Re: Nazi White Supremacist Trump Seizes On Videos Of A Fringe South African Politician As Evidence Of Threats To White Farmers

Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:

BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:

May 22, 2025 at 10:32:15 AM PDT, Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com>:

BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:

May 22, 2025 at 6:32:48 AM PDT, "Marmalade King" <x@y.com> wrote:

Evan Vucci / The Associated Press
By Nicholas Riccardi, Ali Swenson And Mogomotsi Magome
The Associated Press

NEW YORK (AP) President Donald Trump confronted South African President
Cyril Ramaphosa on Wednesday with claims that white farmers are being
targeted and killed in the country.

Trumps main evidence, compiled in a video shown during their Oval Office
meeting: Speeches by a politician who was kicked out of Ramaphosas party,
is not part of the coalition that governs the country and whose own
political movement garnered less than 10% of the vote in last years
elections.

President Donald Trump and South Africa's president exchanged tense
words in the Oval Office Wednedsay over Trump's baseless claims of
the systematic killing of white farmers. At one point Trump showed
a video of white crosses, which he said memorialized white farmers
who were killed.

The Trump administration has used the rhetoric of a fringe politician and
South Africas endemic violence as justification for allowing white South
Africans to apply to become refugees in the United States

Fifty-nine people. The same people who had no problem with Biden
throwing open the border and allowing 15 *million* to flood into the
country unchecked and unvetted, breaking the budgets of the major
cities, are suddenly running for the fainting couch over 59 people
for no other reason than that they're white.

It doesn't matter if Trump let them in. I am in favor of immigration,
and deporting immigrants convicted of felonies.

Trump can and should be criticized for claiming they were refugees
lacking evidence of ethnic cleansing or whatever. The crosses weren't a
burial site but a makeshift memorial to a local family that had been
killed in a disaster, not ethnic cleansing,

South Africa passed a law that allows for the seizure of land from white
people, without compensation, and its transfer to black people. That's
government oppression on the basis of skin color. It's exactly what the
refugee system was designed for.

That makes them asylum seekers, which is different than a refugee. Now
that I've said that, I should have said that the Venezualans are asylum
seekers, at least the many there were here due to oppression by the
Marxist government.

Since you brought this to my attention, I found a BBC news article that
confirms that the law is as you describe it. Maybe they do meet the
definition of asylum seekers.

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cvg9w4n6gp5o

Here's an explainer.

https://www.jurist.org/features/2025/02/11/explainer-understanding-the-south-africa-land-reform-law-that-provoked-trumps-ire/

If land reform and not Zimbabwe-style land redistribution, which led to
almost complete economic collapse and starvation, is what was desired,
there's no need for eminent domain. There are fair and straightforward
ways to put potentially productive land back into productive use without
expropriation which is literally the name of the new law. Pay a portion
of economic rent -- the land's potential income due to natural resources
and access to markets -- to society. Then there can be tenant farmers.

Obviously I don't want land held out of productive use, but to use it as
an excuse for eminent domain without just compensation is unjust.

The murdering and raping and violence (encouraged by a significant number of
the country's politicians with a wink and a nod) are just the cherry on that
shit sundae.

I found an article about this, too. People are suspicious that there is
an attack upon the food production sector of the South African economy
and, indirectly, descendants of Afrikaaners still holding much of the
best tracts of land. But if there is a violent attack, they've found
that the family will stop production within five years.

The implictation is that a crisis is being deliberately precipitated
and, with the new law, the justifications for the land expropriations
have been artificially created.

Ok. I'm starting to sound paranoid.

FARM SLAUGHTER
Female farmers sexually assaulted, tortured and murdered
in latest horrific attacks on South Africas white farm workers
by Jon Rogers and Jamie Pyatt
The Sun
Published: 18:24, 5 Oct 2020
Updated: 18:24, 5 Oct 2020
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/12852875/farm-workers-torture-murder-south-africa/

Once again, I'm going to have to back off a little, having read this.

South Africa police minister says Trump 'twisted' facts to push baseless
genocide claims
By GERALD IMRAY and MICHELLE GUMEDE
AP
Updated 5:39 PM CDT, May 23, 2025
https://apnews.com/article/trump-south-africa-white-farmers-crosses-9bda023de5e8aefe1e5d3564aeb9f3ba

I don't think it's controversial that Trump, in showing the field of
crosses, simply made shit up that it was a graveyard of white farmers.
It's not logical to think that they'd have been brought to this location
for burial from other parts of South Africa.

Instead, it was a memorial put up in 2020 to protest killings of all
farmers across South Africa, and it was put up in time for the funeral
of a white couple who had been murdered on their farm by robbers. Their
son confirmed it wasn't a burial site and that it was taken down after
the funeral. Other neighbors have confirmed this too.

Here's the article's most important detail.

South Africa struggles with extremely high levels of violent
crime, although farm killings make up a small percentage of the
countrys overall homicides. Both white and Black farmers are
attacked, and sometimes killed, and the government has condemned
the violence against both groups.

It's uncited but for the purpose of this discussion, let's presume it's
true.

Let's think about this. There are extremely high levels of violent crime
versus farmers affecting both black and white families that own farms.
My guess is that the crime is one of opportunity, for I doubt very much
that the violent murderous robbers care about the family's race.

Trump could have gotten the politics right by NOT misrepresenting the
memorial as a grave site, and NOT made it about race by granting asylum
to black farmers as well. That would have embarassed the government
which, if they aren't sweeping the problem of crime under the rug, have
been failing to address it in the decades since apartheid ended.

This violence, literally killing off farmers, is actively discouraging
farming, South Africa cannot afford to lose productive agriculture. As I
pointed out, the problem of leaving farmland fallow can be addressed
economically WITHOUT land expropriation without compensation, which may
indeed be administered in a discriminatory manner.

But land expropriation with or without compensation isn't the answer to
the question of whether crime can be dramatically reduced. Why would
there be a tenant farmer or some family buying a subdivision of farm
land to farm if they think they'll be killed?

The defense against Trump's lies and rhetoric distracting from the
underlying issue is analogous to an accused criminal whose alibi is that
he couldn't have done it as he was in the midst of committing an
unrelated crime.

It's a matter of degree, not that it's not happening at all.

. . .