Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There's no "genociding" going on.

"White genocide" fearmongering has been something white supremacists have been peddling since at least the 1980s.

genocide is not required for refugee status. it's an irrelevant diversion.

"persecution" based on race is all that is required as a matter of law

And yet we deny refugee status eligibility to people facing greater persecution and in greater economic peril? Gee, why is that....

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There's no "genociding" going on.

"White genocide" fearmongering has been something white supremacists have been peddling since at least the 1980s.

genocide is not required for refugee status. it's an irrelevant diversion.

"persecution" based on race is all that is required as a matter of law

Anonymous wrote:There's no "genociding" going on.

"White genocide" fearmongering has been something white supremacists have been peddling since at least the 1980s.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why are people so quick to dismiss this? Africa has a long history of racial tension, and intra-racial ethnic tension. South Africa is perhaps the most famous example, and it's not exactly a secret that the black and white South Africans have beef. I once worked overseas with white South Africans, and they were all working to get UK citizenship due to government persecution (and many of them were successful).

There's a long history of race-based attacks on African farmers, not just in SA but also in Zimbabwe and other countries. So this all fits the fact pattern. Add onto it that our own state department acknowledges that reports of government violence are credible. Here's a report from 2023, so it cant be accused of being "manipulated" by the Trump administration: https://www.state.gov/reports/2023-country-reports-on-human-rights-practices/south-africa/

There's only one reason you're fighting this, and that's because the victims are white. Full stop. It's so transparent.

I have known a number of South Africans who are white, and most of them told me they are trying to get friends and family out of SA.

I also knew a family who escaped Zimbabwe after their family farm was attacked and confiscated; the government condoned it and the family lost everything.

Things are not OK in South Africa, as much as many in the U.S. and EU want to pretend otherwise.

South Africa is not Zimbabwe, but whites have been trying to conflate what happened in Zimbabwe with violence against white farmers in SA since apartheid ended.

And yes, SA has a very high crime rate. I lived there from '05-'07 and almost every South African had a story of being robbed, home invasions. Criminal gangs would hit a mall, clean out a jewelry store, and sometimes that would involved someone being shot and killed. I was on a safari and the front desk of the lodge was robbed right before we returned from an evening drive. There is a lot of crime there and yes, a lot of it happens to whites. Not necessarily because they are white but BECAUSE THEY HAVE THE MONEY. Crime also happens to wealthy and middle class black South Africans too. And I honestly think many of you would be amazed at the high standard of living you can attain in South Africa with a little bit of money.

But all of that is a very far cry from a government-sponsored white genocide that would necessitate refugee status for Afrikaners. That's not happening. And that's the the whole point that people are making.

A genocide is not required as a matter of law to be granted asylum in the U.S.

The law states that to establish refugee status, only need to prove "that RACE, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion was or will be at least one central REASON FOR PERSECUTING the applicant."

No genocide is required.

You just aren't going to give it up, are you?

It was Trump who claimed these folks needed refugee status because they were being subjected to white genocide. That's literally the whole point.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My parents recently became convinced that Ron Howard had died in a car accident. They showed me the YouTube videos that led them to that conclusion.
This latest incident in the Oval Office gave me the same sinking feeling as witnessing them being manipulated.

(They were initially pretty angry with me then embarrassed when I had to show them how they had been deceived by clickbait. We did a little nonjudgmental tutorial on reliable sources and I reminded them of when I jumped the gun on James Earl Jones dying and to please always come to me with any information that concerns them and we can look into it together and they have)

The folks manipulating maga really nailed it this time around. People, and for some reason Americans in particular, are really easy to manipulate. Trump is easy to manipulate. Clearly, that’s why he’s so useful to them, he’s no better than your parents at telling truth from fiction. He also has a child’s emotional intelligence so it’s that much easier to give him a pat on the back head snd tell him that he’s a big boy to get him to do what you need him to do.

My question is, why it is so bad in the US compared to other western countries? Why are we so uniquely stupid?

Boomers have no media literacy. They grew up trusting media and government. It is beyond their comprehension to conceive of otherwise.

This is not a generation issue. This is a stupidity and ignorance issue.

The generation wars are also propaganda.

