so on. Um so he loves that.
>> But it's an attempt at pacifying his opponents.
opponents.
>> Yeah, absolutely. And and I'm glad it's
not working because he has said this
before and I think the pressure on South
Africa has just kind of increased and
I'm glad that people are still reaching
out to the Americans and and elsewhere
to to put pressure on the South African
government. Um so yeah that's the one
thing he said this before same same
story complete lies it's complete bad
faith um the this government is not
interested in dialogue not with
Africaners also not with us in the free
market space like we we don't have an
ethnic agenda for example but when we go
to them and say listen minimum wages are
actually I mean here's the evidence it's
economically disastrous they they
chuckle at us and say go away so there's
there's no room for dialogue and we
hoped that the new government of
national unity that was elected in in in
May of of last year of 2024 would change
that it has changed on the margins a
little bit but still fundamentally this
is an ANC government that marches
according to the tune of the ANC so
there's there's no real room even now
that the ANC has lost its outright
majority to to get it to come to the
table of of discussion so there is now
these these one victories like um the
VAT increase and so on um but these are
not fundament fundamental and and they
they they again they come from the other
parties in parliament exercising
leverage. They do not come from dialogue
from civil society speaking to the
government and pleading for for reform.
So um that lie of Ramapoas just has to
be rejected kind of outright.
>> Um the the other thing is about the
success of the G20. I mean so I I hate
being perceived as a negative Nancy. So
that's it's it's not something that I
embrace. uh uh but but we it it must be
said that the G20 was not a great
success. The this is the first G20 in
Africa. This was supposed to be a big
thing and at this event was the first
time that we that consensus was not
achieved and the standards were lowered
to say that it was. So to me that is the
soft bigotry of low expectations in
action. Like every other G20 they go
they know okay we need consensus before
we can issue a leaders declaration. Oh
no, the Russians don't like us saying
this about Ukraine. Let's take that
thing out about Ukraine. Okay, the
Russians are okay now. We have
consensus. Cool. Here's our leader
declaration. We go to Africa first time.
Uh the US, there's no consensus. Not not
just because they're not here. They said
for months now that they do not agree
with the substance of what South Africa
is proposing as the G20 agenda. The
Argentinians of course at the event said
we do not agree with this. So there's no
consensus. And instead of watering down
the declaration like every previous G20
has so that we can achieve consensus,
Ramapoa said, "No, um, we're just going
to do this. We're going to adopt it
before our discussions begin even on on
the day that the G20 starts."
>> Um, and they adopted it with 18 out of
the 20 G20 countries. And they said,
"Um, Bob's your uncle. We have
consensus." And and everyone clapped
like seals. So that is not a a success.
That is standards being lowered again to
accommodate Africa. So I think the far
more dignified thing for South Africa
would have been to say we acknowledge
that consensus was not achieved. We are
issuing a chair summary which is within
our rights. There is no leaders leaders
declaration at this G20 and we accept
that because we're following the rules.
We're following the protocol of how the
G20 works.
>> Instead gaslighting gaslighting and uh
kind of fake smiles from the Europeans
who want to kind of get at Donald Trump.
And now South the South African
political elite interprets this as the
Europeans are kind of really behind the
ANC which is very far from the from the
truth. So that's not a that's not a
success. That is actually a disaster. I
mean it looked very nice. I I can
concede that that it was professionally
managed and I think the event organizers
deserve what they're being paid. But not
the the event itself was not a success
because of this breach of protocol and
that it's it's made even more pathetic.
Now that South Africa, the South African
government is uh viciously criticizing
the US for breaching protocol for next
year's G20, saying that you can't
uninvite us from the G20 because we're a
founding member and the rule is that
we're we are by definition allowed to be there.
there.
>> And it's like, but you guys just broke
protocol on the leaders declaration,
which says that there must be consensus
for a leader declaration to be issued.
and you did it without there being
consensus. So you're being hypocritical.
