White Americans as a normal minority
Creating a stable multiracial nation is a tricky thing to do
Trump is racist. MAGA is racist. Just yesterday :
Trump “unquestionably” violates a court order :
What happened? On Tuesday, the US government put eight men — only one a South Sudanese citizen — on a deportation flight to South Sudan, an unstable country in East Africa that is on the verge of civil war, with minimal notice and no chance to speak with a lawyer. Their exact location is now unclear.
Trump clashed with South Africa’s president:
President Trump’s sit-down today with President Cyril Ramaphosa of South Africa briefly resembled Oval Office meetings of an earlier era. The leaders exchanged a handshake and cordial pleasantries. Ramaphosa even brought along a couple of pro golfers whom he knew the American leader would like. With the stunned South African president looking on, Trump flipped through printouts that he said proved his narrative: “Death, death, death,” the president said.
But Trump and his aides had prepared an extraordinary ambush. In front of the television cameras, the president dimmed the lights and played a video that he cited as evidence of racial persecution of white South Africans. Trump then went on to repeatedly make claims of land seizures and mass killings of white farmers in Ramaphosa’s country.
Trump’s claims were false. Police statistics show that white South Africans are not killed at a higher rate than others in the country. South Africa approved a plan similar to eminent domain in the U.S., which Trump has used to take land. Ramaphosa tried to gently explain the situation in South Africa to the president, but Trump was unmoved.
Of course, NT's MAGAs will deny, deflect, derail...
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
Photo by kevin turcios on Unsplash
I haven’t written about racial issues in a while, and it’s not hard to see why. After a decade where it often seemed like Americans talked and thought about nothing else, I think people are generally tired of the topic. In fact, I think some of the big shift of minority voters to the GOP in 2024 can probably be attributed to progressives’ habit of painting every political issue in racial terms — for example, D’Urso and Roman (2024) found that Hispanic voters who encountered the word “Latinx” became more likely to vote for Trump. And even back in 2022, well before Trump was elected, American media and academia had already started discussing race less and less , as the “Great Awokening” wound down. The BLM movement all but disappeared, and Kamala Harris’ 2024 campaign generally avoided the appeals to racial justice that had been the centerpiece of her 2020 primary effort. In a recent Pew poll, the dominant feeling that both Democrats and Republicans expressed toward the issue of race in America was “exhausted”:
But every once in a while, I think it’s important to circle back to the issue, because it’s important for our national future. As Gary Gerstle writes , every country conceives of itself not just in terms of civic institutions and national symbols, but also in terms of identity — the question of “Who are the Americans as a people?” is fundamental. Without a broad consensus on who counts as a real American, it becomes a lot harder to exercise collective action via the democratic process; we become an “ artificial state ”, where people are more wedded to the interests of their subgroup than to the nation as a whole. In that environment it becomes a lot harder to provide public goods like infrastructure, research, and even national defense, because everyone worries that their own tribe won’t receive the bulk of the benefits.
And while Americans in general are tired of racial issues, the second Trump administration is focusing far more on race than the first. In the 2010s, a lot of people assumed that Trump’s movement was all about white identity politics, but beyond occasional rhetoric about how “our ancestors tamed a continent” and some nasty swipes at “ shithole countries ”, there was very little in Trump’s first term that was explicitly targeted toward helping white people as a group. That has changed in his second term. Under Trump, the Department of Justice has shifted its focus toward investigating or prosecuting institutions for anti-white discrimination. For example, the DoJ is investigating the city of Chicago :
The U.S. Department of Justice has opened a civil rights investigation into…whether the city has habitually violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, which prohibits discrimination on the basis of race.
And the DoJ is investigating Harvard Law Review :
The Trump administration said it would investigate whether Harvard University and the student-run journal, the Harvard Law Review, violated civil rights law when editors of the prestigious journal fast-tracked consideration of an article written by someone of a racial minority…The administration argued the school and law review journal may have violated Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 by allegedly engaging in “race-based discrimination”.
And of course there’s Trump’s cutoff of federal grants to Harvard University over alleged racial discrimination against whites and Asians. Trump is having the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission probe Harvard for anti-white and anti-Asian hiring discrimination:
The Trump administration is investigating whether Harvard University discriminated against white, Asian, male or heterosexual workers in its hiring and promotion practices…In a six-page document, the charge notes Harvard’s share of tenured white male faculty dropped from 64% to 56% from 2013 to 2023. The share of tenure-track faculty who are white men dropped from 46% to 32%…Lucas alleged the data signal “an underlying pattern or practice of discrimination” based on race and sex and “there is reason to believe” discrimination is continuing.
Ending DEI programs has been a major focus of the administration’s efforts to reform the U.S. civil service. And Trump has used government leverage to pressure private companies to end their DEI programs as well.
