Fair enough, I was fundamentally objecting to the genocide claims since they are part of the great replacement narratives from white supremacists.

That there are cases of racist violence would be wild to argue against though. Especially since it's an understandable echo of the apartheid era. It takes time for a society to heal, especially one resting on so much violence in the first place.

But its the genocide angle that becomes problematic, because it's not what is happening and it's used by white supremacists around the world. They take advantage of singular cases of violence, point towards it and inflate it to support their great replacement narratives.

And when a president repeats these things, that's extremely problematic. Either he's too stupid to understand that he's been fed this narrative, or he's a white supremacist himself, which isn't far fetched. It's not something he would put on signs.

I don't know, the Russians make a good point:

“Of course, at the same time, this is a very crucial moment, which is associated, of course, with the emotional overload of everyone absolutely and with emotional reactions.”

All irrelevant drivel when there's no genocide going on and the chant has been adjudicated by local judges with much better understanding of local culture and history than white nationalists across the US and EU as not being literal but metaphorical. But please don't let facts get in the way of being a racist douchebag.

I love how this discussion has essentially turned into the inverse of the Israel-Palestine thread. It's the funniest thing. I won't fan the flames, but it's tempting.

It's always easier to attack than defend, though; to charge with wrongdoing rather than rebut the charge.

some.

Well, what would you think if you had stadiums of Israelis yelling "kill the Palestinian," led by major politicians?
— BitconnectCarlos

“BitconnectCarlos, they already do that!”

ssu

They have literally done that today, at the wailing wall rather than a stadium. It’s being broadcast on the world media. They’re dancing and chanting with Ben-Gvir egging them on. Fully aware that they’re committing a genocide on their neighbours.

It’s a reminder that human nature includes the potential for groups to kill and Iradicate other groups and feel morally justified in doing so. So it is incumbent upon world leaders to call it out where it happens and prevent it. There is one person, one world leader, alone who can stop this in one day and he is noticeably silent on the issue.

Two days ago during a White House press briefing, Trump showed a video of a what he described as a mass grave in South Africa. There were hundreds of white crosses with a group of people standing by the graves in grief apparently. He then claimed it was a genocide against white people.

The video and the claims about it being a mass grave is a conspiracy theory propagated by the far right in the US and in other countries.

In reality, it was a protest following the murder of a white couple, the crosses were symbolic, there were no graves and the people there were the protesters. Trump is broadcasting false conspiracy theories from the White House.

I condemn anyone calling for the deaths of any ethnic group, whether Arabs or Boers. We all should. It's not acceptable in chants or songs.

Your metaphorical slogan about killing the Boers turned into a real killing of a farmer, by the admission of the killer.

The convicted murderer of a Vryheid farmer told the Truth and Reconciliation Commission in Pietermaritzburg on Thursday that his crime was influenced by the "kill the Boer, kill the farmer" slogan he heard at African National Congress rallies. Ntuthuko Chuene, 28, is serving a life sentence for the murder of Godfrey Frederick Lanz Heuer on August 22, 1992. He also stole a Rossi Special firearm, ammunition and a suitcase containing about R1000 in cash, a pocket calculator and books. He said he stole the guns to defend his community from the Inkatha Freedom Party. Chuene said his accomplice in the killing, Piet Nkosi, was later shot and killed by the police. He said he was forced by circumstances in the area where he lived, Mondlo, to commit the crimes. The killing was not directed at Heuer, as he just happened to be a white farmer at the wrong time. "I could have killed any other white man I came across at that time. My frustrations were directed to white men because they had what we did not have," Chuene said. "I am sorry, I look back now and regret." Heuer's wife Amy said she did not believe Chuene killed her husband because of politically motivated reasons. "I do not want him to be granted amnesty. I watched my husband die in front of me and could not help him," she said.

https://www.justice.gov.za/trc/media/1999/9910/p991014a.htm

Look what you’re forcing yourself to defend.