>> So no, I mean South Africa has
completely mishandled this and it was I
mean it was foreseeable. South Africa
has been mishandling geopolitical issues
for the better part of this this
administration by the ANC. So this was
this was nothing new
>> and so let's talk about misinformation. Um
Um
firstly there was that remark by Raa. He
said there were some groups and
individuals who are spreading
misinformation about South Africa. they
should come to the dialogue
>> and a lot of it almost all of it
currently boils down to is there a
genocide in South Africa and so the
claim is there's not a genocide
therefore stop complaining
>> do you think there's a misinformation
campaign who's spreading misinformation
what's your view on this
>> so firstly I think it's important to
note that I I I have a lot of issues of
talking about the genocide thing because
I think that's what they want they want
everyone to talk about white genocide
because the moment you talk about white
genocide you're not talking about what
actually happens. So I try to avoid it
whenever I can. But I think it is
important to point out what is really
happening here. So
if you go on Twitter, which is now the
public kind of uh square in the world,
and you see white genocide is trending
and you click on that and it says
trending in South Africa and you click
on that, it is not going to be fun
talking about white genocide in South Africa.
Africa.
>> It's not Africaners saying there is a
white genocide.
>> Exactly. It's not what Africaners. It's
not English South Africans descended
from from the British. It is pro
political elite people. These are
academics. These are journalists.
Journalists are a big part of this. And
it's these kind of let's call them EFF
kind of bots people. Kind of these uh
radical uh black supremacists basically.
The people who would say that um you
know we need to kind of expropriate all
all land without compensation. They're
the kinds of people who consistently all
the time talk about white genocide. Um,
so there is no let me not say that there
is there are no white people in South
Africa who believe that there's a white
genocide. Of course there are and I
think you and I both know people who
think that
>> this is a tiny minority of people um who
uh uh who who often have some nuanced
take. I know like
>> some explanation.
>> Yes. Yeah. Robisov a while back spoke
about a genocide and then he then broke
up what he actually meant by this. It's
an economic genocide. It's something
like that.
>> Cultural genocide is people to say.
>> Yeah. So the the the prominent ones
amongst them do not mean that we have
concentration camps wherein white South
Africans are being pushed and being
killed. The fact that you and I are
having this conversation means that
there's not a genocide happening. like
you you decapitate the leadership
structure and the intellectuals of a
ethnic group that you want to commit a
genocide against. This is not Nazi
Germany. So there is no white genocide.
Um but it's very useful as a narrative
tool for the opponents of freedom and of
decentralization of pluralism to pretend
like there is this unfair argument of a
white genocide happening because they
can then knock that down. And if they've
knocked that down then there's no more
talk of race laws. there's no more talk
of racial discrimination by the state
against the white minorities
specifically but racial minorities in
general. Um because the moment you say
that oh there's persecution which there
is there is racial persecution in South
Africa per definition the courts admit
it parliament admits it the president of
the country admits it there's racial
persecution today but the moment they
can say there's no white genocide and
everyone accepts that they see that as a
victory over there's no racial
persecution there's no racial
discrimination there's no race laws um
and everything is kind of hunky dory in
South Africa and that's why we need to
resist kind of accepting the premise of
the white genocide discussion. Uh
whenever international press tries to
talk to me about that, I kind of do the
same disclaimer. I say that listen, what
is happening here is that the political
elite in South Africa and their press
sick of fans, we have to constantly
point that out, have a very keen
interest in creating this straw man or
this red herring of white genocide
because that's the easier argument for
them to defend against
>> and once they've defended against that,
people perceive it as there's nothing
wrong in South Africa. So that is not
misinformation, that is disinformation.
They're not making a mistake. This is a
concentrated disinformation campaign by
the political elite and by the media.
Specifically, take news 24 as an
example. How many times have they had to
apologize to Afreform and Solidarity to
say that yes, we acknowledge that you
have never spoken about a white
genocide. We apologize. And then they do it
it
>> sometimes the exact same day. like the
the same day there's another article
that comes out saying the white genocide
myth pushed by some groups is now the so
that's that's disinformation that is not
misinformation they're not it's not an
accident it's not a typo that is them
consciously deciding to lie about what
is really happening in South Africa
because they've seen how and I mean
let's be honest it it Trump looks silly
when he says there is a white genocide
in South Africa and everyone thinks he
looks silly when he says that um and the
press in South Africa loves that they
love it when Donald Trump makes a fool
of himself. Um, but yeah, so that that's
their agenda. They they enjoy pushing
white genocide and then getting the
gaffs like that to happen so that we
don't focus on on what's happening here.
And I think Donald Trump is making those
mistakes because again of this
disinformation campaign in South Africa.