The Trump administration’s desire to protect white people even extends beyond America’s borders. Despite his general opposition to humanitarian immigration, Trump has fast-tracked the admission of white South African refugees fleeing racial discrimination in their homeland. And he recently castigated the President of South Africa for anti-white discrimination.
In other words, despite Trump’s increasingly multiracial electoral coalition, he has become the champion of white people in a way that he never really was in his first term.
Plenty of progressives are mad about this, of course. Around 70% of the DoJ’s Civil Rights Division has resigned in protest over the department’s change in focus:
[N]ow, current and former officials say, there's a sense that the division is weaponizing the country's civil rights laws against populations it's supposed to be protecting. They say the abandonment of the traditional mission has been devastating. One official recalled attorneys walking around the hallways in tears or sobbing through meetings.
Personally, I’m ambivalent about Trump’s efforts. On one hand, it’s possible to see all of this as part of the New Right’s crusade to reorient America, Europe, and the Anglosphere away from Enlightenment liberalism, toward a concept of “Western Civilization” that privileges European cultural and genetic heritage above all else. That reorientation would be a foolish, even suicidal move. And it certainly fits with the administration’s hostility toward immigration, which I think is an extremely self-destructive policy.
But on the other hand, I think it’s also possible to see Trump’s anti-discrimination lawsuits and investigations as the beginning of something healthier — a shift of white identity politics toward a focus on individual rights and away from traditional strategies of “white supremacy”. To put it bluntly, white people are in the process of becoming a minority in American society, and in general it’s better for minorities to defend their interests through the legal system and the framework of individual rights and non-discrimination than through collectivist mass politics.
In America’s multiracial future, white Americans will be one minority among many
White Americans are not yet a minority in America. Non-Hispanic white people still accounted for almost 60% of the population as of the 2020 census:
And if you count Hispanics who identify as white, the percentage rises to over 61%.
But this slim majority is fading fast. All the way back in 2018, white people were already a minority of Americans under the age of 15:
It’s now estimated that white Americans will become an absolute minority 20 years from now, and that Gen Z will be the last majority-white generation.
What’s more, in many regions of the country, white people are already a minority. California is less than 35% white . Texas is less than 40% white . White people will become a minority in Florida in the next few years . If you break things down by city, there are even more places where white people are a minority and have been so for a long time. And of course, as white people’s numerical majority shrinks nationwide, there are inevitably more and more institutions — companies, university departments, social clubs, etc. — where they’re in the local minority. 1
This raises the crucial question: As a minority, how will white Americans behave? Most of the time, the answer is: Just like anyone else. The political upheavals of the 2010s pushed Americans to view every aspect of life through the lens of race, but on the ground — in local communities, organizations, friend groups, and families — it’s usually not the most salient thing. Interracial marriage is still on the rise , as are interracial friendships — especially among young people. What’s more, the percentage of Americans who identify as multiracial or mixed-race is rising very rapidly, which tends to blur traditional racial boundaries.
The sociologist Richard Alba has argued — persuasively, in my view — that these trends, taken together, will decrease the overall salience of race in America. He predicts that most Americans will blend into a multiracial “mainstream” where most people simply don’t think about their racial differences very much, or don’t place great importance on those differences when they do think about them. (Personally speaking, this already applies to my own social circle.)
But there will inevitably be times that race matters. There will be cases of discrimination in employment, promotion, business deals, school admissions, and so on. Anti-black, anti-white, anti-Asian, and other forms of racial discrimination will all exist in different places at the same time. There will be politicians who make racial appeals to try to get elected, and NGOs and lobby groups that claim to represent — or quietly think of themselves as representing — the interests of specific races. There will be explicitly and implicitly race-based clubs at universities, schools, and companies. And there will be people on social media who try to stir up racial conflict, suspicion, and division in order to get attention and to satisfy their own sadistic instincts .
When white Americans were the overwhelming majority in America, those situations sometimes occurred, but they weren’t particularly threatening. In 1993, there were very few jobs where white people had to worry about facing racial discrimination — and if you did happen to encounter one of those few, you could easily just go somewhere else instead of raising a big stink.
But as white people become a minority, the danger of anti-white discrimination — or at least, the perception of danger — inevitably grows. Many (most?) white people will think nothing of interviewing at a company where the boss or the hiring manager is black, or Asian, or Hispanic. But some will worry: “What if this person in power thinks there are too many white people at their company? What if they’re mad at white people in general over slavery, or segregation, or the Chinese Exclusion Act? What if I just don’t remind them of their college buddies?”
In the political arena, the worries will be: “What if the Democrats don’t represent me? What if the government is trying to correct racial wealth disparities by making me poorer and less employable?”
These are the worries that black, Asian, and Hispanic Americans have had to endure since time immemorial, and will continue to endure. Now, white Americans will have to endure them as well. That’s not a good thing — it’s simply an inevitable challenge of living in a multiracial society. Racial trust and harmony don’t simply appear out of thin air; they must be built over time.