A couple from Pietermaritzburg in KwaZulu-Natal were severely assaulted on their farm while their attackers shouted, “Kill the Boer, kill the Farmer”. Four attackers forced their way into the farmhouse of Tim Platt and his wife, Amanda, during the early morning hours of 17 August. The attackers gained entry to the house by breaking down the front door and security gate, as well as a window and burglar bars.

Amanda was beaten with a bolt cutter and lead pipes, and eventually stabbed with a spear. While her husband was still trying to fight off the attackers, she managed to escape and returned armed to save her husband. Upon her return, the attackers had already fled.

https://web.archive.org/web/20230922163307/https://afriforum.co.za/en/attackers-chant-kill-the-boer-kill-the-farmer-before-stabbing-female-victim-with-spear/

I don't need to defend shit because there's no genocide. You'd rather follow the interpretation of a murderous idiot than sensible South Africans just so it fits in your racist worldview.

Also note that the farmers killed are predominantly not white. So there's that. Sigh.

Regardless of country, it is terrifying when you have prominent politicians (Malema's party controls 10% of Congress) in mass rallies glorifying the murder of another ethnic group, especially where there are pre-existing ethnic tensions. We should have learned this from Rwanda, where the language used played a key role in dehumanization. — BitconnectCarlos

Look, I understand it's a touchy issue for you, but the obvious reality that you indeed have these kinds of politicians in various countries, including Israel. And when there's an outright violent conflict and hatred among the different people, then the there is the real fear of a genocide.

Yet I think the larger and more probable fear is just ethnic cleansing which was very successful in the case of Nagorno-Karabakh. And all the Azeris had to do was to publicly deny it. Abstaining from widespread violence worked. Ethnic cleansing is a reality in our time. Now the talk of cleansing Gaza is totally normal as moving everybody away to other countries is openly discussed.

If that happens, I guess it would give a great example even to some extremist idiot in South Africa to then call for similar actions, even if the insane move would destroy the South African economy even more. Africa has seen it's examples of expulsions of minorities: Idi Amin giving 90 days for Asians (primarily Indians) to leave Uganda in 1972. Before that he had expelled the Kenyan minority.

Yet the undeniable fact is that there isn't a genocide going on against white people in South Africa. There isn't even a government lead ethnic cleansing program going on. South Africa is one of the most violent countries in the World. A country being one of the most violent in the World usually means that many people will emigrate from the country. What basically Trump has done perhaps can simply just increase the brain drain and pensioners moving to the US, if they can opt for that automatic refugee status.

If the shoe were on the other foot and whites were imposing racist laws and seizing land from blacks and screaming genocidal chants at mass rallies, the world would be all over it (and rightfully so). Yet double standards define our times. It is seen as fine when an "oppressed" or formerly oppressed group behaves oppressively, and the politically correct thing is to look the other way and not blame them. — BitconnectCarlos

With the example of Zimbabwe, I tried to show you that this isn't the case. Partisan actors will think this way because they simply won't be interested in something that doesn't promote their cause. Put them aside and there's still the ability to get an objective view about events, even if you need to find it out yourself with a little work.

It's the alt-right lie that "this is what you are not told about... by the lying fake media". It's their gimmick.

It's fairly dishonest to bicker about whether or not something should be called genocide, when there is a clear threat of ethnic violence.

Genocide under international law is strongly linked to the intent to commit it, which in the case of ethnic violence is almost par for the course.

When political parties start busying overtly genocidal slogans in a country with the history of South Africa, that is extremely worrying. Handwaving it under the banner of 'It's not yet genocide' is not the type of thing I would expect from rational people. In fact, it reminds me more of the type of apologetics the Israeli government and its supporters like to spin.

Handwaving it under the banner of 'It's not yet genocide' is not the type of thing I would expect from rational people. — Tzeentch

Have you then read the Israel killing civilians in Gaza and the West Bank?
Terms like genocide or fascist are hurled as negative adjectives, hence defining things correctly is important as is putting things into context. The accusation is "that there is a genocide underway" is quite different from "there is a clear threat of ethnic violence", don't you think?