If you look back at um his
August 2018 tweet about land reform in
South Africa, that's the first time he
really took an interest in South Africa.
there's nothing about a genocide. He
said that um he's in he's appointed Mike
Pompeo the secretary of state to
investigate um the killing of farmers
and land dispossession.
>> Like he didn't say genocide. Now
suddenly he's speaking about genocide
right after this this notion has become
so kind of ubiquitous in South African
discourse only pushed by the media and
the political elite and these kind of
radical Isanian bots on Twitter. So
Donald Trump making those gaps is
directly downstream from that. There's
no CIA operative. There's no Afrey
foreign person. There's no solidarity
person whispering to to Donald Trump
that there's a white genocide in South
Africa. He's getting that from social
media. He's getting that from the South
African press and from what's trending
on Twitter in South Africa. That's where
he's getting it and they like that.
>> I want to take a moment to thank you for
watching and following the content on
this channel. And I also want to
encourage you to like this video and to
subscribe to this channel to ensure that
our audience is broadened. The really
malicious part of this all is that that
is then the the crisis in South Africa
is then brushed aside by the conclusion
that there's no white genocide. Um and
so CNN just came to South Africa. They
did a documentary which and the whole
point of the documentary is Trump is
wrong. There's no white genocide. Um and
the conclusion is then more or less that
stop stop expressing concern about what
is happening in South Africa
>> when there are some real things um that
are that are raised all the time by
people like you and I and Afroorum and
Solidarity and Donald Trump and Elon
Musk and all these people like like the
race laws like confiscation of property
in South Africa. Um, and then all of
these things are just either it's that
thing like it's it's it's that thing
again where it's it's not happening, but
it's good that it is. So, you're lying.
We're not confiscating property, but we
need to do expropriation without
compensation because it's going to be
good for the country. And you're lying,
there are no race laws, but it's good.
We need more race laws in South Africa.
But these real crises are then then
swept under the table. So, how do we get
the discussion then back to these these
real issues?
I I would say so kind of building on
what I was saying earlier, I would say
trying to convince the South African
press as it currently stands that hey,
you're engaging in kind of a setting up
a red herring or a straw man. You
shouldn't do that. Don't do that. You're
wasting your time. Don't try to convince
the political elite of that. I think
it's important to where we can we need
to make it clear to the Americans that
what's happening what is happening here
um and and say listen you're you're
doing more harm than good by saying
there is a white genocide um uh but keep
pointing out all the other things the
the correct things race law land
confiscation on a racial basis let's
let's add and real racial persecution in
this country no it's not the worst
persecution of races in the world in
human history we've never said that no
one has said that, but it is per
definition a race-based persecution.
It's in our policies. It's in our
jurisprudence. Um who depending on who
you ask, it's in our constitution. Um so
that's happening and that has to be
pointed out. But stop talking about
genocide is what we should tell the
Americans at least and certainly uh
whoever is friendly friendly to to our
cause in in Europe. Um but then we need
to and I I think uh I'm preaching to the
choir here but we need to create our own platforms.
platforms.
>> Um we need to stop being dependent on
news 24 and on uh eyewitness news for
for what is happening in reality in this
country because that that filter is
broken. It's it's it's destroyed to say
that actually all is well. Um uh again
just another example from the the G20 at
the G20 social summit Ramapoa said
wonderful things are happening in South
Africa or beautiful things are happening
in South Africa trying to be cute on
that Donald Trump thing and it's like
listen while you were saying this the
Vietnamese delegation was being robbed
in Santin like what are you talking
about the crime stats came out last week
Friday we have I think now it's it's 64
reported murders every single day in
this country uh our economic growth has
been below 1% uh kind of on average for
a decade or something like that. Uh our
unemployment is is the highest formal
rate in the world. How can the head of
state of this country say that wonderful
beautiful things are happening in South
Africa? We are in a state of almost
permanent crisis.
>> And yet he would go there chuckle about
it and then all the press all the press
would report that he kind of clap back
back against Donald Trump and he really
showed him and in news articles not
opinion articles in news articles our
press would say that he read the riot
act to Donald Trump. >> Yeah.
>> Yeah.