A key question is: How will white Americans deal with those risks and worries, now that they’re becoming a minority? The answer to this question could be crucial to the future of the country.
One possible approach, of course — and one that many will take — is to do nothing . If you believe that white privilege is ontologically baked into the DNA of America, and needs to be corrected with active discrimination — or that statistical wealth and income gaps ought to be remedied by discrimination at the individual level — then you might accept diminished economic opportunity for yourself as the inevitable cost of antiracism. To some, this will feel like a virtuous, responsible, moral choice.
But many white people will not take this road. Many don’t accept the dubious idea that a country can have racial privilege in its “DNA”. Many will feel it’s unfair that they should be individually punished in order to correct some statistical disparity that they personally had no hand in creating. Others will simply want to fight for their own economic interests, without thinking too hard about the moral justification.
So the question is: What do those people do? In general, I think there are two types of strategies by which minorities try to advance their interests: individual strategies, and collective ones.
Individual strategies for minorities are healthier for a country than collective ones
Individual strategies are when minorities fight for their rights as individual human beings, emphasize their individual humanity, or attempt to achieve success and integration as individuals. They might include:
-
Anti-discrimination lawsuits
-
Humanization campaigns
-
Media representation
-
Desegregation
-
Boundary-breaking
A good example of a humanization campaign is the “I AM A MAN” slogan used by many of the civil rights activists in the 20th century:
Sojourner Truth’s famous “Ain’t I a Woman?” speech is another example. And of course the most famous example is the MLK line that “I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.” These rhetorical approaches emphasized common humanity at the individual level as a way of combatting systematic discrimination against minorities.
Media representation is another individual strategy. When more Asian people are in the movies, it humanizes Asian people to audiences who might not have Asian friends. Barrier-breaking — the first black Supreme Court justice, or the first black Major League Baseball player, etc. — emphasizes individual achievement. And desegregation gives individuals of various races the chance to mingle and form friendships, business relationships, families, and so on — leveraging the contact effect to make the general public more favorable toward members of a minority group, while also promoting interdependency and positive-sum economic interaction.
Anti-discrimination lawsuits are perhaps the purest example of an individual strategy. They’re based on the idea that merit and opportunity should be decided purely at the individual level, with no regard for group membership. Minorities in America have used this strategy quite extensively.
Collective strategies for minorities are very different. These are when minorities band together in organizations to fight for their mutual interests. These could include:
-
Racial lobby groups and advocacy organizations
-
Self-segregation
-
Discrimination against non-members of the minority
-
“Power” movements emphasizing racial solidarity and identity
-
Intercommunal violence
The first of these collective strategies is pretty benign — for example, few would argue that the NAACP or the Congressional Black Caucus are any kind of threat to national cohesion.
When you start getting into self-segregation and discrimination against outsiders, things get more dicey. Few Americans raise a stink when black people form black-themed clubs, or theme dorms, or support groups at work. And although some people grumble about Iranian or Armenian or Italian immigrants preferentially doing business with others of their ethnic group, everyone kind of recognizes that this sort of thing is inevitable. But too much of this defeats the project of integration, so American law prohibits various kinds of self-segregation and anti-majority discrimination — at least in principle, if not always in practice .
“Power” movements, like the Black Power movement of the late 1960s and 1970s, make people a little more uneasy, and with good reason. At the political level, racial bloc voting can make it very difficult to provide public goods, because each bloc usually demands benefits that flow exclusively to its own members, instead of things like infrastructure, research, and defense that benefit the population as a whole. Essentially, racial blocs act like nations within a nation. There is some economic research showing that the artificial borders drawn by European colonialists ended up encouraging ethnic bloc politics in Africa, and holding back many African countries’ development.
But the biggest problem with “power” movements is that they can often raise the specter of intercommunal violence:
“Intercommunal violence”, also called “ communal violence ”, is a sanitized term for race war. Examples from American history include the race riots of 1919 , some of the riots of the 1960s , and the L.A. riots of 1992 . But these pale in comparison to things like the Partition of India , or the Rwandan Genocide . In the extreme case, intercommunal violence is the worst thing that can happen to any human society.
Just to be clear, I don’t think America is headed for a race war or genocide. But the Trump administration’s anti-immigration push feels like a collective strategy — a way of racially engineering the American population so that the white minority is less outnumbered.
Most Americans who want a tougher stance toward immigration probably don’t think of it as racial population engineering. Many see it as a way of preventing disorder and enforcing the people’s democratic will regarding who gets into the country and who doesn’t. Many are worried about the strain on social services, or — rightly or wrongly — about job competition . Certainly, it seems extremely unlikely that the many Hispanic Americans who support Trump’s immigration policy want to engineer a whiter nation.