I would go further to say that there is ethnic violence, just as there are hate crimes even in the US, only more. Dismal economy and poverty do give a breeding ground for radical extremists, but not all of the people fall for them. And luckily, South Africa hasn't collapsed.

In fact, it reminds me more of the type of apologetics the Israeli government and its supporters like to spin. — Tzeentch

Or the apologetics of those that think actually Russia was the real victim in the Ukraine war. Yeah, I agree.

But we have to understand that people have different ways of thinking. I noticed it for the first time in PF (the old site, that is) when some Americans came to the forum to defend the actions of President Bush, like invading Iraq because of the WMD argument. They saw it as their patriotic duty to defend their country, when a lot of people where critical of the dubious reasons for the 2003 war.

I don't need to defend shit because there's no genocide. You'd rather follow the interpretation of a murderous idiot than sensible South Africans just so it fits in your racist worldview.

Also note that the farmers killed are predominantly not white. So there's that. Sigh. — Benkei

Reflecting on to other countries and not the one the one you live in is one way to sell a message that otherwise wouldn't fly, because a) it wouldn't be appropriate or b) usually people are aware of the situation in the country they live in.

Or the apologetics of those that think actually Russia was the real victim in the Ukraine war. Yeah, I agree. — ssu

Instantly back to being a clown, I see?

Well, back on the ignore list you go.

?

Oh.... a hit dog will holler.

It's good to see you're still coping.

Trump is broadcasting false conspiracy theories from the White House. — Punshhh

I don't doubt it. I just ignore it.

The FBI is reopening up an investigation into the cocaine found in the whitehouse a year or two back, the pipe bomb on Jan 6th, and the leakers of the Supreme Court decision. Knowing now that Hunter Biden and other long time allies to dear old dad were effectively acting as the US president during Biden’s reign, this could get interesting.

https://www.axios.com/2025/05/27/fbi-white-house-cocaine-supreme-court-leak-investigations

What basically Trump has done perhaps can simply just increase the brain drain and pensioners moving to the US, if they can opt for that automatic refugee status. — ssu

In a country where ~95% of murders are unresolved against a specific (minority) ethnic group, I wouldn't blame them for wanting to leave. Protection is the basic function of government, and if the government isn't upholding its end of the bargain, then those citizens don't owe them anything. It's a little odd that you give the SA authorities the benefit of the doubt as to race being a factor in the resolution rate, but whatever.

There's a difference between accepting immigrants who appreciate the country they're emigrating to & work legitimate professions versus those who come, e.g., due to a religious duty to spread their religion or to exploit resources. Every nation has the right to monitor its borders and set its immigration policies. Some immigrants easily assimilate, while others have no desire to.

Put them aside and there's still the ability to get an objective view about events, even if you need to find it out yourself with a little work.

It's the alt-right lie that "this is what you are not told about... by the lying fake media". It's their gimmick. — ssu

Just because a source is biased or has an agenda doesn't mean it's wrong. You should double-check the information, sure, but bias alone isn't a reason to dismiss it. Virtually everything is biased, including us. The media has not been even-handed either. The media is just one source of news/info among others and even the most even-handed of us are biased. We all choose our bias, ultimately.

Focus: As ‘Buy Canadian’ grows, more US companies say retailers turning away their products
^{— Siddharth Cavale, Nivedita Balu, Jessica DiNapoli, Aurora Ellis · Reuters · Apr 7, 2025}
How is the Canadian boycott affecting American products?
^{— Bill Wilson · Supermarket News · May 28, 2025}
How Tariffs Are Making Beer More Expensive (beer important!)
^{— Bromlyn Bethune · Maclean’s · May 28, 2025}

Seems like the trend continues for now, a "Trump effect", with analogous reactions in Latin America and Europe.
For Canadians, there isn't much of a difference between "Buy Canadian" and "Don't buy American", though other foreign products haven't been affected like US products.
There's been a "Buy American" campaign in the US for some time.