>> Like as if the Americans are not allowed
to lecture us about anything. Look at
how great it is in South Africa. I mean
that is real disinformation. that is a
industrial scale gaslighting that we're
getting from our traditional press. Um
uh so yes again we need to have our own
platforms. It's very expensive and I
think a lot of that work is already
being done. Um but there's still a
capacity constraint specifically around
news um uh to to kind of ensure that we
have first responders, first reporters
kind of at at events telling us what is
actually happening in reality. like we
we had to have better journalists at the
G20 saying that oh they said that
there's a con a leaders declaration
being adopted but actually the rules of
the G20 say that it can't be. I did not
find one not one singular report that
after that reported that this is
incorrect something something some rule
has been breached here. All of them said
uh like for instance I think city press
reported that a leader's declaration was
adopted despite the uh uh despite the
disagreement of the United States for
instance and uh in the article I said
that's like saying that an act of
parliament was adopted without acquiring
the the requisite majority in the
national assembly like you can't say
that it's it's it's a it's incorrect
like you cannot have consensus without
consensus you cannot have a leaders
declaration without consensus but our
press just repeated this adnosauseium.
So the way we push back against that is
we need to communicate clearly to our
kind of American uh uh those who are
friendly to us. We need to establish our
own platforms. And I think maybe thirdly
and perhaps this is the most important
thing is we need to be psychologically
uh fortified against the backlash. Uh a
lot of the time when that backlash comes
we're like oh my goodness no we we
didn't commit treason or or something
like that. It's like no become defensive.
defensive.
>> Yes. We we we become overdefensive. we
we start explaining um uh I I'm a I'm a
paying member of Afrey Forum. I love the
solidarity movement, but I think that
they became too defensive in in a few
instances after going to the US trying
to explain and say no no it's not our
fault that this tariff is being imposed
on South Africa. It's not our fault that
Donald Trump is being this brash. It's
like stop stop doing that. Um you don't
owe anyone this explanation. Communicate
to your members. That's fine. Of course,
communicate to your members clearly, but
don't tell the South African press that,
oh, you have it wrong. Actually, we're
the good guys. They hate you. They have
only contempt for you. They are not
going to twist your words permanently
and always against you. So, don't be on
the defensive. Try to be on the
offensive as much as you possibly can. I
know that's not always possible, but try
to do that as much as you possibly can.
And don't worry too much about what the
perception, what perception your enemies
have of you. It's important to identify
these people as enemies. A lot of my
fellow liberals will be very upset that
I'm saying this. No, we're a democracy.
There are opponents who are going to
engage in a battle of ideas. No, these
are enemies. These are real enemies who
mean to do harm.
>> They want to take away your most basic freedoms.
freedoms. >> Absolutely.
>> Absolutely.
>> But but uh and I don't want to it's
always easy to say those people are dumb
or whatever, but I'm I'm really
concerned about the level of journalism.
And it doesn't go for all journalists,
but it goes especially for the most
influential journalists. The the low
level of critical thinking skills like
some of these examples you mentioned. I
remember I've had some very strange
interviews in my life, but I remember
one particular radio interview on Power
FM where the the host said to me that I
know you guys are uncomfortable or you
guys don't want expropriation without
compensation in South Africa, but you
have to at least admit that once the
constitution is changed to empower the
state to confiscate your property, you
have nothing to complain about anymore
because then it then it's a
constitutional thing to
And I said to that person that do you
realize what you're saying? You're
saying that if something is legal, it's
by definition right. That means you lose
your criticism of the aparate system
because the apartate system was also
legal. And he he completely flipped out
when I said that and he used me saying
this then as evidence of racism because
how dare you say that apartate was
constitutional. How dare you say that it
was legal? It wasn't legal. and and so
it's really concerning and and I I I
then went even f further I said well not
just aparate Nazism was legal um the the
laws implemented by the Nazis was legal
uh it it was the laws of of the time and
so but the journalist didn't seem to
have the capacity to understand that to
say that something is legal doesn't by
definition mean that it's not a problem
so what's your your view on this
>> yeah I mean that's that's completely
correct so I mean the the Maybe the best
example to go to that well I mean again
they're they're not going to understand
because they they are mentally fortified
against understanding but to look at Jim
Crow's help
>> mentally fortified against understanding
>> absolutely they they've convinced
themselves that if they understand
they've they've lost their argument so
they they go out of their way to and I
mean going back to postmodernism this
whole ideology or this methodology is
built around that mental fortification
against real discourse but I I think the
example is uh the American self uh dur
during the Jim Crow era because that is
comparable to South Africa because in in
in South Africa they might say to if the
journalist had a little bit of critical
thinking skills he would have said I
understand what you're saying Dr. roots,
but uh that was a minority that was
imposing something on the majority and
therefore it could not be legal because
it's it's undemocratic or something. He
could have made an argument like that.