But to the New Right, anti-immigration policy is explicitly about barring the admission of people who they feel don’t uphold Western Civilization . Around last Christmas, there was a tremendous fight on X between the Tech Right and the New Right over Indian immigration. The former, led by Elon Musk, argued that skilled Indian workers are crucial for American prosperity. The New Right countered with some economic arguments, but also argued that Indians are unassimilable aliens who want to take over America. Extreme anti-Indian viewpoints became commonplace on the platform:
It wasn’t just the gutter element of social media, either. Amy Wax, a law professor, has made statements declaring Asians as undesirable:
In the podcast Wax asserted that most Asian Americans are Democrats and questioned whether or not “the spirit of liberty beat in their breast”.
“As long as most Asians support Democrats and help to advance their positions, I think the United States is better off with fewer Asians and less Asian immigration,” Wax said.
This kind of xenophobia is very bad for America — not just economically, but in terms of social cohesion, everyday harmony, and political efficacy.
As white Americans transition from majority to minority, there’s a danger that many will turn to collective strategies like racial population engineering. That’s especially dangerous during the transition period, where there’s the feeling that immigration restrictions, mass deportation, and so on could potentially tip the racial balance and keep white people in the majority for a while longer.
And if the effort succeeds, it could tempt rightists to contemplate revoking birthright citizenship retroactively, in order to mass-expel the children and grandchildren of illegal immigrants. At that point, we’d be in full “ethnic cleansing” territory. I don’t think there’s much chance that will ever happen, but simply suggesting it would reduce national unity, impair racial harmony, and encourage racial bloc politics in America.
Nor do I look forward to a future where white Americans engage in the kind of violent collective minority behavior that typified the Black Power movement half a century ago. I do not want to see a white equivalent of the Black Panthers marching through the streets with guns, looking for trouble. I do not want America to become Northern Ireland .
Instead, what I want white Americans to do, when they feel that their rights have been infringed and that they have been discriminated against, is to sue in a court of law .
Recently, Wil Reilly, a conservative black commentator, tweeted :
He’s very right about not needing a fascist revolution, of course. But in fact, there already is a law barring discrimination against whites and Asians. It’s called the Civil Rights Act of 1964 . The act bans all racial discrimination in employment and other areas of public life, without naming any specific races. Thus, it protects white people against racial discrimination.
In fact, quite a number of white people have won lawsuits against discrimination under the Civil Rights Act. In 1976, some white freight workers successfully sued their company for firing them while refusing to fire a black employee who committed similar offenses. In 2009, some firefighting applicants sued the city of New Haven, Connecticut for throwing out the results of a test on which white candidates did better. Even under previous presidents, the EEOC devoted some of its effort to cases of anti-white discrimination . 2
Winning discrimination lawsuits isn’t easy, including for black plaintiffs, because the burden of proof is pretty heavy. But the ever-present threat of such lawsuits forces a lot of organizations to be very careful about discrimination. And so if it becomes widely known that white people can sue and win, discrimination against white people will become much less likely.
And crucially, knowing that the law is on their side will dissuade many white people from trying to take the law into their own hands. Once they know that their nation protects their individual rights just as strongly as it does the rights of black or Hispanic or Asian people, white people will be less likely to contemplate going outside the bounds of the law, seceding from the nation, overthrowing the government, or other desperate collective measures.
Thus, while I think the Trump administration is doing some very bad things when it comes to race, I think the push to sue for anti-white discrimination is a good thing. Whether or not it’s the most efficient use of government resources, it will have the effect of getting out the message that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 protects white people too, and that they can just sue. That’s something that I think is not yet widely understood, and needs to be.
A multiracial nation is a challenging but rewarding project. Barring the breakup of the country or the application of unthinkably horrific mass violence, white people’s transition to minority status is now inevitable; the only question is what kind of nation this will create. And I would argue that the best possible future is one in which each and every member of every American minority knows that the law of the land protects them and upholds their rights as American individuals , without regard to their race.
I view that understanding as a prerequisite for America to start building a more durable shared national identity that’s not based on ancestry or skin color. In the long run, that’s how America wins.
On top of all that, there’s evidence that a majority begins to feel like a minority well before it actually becomes on. It’s very likely that the advent of wokeness on social media made many white Americans feel more like minorities than they had before.
These are officially under the rubric of “reverse discrimination”, but in the age when white people are a minority, I expect the word “reverse” to fall by the wayside.
I'd really like to see our MAGA phalanx Reply with substantive arguments, explaining why blatant racism is acceptable, rather than the usual blither trying to pretend that this news isn't driven by Trumpist/MAGA racism.
But hey! I don't believe in Santa anymore, "WHATEVER"!
Tags
Who is online
84 visitors
The avalanche of news about Trump / MAGA continuing their assault on American institutions and culture is overwhelming. The articles here are just ONE day's news.
The Ramaphosa ambush was a Trump twofer: blatant racism and unbearable American self-sufficiency.