There's a difference between accepting immigrants who appreciate the country they're emigrating to & work legitimate professions versus those who come, e.g., due to a religious duty to spread their religion or to exploit resources. Every nation has the right to monitor its borders and set its immigration policies. Some immigrants easily assimilate, while others have no desire to. — BitconnectCarlos

The first golden rule is that if it is commonly understood that the foreign people bring money into the society, foreigners will be accepted: nobody has a problem with tourists, with millionaires or needed talented professionals moving into your nation. If somebody is publicly against there being tourists, the person will be confronted by angry people who get their life earnings from the tourist trade. But if those tourists don't bring in money, just roam around and sleep in public parks, they will be immediately despised everywhere. Foreigners that just want to take your wealth and have no desire to appreciate anything else are usually in history called the invading enemy. What people feel about them is quite universal and these attitudes have a long history.

With refugees it's even more stark and obviously the closeness to the refugees matter very much. Clearest example of this is has been the response in European countries of the Ukrainian refugees compared to 2015 Migration Crisis. A very good decision by the Ukrainians was to forbid military-aged men from leaving the country (and many Ukrainian male expats going to fight in the war). Countries that had not taken any refugees in 2015 took millions. Poland has taken nearly a million Ukrainian refugees. People will think this is blatant racism, but the reality is that people can empathize with these as Poles obviously understand what a threat Russia is to them and the Poles have a bloody history with the Russians. If it would be just racism, then these countries would have taken also the Russian men fleeing the war as refugees. They surely did not.

Just because a source is biased or has an agenda doesn't mean it's wrong. — BitconnectCarlos

Please focus on what the disagreement here is. I don't think there is a genocide taken place, something like the Turks did against Armenians or what the Hutus did against Tutsis during the Ruandan civil war. There simply aren't the piles of white people lying around with either South African soldiers or jubilant crowds with machetes. A genocide looks like a Zombie movie with the exception that the Zombies aren't the brain eating living dead, but totally ordinary people minding their business whereas the "heroes" in Zombie movie are just like how they are portrayed in the movies, except that they just think that other people are zombies and killing them will make the world a better place.

Is South Africa dangerous for Whites? Yes, but it's also dangerous for Blacks too. Are there severe problems in South Africa and tensions between the ethnic groups? Yes.

This isn't nitpicking. We do have to find a way to talk about the situations in various countries accurately. Because we shouldn't use these terms like genocide as tropes.

Just because a source is biased or has an agenda doesn't mean it's wrong. — BitconnectCarlos

But if the source is telling that there's a genocide when there isn't a genocide, it's wrong. That there are tensions and hostility against an ethnic group can be totally true.

Do notice that the alt-right media-sphere that turns this out never report things like that EU and EU countries have dramatically tightened their immigration policies. This is because the agenda is to portray only the radical populists to be capable of doing this: the you have to favor some AfD in Germany to get change from Merkel's policies. Or that somehow Sweden is lost to multiculturalism when the US is far more multicultural than Sweden. And so on.

Being on your ignore list is either very temporary or works differently. :wink:

Finally some sanity to Trump's insane tariff actions.

(BBC 29th May 2025) A US federal court has blocked President Donald Trump's sweeping global trade tariffs, in a major blow to a key component of his economic policies.

The Court of International Trade ruled that an emergency law invoked by the White House did not give the president unilateral authority to impose tariffs on nearly every one of the world's countries.

The New York-based court said the US Constitution gave Congress exclusive powers to regulate commerce with other nations, and that this was not superseded by the president's remit to safeguard the economy.

The White House has asked the court to block the order suspending tariffs while it appeals the case.

Let's see how this goes to the SCOTUS.

A minor setback. There are plenty ways around it.

I'll hope the Trump administration is a minor setback to the World. And indeed there are plenty of ways around it. At least Wall Street has a firm belief in this.