>> In the US, it was a democratic majority
that imposed racial disabilities on a
racial minority, the blacks of the
south. That was completely democratic.
It was constitutional.
>> But will they accept that? Of course not.
not. >> Yes.
>> Yes.
>> So, so all these thinkers like so I I
operate in the field of juristprudence.
A lot of these legal scholars who came
out to be kind of they want to sit on
the constitutional court and they they
became some of the most radical pro-expriationists
pro-expriationists
pro um pro- race law people during the
1980s and '7s they wrote in our law
journals you know this is happening in
the US this is unjust look at Martin
Luther King and so on um you have to
turn that logic and remind them of that
logic uh today because that is exactly
what's happening Jim Crow self uh Jim
Crow policies and the American
were not justified simply because they
were democratic or that they were
constitutional. They were race laws and
they used people's inborn skin color
against them from a policy and a legal
perspective and that is why they were
wrong and that is why race laws in South
Africa today are wrong and and this is
something that they understood back
then. But now because the law is kind of
in favor of their socialist totalitarian
agenda now it's okay. Now that logic can
be forgotten. Um so so that's kind of
the the the rebutto that that one has to
have two journalists like that. Um uh
which would I I would hope uh take the
emotion out of the appeal to a partaid.
But um of course you're you're
completely correct. Uh it's it's it's a
partaid was a matter of law. It was a
matter of constitutional law. The only
constitutional principle back then was
that what parliament says is
constitutional. and parliament said
there will be a part. So it was
constitutional and to say that your our
arguments fall away simply because
something is constitutional. Uh I mean
you can take that all the way back to
slavery um in the US slavery in the
Roman Republic. All of these things were
okay because they were supposedly
constitutional. So that's a that's a bad
argument and and we say this as two
legal scholars. We we're people with law
degrees. We we understand the respect
that the law is due of course but the
law is not everything. The law and
certainly not acts of parliament or
statutes like a constitution. They
cannot be exhaustive of justice and of
our personal sense of ethics and
morality. If you as an individual base
your personal sense of what's right or
wrong on a document that was written by
politicians, there is something wrong.
Like there is something terribly wrong
there. especially if it's a recent
document like our constitution or like
the expropriation act because a lot of
them are also just saying oh it's law
now it's an act of parliament so it's okay
okay
>> it's like no no this is something that
>> politicians wrote and you're saying that
it's right because they wrote it and
stamped the word act of parliament on it
>> that cannot be your rubric for right and
wrong surely not um yeah so your your
your notions of right or wrong have to
be deeper than that and I I hope most
people do have a deeper conception of
that But certainly when it comes to
journalists that seems to be suspended
um and it than it used to be again I
think I think we had a higher caliber of
journalists during the the apartate
years even anti-aparte journalists were
some of our best like they asked the
government difficult questions and you
don't see that basically at all today
like uh uh news 24 specifically has has
erected a straw man of their own now
where they say look we're exposing
corruption um we've exposed the deputy
president and so on. Um, how dare you
criticize us and say that we're pro-
state. It's like no one has taken away
taken away from you that you've
questioned the deputy president and so
on on illegal activities. Our issue with
you is that you accept the policy
political paradigm that is being laid
out in front of
>> ideological framework.
>> Exactly. Which is which is what you
didn't do 50 years ago, 60 years ago.
Back then it was a constant questioning
of the ideological framework of the
political paradigm. it was if if a
national party minister said well you
know the group areas act is law and the
journalist didn't say oh gez minister I
didn't realize of course I'm not going
to ask you about that no no they said
well fine it's law but how can you
justify this morally how can you justify
this in light of criticism that you're
receiving from the the international
community those were the kinds of
questions being asked right now no one
is asking presidenta how can you justify
the expropriation act in light of what
the Americans are saying in light of
what the international community in
light of what international law says
about property confiscation. No, no,
they worship at the man's feet and say
that thank you for representing us so
well in the world and showing that we
won't be bullied by the West. That is
what our journalists are doing. It's
it's sick really.