How in the hell is confronting a leader of a country with evidence of killings of a racial minority ‘racist’?
we know that word
lost all meaning years ago when most on the left used it to describe everything they don’t like, including post 1
"Conversations" with MAGA_True_Believers© here on NT have become a total waste of time. MAGA_True_Believers© almost never propose anything; they deny, deflect, derail. They waste everyone's time. I, for one, have decided not to let them waste any more of my time. From now on, I will simply copy/paste this in response to "standard" MAGA_True_Believer© Comments.
Be well.
Remember. Providing facts is racist.[✘]
‘MAGA_True_Believers© almost never propose anything; they deny, deflect, derail’
You mean like calling everything you don’t like racist?
When did you become a ‘MAGA_True_Believer’?
[✘]
One thing we've learned since Trump's second Presidency is just how sacred a place discriminating against white people holds in the hearts of many progressives. The South Africa flap has demonstrated that to the world. Approximately 98% of the migrants the Trump admin has granted asylum to are people of color. Those progressives doesn't care about what's happening in those countries. They don't care if the asylum seeker will go on vacation to the country he's supposedly fleeing from. Those progressives welcomes him with open arms, showers him with taxpayer money and will do everything he can to ensure the migrant stays here, no matter how many Americans he kills, rapes or assaults.
But a couple dozen whites! Stop the presses and have a total meltdown. Look at all the attention they are giving a small percentage of migrants, even after South Africa's own minister admitted in the White House yesterday the killing of white farmers is a problem. Your average progressive will never, ever consider the actual amount of danger any other asylum seeker is in. Only white people. And the amount of danger is never enough, as they pish posh a murder rate that far exceeds the rate southern blacks were lynched in the Jim Crow south as nothing to pay attention to.
Pile that upon their outrage at Trump trying to stop the government from engaging in racial discrimination and the left goes nuclear. How dare anyone suggest that white people and asians shouldn't be treated differently than their preferred minorities? Watch how much time they spend whining that their ability to racially discriminate is being taken away. Discriminating on race is as central to those progressives as it was to their forebears in the KKK.
I don't think that's a new revelation, is it?
Yes, but let's identify this for what it is. This has much less to do with the color of the migrants than it does the forced admission that their anti-apartheid utopia is allowing exactly the thing critics said it would.
Do you have a data point for this claim. I would like to look it over. Share with this group, please.
MAGA data......
HA! Oh you.
READ MORE: Persecution of South Africa’s whites a ‘false narrative,’ president says as Musk repeats genocide claim
Experts rejected the “genocide” characterization of Afrikaners.
“There is no indication of a state-sponsored campaign or intent to eliminate a specific racial group,” Kaziboni said. “The primary motive remains robbery, sometimes coupled with extreme violence, consistent with broader patterns of violent crime in South Africa.”
The term genocide evokes the horrors of the Holocaust, which killed 6 million Jews, and the 1994 Rwandan genocide, where 800,000 Tutsis were systematically killed, Kaziboni said.
“ Against this backdrop and the UN’s legal definition, labelling farm killings as genocide is both inaccurate and misleading,” Kaziboni said. “This does not diminish the severity of the violence or the need for enhanced rural safety, but it highlights the importance of responding with evidence, nuance, and context.”
Jean-Yves Camus, co-director at the Observatory of Political Radicalism at the Foundation for European Progressive Studies, said the issue “needs to be seen in the broader context of a country plagued by crime and gang activity.”
Oh...you used the liberal PBS as your source.....duck and cover your head!
p.s. I think PBS is a good source of information
I think (PBS) so too. It is not my 'duty' to provide facts that appease one perspective or another. . . because truth knows and owes 'nobody' favor. And that is not a platitude - it's a fact about facts.
I have provided facts as spoken by quotes from the parties making the statements. .. if MAGAites can dispute what the proverbial 'horses' are stating with their own mouths—let them. We can 'examine' each others 'report' for context, meaning, and validity.
I've had at least four articles from different sources come over my RSS aggregator today, debunking the "white genocide" BS.
Gee... it appears that Donald either didn't know what he was talking about (
) or was simply lying ( 
).
Hooda thunk it!!
Funny. But I never see progressives upset when their politicians falsely call Gaza a genocide. Amazing how all the people so upset about Trump calling it a genocide are perfectly happy when Progressives lie about a genocide in Gaza isn't it? I'm sure if I look back you've called out every politician who's done so, right? you aren't just playing partisan games, are you?
But since fulfilling the technical definition of genocide is apparently so important to the asylum issue, let's be consistent. Only people fleeing certified genocides should be considered for asylum. Which means no one gets asylum. Fair is fair.
A sitting president of the world's most preeminent nation. . . collects bad intelligence and sits down to expose his bad intelligence to other sovereign leaders with the press in tow. And, it's cool. I am ashamed of our president in his stead!
And the media is busy talking about the 'senility' and frailties of Biden, while a fool of a president is trading on the nation's brand to collect personal gain and numerous world-wide enterprises and he reads bad intelligence and acts on it.