The first golden rule is that if it is commonly understood that the foreign people bring money into the society, foreigners will be accepted: nobody has a problem with tourists, with millionaires or needed talented professionals moving into your nation. If somebody is publicly against there being tourists, the person will be confronted by angry people who get their life earnings from the tourist trade. But if those tourists don't bring in money, just roam around and sleep in public parks, they will be immediately despised everywhere. Foreigners that just want to take your wealth and have no desire to appreciate anything else are usually in history called the invading enemy. What people feel about them is quite universal and these attitudes have a long history. — ssu

I think this needs to be challenged.

A rich foreigner with an agenda can be quite dangerous—probably more dangerous than a foreign mugger. The latter is an obvious threat, while the former has the potential to do quite a bit of harm with their great resources. We must look at the values and allegiances of those entering our countries. Our elite universities in the US are flooded with very wealthy foreign students who have zero allegiance to the US, and I think our country is finally waking up to the fact that we've been sold out.

But if the source is telling that there's a genocide when there isn't a genocide, it's wrong. That there are tensions and hostility against an ethnic group can be totally true. — ssu

There's a lot of complexity around this word. Appropriating land is closely associated with ethnic cleansing. Is ethnic cleansing the same as genocide? Should we call expulsion and murder the same thing - genocide? Should we call harsh repressive measures that forbid/restrict the practice of a group's traditions/culture genocide? The question is a reasonable one to ask.

Here in the US, we stripped the natives of their land and forbade the practice of their customs. It was extraordinarily effective in decimating the native american populations (along with disease and alcohol), and that group remains the poorest and least powerful group in the country.

the you have to favor some AfD in Germany to get change from Merkel's policies. Or that somehow Sweden is lost to multiculturalism when the US is far more multicultural than Sweden. And so on. — ssu

Maybe mass deportations are needed.

Sweden is responsible for managing Sweden. Currently, 80% of the population is native Swedes; would they be okay with this number going to 70%? 60%? What kinds of cultural changes would we see at those levels? Do Swedes value their culture, or is it more defined by its openness and receptivity? What cultures are they importing?

It's a difficult question that every country needs to address. I see value in preserving distinct cultures and think pride in one's group is fine as long as one is fair and hospitable to foreigners. One can hold pride in one's group while still looking outward and seeing value and brilliance in other groups. It follows, though, that if one values and has pride in one's culture, one should be prepared to defend it if necessary.

A rich foreigner with an agenda can be quite dangerous—probably more dangerous than a foreign mugger. The latter is an obvious threat, while the former has the potential to do quite a bit of harm with their great resources. We must look at the values and allegiances of those entering our countries. Our elite universities in the US are flooded with very wealthy foreign students who have zero allegiance to the US, and I think our country is finally waking up to the fact that we've been sold out. — BitconnectCarlos

Seems you don't have any idea just how a modern scientific university works. On the contrary, foreign students bring money into universities... especially if your own citizens wouldn't have to pay huge fees. What are especially liked are foreign post-doc researchers, who come to make good research and then leave back to their country. The departments and the university get the product of their work, yet these foreigners aren't competing for the university positions with the locals, which the locals are very happy about. When you have had the best resources and the top research hubs in Ivy League universities, those attract the best talent.

Or do you think that foreign students are a fifth colony of agents that steel the precious wisdom only held the genius Americans? Hence the US would be better of without foreigners participating in their universities?

If you want to shoot yourself in the leg, please do so! Ban then all foreigners from entering your universities. That would really help them! I wouldn't be surprised if the Bigot in Chief in the White House would want that. He hates international trade, so this would be a natural extension of that.

Sweden is responsible for managing Sweden. Currently, 80% of the population is native Swedes; would they be okay with this number going to 70%? 60%? What kinds of cultural changes would we see at those levels? Do Swedes value their culture, or is it more defined by its openness and receptivity? What cultures are they importing? — BitconnectCarlos

Says the person living in a far more multicultural country than Sweden. But how do you get to 60%?