>> So, I I want to end on a cliffhanger
because there's something that I really
want to discuss with you, but we're
going to have to do it on another
episode and I've been thinking about
this quite a lot and I've been speaking
to some people about this privately. Um
and I think you of all people would have
some great insights on this as if I
might describe you as a champion or
perhaps the champion of classical
liberalism in in in South Africa which
is that a lot of the criticisms of liberalism
liberalism
I believe are not applicable to what's
happening today. It's it's it's not be-
because liberalism or at least classical
liberalism is a framework and and it's
something that there are some I don't
know if you could say founders but there
are some classical texts and you can
understand what it is about and and what
we what we are up against today is is a
destruction of frameworks. It's not just
liberalism it's something else. It's
it's and and so in many ways it's
anti-liberal also um what we see today
and and and it's almost more difficult
to respond to this because because it's
so fluid. It's one moment you say X and
the next day you say X is wrong
depending on the vibe at the moment.
It's very emotional. It's very detached
from anything that could anchor you to
something that you might be held
accountable for tomorrow. And and it
does seem to me um that what we are up
against today is more than anything else
just an ideology that is out for
destruction. It wants to destroy a whole
bunch of things but it doesn't really
know what it stands for. There's no
there's no real plan to build something.
There's no real plan to preserve
something. It's they would frame it in
such language but it's just about
destroying things around us. and and and
I think it's something that we should
have a conversation about is how do we
explain or contextualize this new thing
that we're up against and and how do we
make sense of that?
>> Yeah, absolutely. And I'm I'm keen to
get into that conversation, but I I do
think we we we have to understand that
there is an agenda. They have a plan,
but part of that plan, so they have a
substantive framework and really it's
it's not complicated. It's socialism.
Like it's it's basic kind of socialism.
They want the state to own the means of
production in theory to someday have a
in in kind of egalitarian utopia. That's
the the substance of what they want. But
the form is what you're referring to
here, which is the methodology of
postmodernism. Um, and they they employ
it maybe subconsciously or
unconsciously. I don't think these
people are going to be able to tell you
what postmodernism is, but they have
been trained through our universities,
through the press, through consultants
that this is how you do it. And this
methodology of postmodernism, of
neo-Marxism is specifically aimed at
destabilization. If you read the texts
of postmodernism, specifically
postmodernism, destabilize, destabilize,
destabilize, that word is always there,
deconstruct, even destruct. They always
want to make sure that any established
rule is disrupted. They want to disrupt
everything. And that means in the form
in which this substance comes to us,
socialism is this completely fluid um
non rulesbased uh methodology whereby 1
minute before midnight in uh uh when was
it let's say April 1993 or 1994
>> uh 1 minute before midnight South Africa
had a partate. It was a it was a
totalitarian hellscape.
one minute after midnight
>> on paradise
>> it's paradise everything has changed we
are now in a miracle nation and that is
I mean that can't be reality there was a
a long period of reform under the
national party where apartate was
wittleled away like to to a large extent
to the point that in 1991 all basically
all of the racial disabilities had been
removed from the statute books um but
but this is not this is never what they
will present in in their normal vision
for South Africa's future. They will say
hell on earth and then paradise and
we're building paradise now. So they
have a clear agenda, but they are very
smart. They're far smarter than the
Nazis. They're far smarter than the Jim
Crow kind of conservatives in the US.
They're far smarter than any tyrants
that came before because they have this
toolbox now, this ingenious toolbox that
only came about in the last 100 years or
so, which is postmodernism kind of
combined with neoarxism. And it's it's
paying dividends to them really because
it's destabilizing our western way of
engaging. That is what it's all about.
Our western way of engaging is there are
certain rules to discourse. Like words
have meaning. That's how we have a conversation.
conversation.
>> That has been destroyed and that just
benefits them.
>> Yep. Well, I I want to mention two
examples of the strangeness of where we
are today. One is very recent is when
Mamani was elected mayor of New York. of
course a mus Muslim and a socialist. We
had these saw these Tik Tok videos of
young white girls in New York
celebrating that Sharia law is coming to
New York. Um and another example is what
you sometimes see these rainbow flags or
the trans flag even with a picture of
Chay Gavara on the rainbow.
not and not presumably not knowing what
Chavvara's views were on on on on gays
and lesbians and and so forth, but but
it makes sense in this new paradigm
because it's it's not about particular
frameworks. It's not about particular
structures. It's more about about being
against something and using what you can
take up uh against it. And so it's a
combination of views, the views of
people that actually went out and killed
people for being gay and then combining
that with gay pride.