Good take.
Apparently, none of Trump's advisors knows enough and/or is courageous enough to warn him that he's about to make a fool of himself.
... these people rule America.
And both are fckn A embarrassmeant for US All who are Americans and Patriotic Citizens. Unfortunately, our this time actually elected Quart eluding 47, is being led by a horses asz who drinks the Kool Aid he made for his followers/supporters, and will smash through that just recently completed 4 inches of Mexico border wall by using not that same pitcher, pitching a ;No Hitter', whilst striking out a few more inches of an easily overtaken obstruction, only in the minds of some.
A blatant example of SQUIRELL as we watch the nation, via Trump, unfurl
Just stop with this blatant disinformation. It's sickening to think MAGAites can be so easily (and the sitting president too) duped into believing lies. Here is a(nother) fact:
Do these Afrikaners sound like they are 'running for their lives to get away from South African Blacks? Hell no! They are not 'running' anywhere at all. Tell the truth or stop discussing it altogether, MAGAites.
ust stop with this blatant disinformation
what disinformation? I'm using facts provided by John. Do you think he's lying?[✘]
Stop lying on Afrikaners! And MAGAites, stop telling your president to try to PICK A FIGHT with a nation in Africa! We see the lie for what it is. You will be ashamed (again) for lying on the world stage! And I hope, this time, that such arrogance will not be forgiven.
What lie are you talking about? You aren't making any sense.
There is no genocide occurring in South Africa. It is a lie, and the president (who has to know better or needs to fire his so-called intelligence component) told it to the face of the president of South Africa. I know why he did it though. It was to appease white supremacists in the MAGA ranks who wanted to hear it come from his lips to MAGAites' ears!
The South African president ought to know about his country, just like Trump should who the majority of racists are in this country—because he is president. Yet, he may as well have called the South African president a liar plainly, because the effect was about the same! It would seem that MAGAites loved it!
Trump does aim to please his followers, you know.
Trump, and most anti-woke MAGAs (like ours here on NT) are perfectly aware that there's no genocide happening in SA. They don't care. "Anti-White genocide" plays super to MAGA yahoos, so they say it loud and often. It's untrue, and they know it... but the truth is of no importance to them.
Arguing about it is just pissing against the wind.
The bible calls that: "Itching ears" that MAGAite love to have scratched by Trump lies and mis—'er disinformation.
SO you just use things said by other people to accuse me of lying. Very honest of you.
Again, why don't you get upset when progressives make false claims of "genocide." All this obsessive harping on Trump while ignoring so many examples coming from progressives implies nothing other than partisan motives. All this attention to four dozen refugees out of thousands just because they are white speaks of a racial obsession.
Remember genocide is a red herring. Asylum is not predicated on an undisputed genocide taking place. White farmers in SA are obviously facing violence. Even Ramphosa's hand picked white representative admitted in the white house meeting that his father's friends who were farmers were killed or chased off their land. To deny the problem exists is much more dishonest than Trump calling it genocide.
Put race aside and treat South africans no different than any of the other people who don't face genocide who are granted asylum
I have no problem treating the white farmers from SA requesting asylum the same as any other asylum seekers. Makes total sense. I'm glad we're on the same page.
So that's how we treat asylum seekers, and we always treat everyone equally because that's who we are, and it's never been about race...
I'm sorry, but I don't recall writing you in to my comment. Apparently, you are projecting what Trump did onto yourself. To be clear, I did not point to you.
As for what progressives do (I am more of a pragmatist-moderate democratic party voter because republicans suck at letting all people be free) I would caution to not argue for 'equal time' when it comes to making MISTAKEN decisions and actions.
This is not about deaths,. . . the accusation is GENOCIDE has occurred and continues against a certain White group (that denies the claim themselves) you are not in a position to know better than Afrikaners what is going on in their country. As for the dishonest, I call Trump out for the hyperbole and lie.
And finally, you appear to move the goal post in your last time: I will leave it up to you to explain why you did that.
When you think about it, the Biden administration decided to forego due process. They should have seen an Immigration judge within DAYS of being caught entering illegally. Leaving any following administration to clean up the mess. Instead Sleepy Joe released them into the interior of the United States unvetted; leaving follow-on administrations to clean up the mess.
Now that the mess is being dealt with, you all are crying to save your slave labor. (You think anybody is going to forget the left crying "who is going to pick the fruit?")
But lets keep with the idiocy of your narrative.
I'm sorry, but I don't recall writing you in to my comme
You literally responded to ME with "Stop lying on Afrikaners!" There's no mention of Trump as the subject.
he accusation is GENOCIDE has occurred
No kidding. are you unfamiliar with all the democrats calling what's happening in Gaza a genocide?
Great. No asylum for anyone for any migrants. Works for me.
If they were black, we would not even had known they were here.
The lie is being told repeatedly by MAGAites. "MAGAites" is mentioned in that comment (2.4.2).