First of all, the largest population of foreigners and foreign born Swedes are us, Finns. The number of Sweden Finns are estimated of being from half a million to 700 000. These people were taught in school in Finland already the Swedish language. They are also Lutherans (if the belong the church), watch hockey and eat pea soup, just like the native Swedes do. They don't live in separated areas and naturally have intermarried to the native population. Above all, they look just like Swedes. This migration happened basically from the late 1960's to the early 1980's and thus their even their children are quite old now. As people can inside the Nordic countries as easily as an American can move from New York to California, many of the Sweden Finns have simply retained their Finnish citizenship, hence there are many who are indeed foreigners.



And because opening the border for hundreds of thousands of Finns worked so well and as they integrated well and the economy improved, some then thought Sweden that it was OK to get anybody. Until 2015-2016 that is. Once the European migration crisis happened, Sweden shut down quickly it's open door policy.

So how do you get these ideas of Sweden is "going to lose to multiculturalism"? That it becomes a Muslim state and the native population will be a minority and loose it's identity?

The only way you get these fictional statistics that in few decades Sweden will be muslim or whatever, is if you extrapolate from the year 2015-2016. Because that's when you had the European migration crisis. This is what it looked like in Sweden:




Hence if you assume the levels of Syrians coming to Sweden in 2016, then yes, then and ONLY then you will have dramatic changes in demographics of the country. Hence the idea that Sweden will become a Muslim country or loose it's identity is simply a lie. As I said, the Swedish government quickly stopped the open door policies - which naturally the racists and bigots extremists are totally silent about. And Swedes aren't at all so open to immigration, the US is far more open to immigration.




In fact it's quite difficult for even an American to emigrate to the Nordic countries ...if they wanted that is.

Maybe mass deportations are needed. — BitconnectCarlos

And just how is your President doing with those mass deportations? Last time he ended up deporting far less than other presidents, including his successor Joe Biden.

Or do you think that foreign students are a fifth colony of agents that steel the precious wisdom only held the genius Americans? Hence the US would be better of without foreigners participating in their universities? — ssu

It's not about wisdom. When these universities accept billions from Qatar, their Middle Eastern Studies departments naturally promote certain views. It's hard for a university to be unbiased when billions are funneled in from the Middle East. What nation can be unconcerned with what it's citizens are taught?

Hence if you assume the levels of Syrians coming to Sweden in 2016, then yes, then and ONLY then you will have dramatic changes in demographics of the country. — ssu

What are the fertility rates of the respective groups? And what rates are people converting to Islam? There can be tension when one group tries to convert while the other doesn't.

And just how is your President doing with those mass deportations? Last time he ended up deporting far less than other presidents, including his successor Joe Biden. — ssu

I agree; I would love to see him step it up - perhaps judges are blocking him. He did stem the flow of illegals crossing the border, though. Those numbers were insane under Biden.

Says the person living in a far more multicultural country than Sweden. But how do you get to 60%? — ssu

60% was just an example to convey a hypothetical question about whether such a thing would cause alarm. Yes, some immigrants integrate well while others do not.

My own country used to be a white, Protestant, Anglo-Saxon country. I don't think anything in our founding documents says we must maintain such a status. The founders agreed on specific values that are important to protect. There was diversity there, though—some were strong Christians, others were highly irreligious deists. The Enlightenment influenced them.

Other states are different. China is Han, and that traces back to the Han dynasty. It's not the same thing. I'm not claiming one is better than the other, either; it's just different.

The Fed says we're heading into stagflation. :sad:

It's just wonderful that after everything Elon is now going after Trump. What better than two annoying assholes going at each other. (Of course, the stuff has been known for a long time, yet since both Trump and Clinton have their Epstein links, it's understandable that the partisan hacks haven't looked at the whole issue)




Now Bannon wants Elon to be deported. Ah, these MAGA people are so hilarious.

Senior State Department official sought internal communications with journalists, European officials, and Trump critics
^{— Eileen Guo · MIT Technology Review · May 1, 2025}

They flagged the Enola Gay B-29 bomber from the 2nd World War as being woke, so who knows what they might do. :D