>> Um, and and and people don't think it's
strange to to do that because Jay Gavara
is a hero because he was a communist.
>> Uh, but we're also gay and we love the
rainbow flag. And so these things are
combined and people celebrate that and
they don't think it's weird.
>> Yes. And I mean I think other
civilizations think it thinks it's
weird. I think the the Muslims in
Palestine, I think the Muslims in
Tehran, I think they think that this is
bloody weird that a bunch of gay and
lesbian and trans people in the West
pretend like we're their friends. Like I
think they understand that this is
utterly bizarre. I think some forces
there are encouraging this, but I think
on the whole they think that this is
completely kind of out of whack. Um some
of the kind of new woke thinkers,
they're open about being Mauists, for
example, like they're Mauists. I think
the Mauists in China would be like, "Are
you insane? You'll be the first against
the wall." Like, we would you would
disappear if you were in a real Mauist
regime. Um, but it's only in the West
now that that we don't get it or or we
get it, but a lot of people don't
because our our institutions of
education have been completely captured
>> um by by this framework by well
postmodernists would object to me
calling it framework. Yeah. Exactly.
Everything is relative, everything is
subjective, everything is what we needed
to be in the moment to achieve whatever
our agenda is. And again, that agenda is
clear. And this is probably the clearest
thing that we need to communicate is
that the agenda has not changed. They
want socialist totalitarianism in the
world. They want you to own nothing and
be happy. They want you to be a nice
little um trooper for the agenda of the
state. That is ultimately what it all
comes down to. And they're always going
to use this methodology, again, very
ingeniously. These are not these are not
stupid people. This is an ingenious
thing that they're doing. They're going
to use this methodology to kind of pat
you on the back and stab you in the
stomach at the same time and kind of
coup into your ear that it's not happening.
happening.
>> Um, and that's what people need to start
being alive to. And and I worry I worry
a little bit now that
>> the Trump kind of victory in the US is
being seen by a lot of people as the
turning point. We've now won. it's
turning around.
>> I'm I'm very skeptical about that. I I I
don't think that is the case. I think
it's one president in one country. He's
having a big impact now on culture, but
he only has three years left. It's none
of this is happening in Europe. I had
there was a moment that I thought, well,
it's going to go to Canada and we're
going to have uh I forget his name, but
a very good.
>> Yes. Yes. Yeah. And I I was very excited
about now having a peer poliver in in
Canada as well. It turned on a dime. the
the the so-called liberal party there
won again. They swept um and there have
been a few elections in Europe recently
where the the left has taken power
again. So, I'm not sure that there's a a
western cultural kind of resurgence uh
where there's a a reaffirmation of
confidence in the West in Western
civilization. I just don't see that
happening. And I I worry that we're
getting ahead of ourselves by
proclaiming that that things are turning
around now. I I think we need to be very
careful and we need to understand that
this is going to take very deep work.
It's not going to be an election. We're
not going to tick a box next to
someone's name and then that's going to change.
change.
>> The postmodernists marched through the
institutions over decades
>> and we're going to have to do the same
thing over decades if we want to reverse
it. It's not going to be an easy fix.
>> It's so you could say Trump is a wave,
but we should not mistake it for a tide. >> Yes.
>> Yes.
>> The tide is still the same. >> Yeah.
>> Yeah.
>> Well, Martin Fardinian, thank you. It
was great to have you on and um um thank
you also for your work with the race law
project and at the free market
foundation and and we look forward to
speaking with you again.
>> Absolutely. Thanks Ers.
>> If you would like to support this
channel and the work that we are doing
at Lex Libertas to work toward a more
sustainable and a more viable political
dispensation for South Africa. I would
like to encourage you to sign up as a
contributor by clicking on the link in
the description. [Music]
Click on any text or timestamp to jump to that moment in the video
Share:
Most transcripts ready in under 5 seconds
One-Click Copy125+ LanguagesSearch ContentJump to Timestamps
Paste YouTube URL
Enter any YouTube video link to get the full transcript
Transcript Extraction Form
Most transcripts ready in under 5 seconds
Get Our Chrome Extension
Get transcripts instantly without leaving YouTube. Install our Chrome extension for one-click access to any video's transcript directly on the watch page.