They are to who I am writing, because as a manner of site usage we are not permitted to call NTers liars. Thus, you should adjust your understanding accordingly. The comment is addressed to you because you are to my knowledge a MAGAite or favorable to their politics.
But, we are not permitted to call each other liars (or names) on NT. That would be considered making it personal. This issue is a political 'hot potato'—the lying that is. It is not personal.
Then address it to them. I can only go by what you write.
The comment is addressed to you because you are to my knowledge a MAGAite or favorable to their politics.
Yes, that's been made clear. To partisan progressives, everyone who doesn't mindlessly parrot the approved far left dogma is Maga.
I see no clear line in your politics from MAGAite politics. That bears on you to clear up.
‘Difference is many on the left had gone to violence to protest the perceived ‘genocide’.
You don’t see that coming from the right
What, VIOLENCE ? Cause we all know u weren't allowed to witness the January 6th presentation, cause when determining what actually did happen on that most F'd up day, it's best not to view all of the evidence gathered, because it might show Trump and his Maga otts were guilty asz sin, as the pre-planned, pre-ordered and MOST CERTAINLY footage verified violent protesters who DID attempt to end our peaceful transfer of Power, beat the hell out of our LEOs !
Well, since this
1. Made little sense
2. Had nothing to do with what I posted.
I will say it again....You do not see the right going to violence over perceived "genocide".
Donald Trump's entire political career is based on white grievance.
It is amazing that people dont or refuse to understand this.
In 2012 Trump wanted to run for president. At that point he didnt have a political party, nor did he have a political base that he could count on for votes. What to do? He saw many Republicans , and most of the Tea Party Republicans , believed that Obama was an African. That is where he would go to look for votes. He started going on tv talk shows and "news" programs like the morning network shows and saying he was "hearing" things about Obama not being born in America.
For a while it worked, Trump shot up in the polls of potential 2012 Republican candidates. He HAD identified a base that could potentially be big enough to win the GOP nomination. But he couldnt sustain the momentum when the lack of evidence he had came under more media scrutiny and when Obama eventually released his long form birth certificate the Trump effort ended in humiliation. But Trump just bided his time and for the next four years continued to say that Obama was not American, even though Obama had the "receipts".
In 2015 GOP voters remembered that Trump was "on their side" and flocked to him . I dont think it would be unfair to say that 100% of the "white grievance" vote went to Trump in 2016. And he still gets 100% of the "white grievance" vote.
Appeal to the folks who think they are "losing their country" to minorities is a thing, and will be until certain generations leave this earth.
And the appeal for the radical left?
We have had a huge migration problem in this country, climaxed by the 4 years under Biden when the southern border was left wide open. We may have as many as 40 million illegals living among us. Who has entered the country? Primarily the vast majority are either Asian, Hispanic or African. Very recently President Trump sought to extend refuge to about 40 white South Africans and the left was OUTRAGED.
What does that tell us?
IMO it tells me that the American left wants a non-white authoritarian socialist state for the future of America.
It is kind of OBVIOUS.
When Trump went off on black South Africa in the oval office yesterday was he playing to everyone or was he playing to just "some" of the people?
It would be nice if Trump could show some evidence of his charges. The videos he showed are not evidence. He doesnt care about evidence, he cares about keeping a large part of his supporters happy.
He did. That is a FACT.
If the far left ran the country maybe you would have a slight point. The far left has never run this country, or even come remotely close to that.
What the hell are you talking about?
In point of FACT they did. That is how Trump got a second term.
Where did all of sleepy Joe's record setting votes go? They didn't show up in 2024. How come?
NOPE.
The "other side" has produced extensive statistics. Trump did not cite a single statistic.
Sleepy Joe is not far left. That is in your imagination.
Since Sleepy Joe was not calling the shots, it doesn't really matter whether he was or wasn't.
It's obvious that is your opinion, but it has no basis in reality. That's just the fearful fiction that abounds in the MAGAverse where truth and reality die in favor of making white conservative Christian feel good about themselves whether they deserve it or not.
Out here in the real world, wanting equal opportunity and supporting those who have been historically discriminated against is simply that. It's a celebration of what makes America great, our diversity and endeavors towards racial and gender equality. Just because there is a segment of the white population who clearly continue to think they're superior to everyone else and vote only for rightwing white conservative Christians who share their belief that their desired white conservative Christian nation is being eroded, doesn't mean it actually is.
Sure, those bigots love Trump and are deep in the MAGAverse pretending that their opponents are the real racists, you know, all those minorities fighting to be treated the same as white Americans, which isn't something your average MAGAites is willing to allow. White Americans have had white affirmative action for over 200 years, and not just where 10% of positions would be held for whites, all 100% of positions in most jobs were held for whites for over two centuries in this country. But give a tiny piece of that to a minority, set aside a position for them and outcome the white conservatives ready to fight! It would be almost funny to watch these white folk complain about this if it wasn't just so sad to watch such shameless ignorant hubris and bigotry.
[✘]
Explains so much.
Harris should be facing the other way, that is a more natural position for her.
Correction....
Trump has never cited a single statistic you like.
No matter how correct.
No it is not a fact. It is a MAGA lie being perpetrated against the hearts and minds of the American people and South Africa.
For a while now, I've ceased Replying to our MAGA cohort because doing so is a waste of time. I've been repeating that they have nothing to propose, only denial, deflection and derailing.
I'd like to thank them for the magnificent demonstration here. I hope that TPTB are observing.
Damn shame, Bob. I would have liked to read some substantive arguments myself
OTOH, it's kinda fun to watch them make fools of themselves.
This article is about America becoming a majority/minority nation. At some point in the future. IN THE FUCKING FUTURE!
But our MAGA clowns must attack Joe Biden.
When I say they make fools of themselves...
I got that
How Trump misrepresented images to support claims of "White genocide" in South Africa, including Congo video
How Trump misrepresented images to support claims of "White genocide" in South Africa, including Congo video
By
May 23, 2025 / 3:48 PM EDT / CBS News
In his Oval Office meeting Wednesday with South African President Cyril Ramaphosa, President Trump made allegations of persecution of White farmers in South Africa, which he used to justify granting refugee status to a group of Afrikaners earlier this month.
Ramaphosa has denied there is a genocide, and some Afrikaners say Mr. Trump is being lied to about a "White genocide" in the country.
In the last three months of 2024, 12 people were murdered on farms in South Africa, according to South African police. One was a White farmer, while the others were Black laborers or security workers, police said. Some estimates say in recent years there have been about 50 farm murders a year, but those do not specify race. The country had nearly 27,000 total murders last year, according to police data.
Mr. Trump played videos and held up articles during the White House meeting this week to support his unsubstantiated claims. But much of what he showed was being misrepresented. Here are three examples:
Reuters footage of bodies in the Democratic Republic of Congo
Mr. Trump held up a printed article from "American Thinker," a conservative online magazine, that included a screenshot, credited to Reuters, that the president said showed "all White farmers that are being buried."
But the video the screenshot was taken from was of humanitarian workers lifting body bags in the Democratic Republic of Congo, Reuters said. The footage was taken in February after deadly battles with a Rwanda-backed Congolese rebel group in the city of Goma.
The "American Thinker" article was about both the Congo and South Africa, but the image does not show South Africa. Andrea Widburg, managing editor at "American Thinker" and the author of the post, told Reuters that Mr. Trump had "misidentified the image."
Line of white crosses
Mr. Trump claimed images of white crosses seen in the video played during his meeting with Ramaphosa showed burial sites of White farmers. However, the crosses were symbolic, part of a protest in 2020 after the killing of a White farming couple, according to local media coverage. A participant said they represented all farm murders, not solely White farmers, over the years.
The demonstration, held near Normandien, South Africa, was calling on the government to take more action against farm killings.
Ramaphosa acknowledged a problem of crime in his country.
"There is criminality in our country," he said to Mr. Trump. "People who do get killed unfortunately through criminal activity, are not only White people. Majority of them are Black people."
Rally footage of fringe politician
The video Mr. Trump presented included clips of Julius Malema, the leader of a far-left South African political party, the Economic Freedom Fighters. He is heard singing an anti-apartheid song that includes the lyric, "kill the Boer," referring to White farmers, in multiple clips from recent years.
Malema was kicked out of Ramaphosa's governing party, African National Congress, 13 years ago, and Ramaphosa said the EFF is a "small minority party" that does not represent the government. The ANC also distanced itself from the song more than a decade ago.
In a statement to Reuters after the meeting between Mr. Trump and Ramaphosa, the EFF said the song "expresses the desire to destroy the system of white minority control over the resources of South Africa. "
Three South African courts have ruled against attempts to have it designated as hate speech, saying it is a historical liberation chant, not a literal incitement to violence, Reuters reported.
Lol.
Amazing in this attempt to whitewash South africa as a wonderland for white farmers, your source ignores Ramphosa's own representative at the White House meeting admitting his father (a white farmer) had friends murdered and others chased off their land.
These attempts to downplay the real issues in South Africa are worse than claiming genocide.
Sorry, Trump misinterpreted his evidence. I'd say lying but he's too stupid to know he was lying. Doesnt it bother you that his incompetence is hurting your cause ?
Define (count) "friends" and "others" in your comment.
Somebody may be seeing victims 'everywhere'—well, it's a narrative; it's storytelling. Even when Trump is mistaken, he is never wrong for MAGAites who are not ashamed about being wrong. Even when the evidence is plainly laid out.
Trump has his followers eating out of his hand. It is 'hard' (not really) to tell who is the 'mark' -Trump or MAGAites. . . . May be they are playing each other!