I disagree. It's definitely a generational issue. Millennials and Gen X were taught: pix or it didn't happen/show me the receipts. We believe nothing without proof to back it up.

Gen Z is the cap/no cap generation but they are the first generation to be raised fully on social media, which is fake. They trust just as easily as Boomers.

My Boomer parents believe everything they see on Facebook. They have the "well, why would someone lie about that" attitude about information. Our local library had an internet safety and social media literacy class for seniors that I encouraged them to attend.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
why is pointing out that he was using photos from a massacre in the DRC outrage? people are pointing out facts.

Because it wasn't just a photo of DRC, but a photo of the whole article. The article discusses South Africa and DRC(PRC in the article).
The media are taking that one photo and trying to claim Trump put up a fake picture. They aren't even mentioning the site or linking the article.

Okay. Like what the f? Hold Trump to the same standards you held Biden. It was a picture from the Congo that Trump said was proof of white genocide. This would have ended any other president’s administration. You say it is the media. The media forced him to use a picture of the Congo and claim it was proof of South African genocide. It was a deliberate lie and propaganda.

No, he didn't show the photo. He showed the whole article, which had that photo.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
why is pointing out that he was using photos from a massacre in the DRC outrage? people are pointing out facts.

Because it wasn't just a photo of DRC, but a photo of the whole article. The article discusses South Africa and DRC(PRC in the article).
The media are taking that one photo and trying to claim Trump put up a fake picture. They aren't even mentioning the site or linking the article.

Okay. Like what the f? Hold Trump to the same standards you held Biden. It was a picture from the Congo that Trump said was proof of white genocide. This would have ended any other president’s administration. You say it is the media. The media forced him to use a picture of the Congo and claim it was proof of South African genocide. It was a deliberate lie and propaganda.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why are people so quick to dismiss this? Africa has a long history of racial tension, and intra-racial ethnic tension. South Africa is perhaps the most famous example, and it's not exactly a secret that the black and white South Africans have beef. I once worked overseas with white South Africans, and they were all working to get UK citizenship due to government persecution (and many of them were successful).

There's a long history of race-based attacks on African farmers, not just in SA but also in Zimbabwe and other countries. So this all fits the fact pattern. Add onto it that our own state department acknowledges that reports of government violence are credible. Here's a report from 2023, so it cant be accused of being "manipulated" by the Trump administration: https://www.state.gov/reports/2023-country-reports-on-human-rights-practices/south-africa/

There's only one reason you're fighting this, and that's because the victims are white. Full stop. It's so transparent.

I have known a number of South Africans who are white, and most of them told me they are trying to get friends and family out of SA.

I also knew a family who escaped Zimbabwe after their family farm was attacked and confiscated; the government condoned it and the family lost everything.

Things are not OK in South Africa, as much as many in the U.S. and EU want to pretend otherwise.

South Africa is not Zimbabwe, but whites have been trying to conflate what happened in Zimbabwe with violence against white farmers in SA since apartheid ended.

And yes, SA has a very high crime rate. I lived there from '05-'07 and almost every South African had a story of being robbed, home invasions. Criminal gangs would hit a mall, clean out a jewelry store, and sometimes that would involved someone being shot and killed. I was on a safari and the front desk of the lodge was robbed right before we returned from an evening drive. There is a lot of crime there and yes, a lot of it happens to whites. Not necessarily because they are white but BECAUSE THEY HAVE THE MONEY. Crime also happens to wealthy and middle class black South Africans too. And I honestly think many of you would be amazed at the high standard of living you can attain in South Africa with a little bit of money.

But all of that is a very far cry from a government-sponsored white genocide that would necessitate refugee status for Afrikaners. That's not happening. And that's the the whole point that people are making.

A genocide is not required as a matter of law to be granted asylum in the U.S.

The law states that to establish refugee status, only need to prove "that RACE, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion was or will be at least one central REASON FOR PERSECUTING the applicant."

No genocide is required.

Anonymous wrote:OP are you white?

You need to move to S.Africa asap and get a piece of the dream !!!

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
why is pointing out that he was using photos from a massacre in the DRC outrage? people are pointing out facts.

Because it wasn't just a photo of DRC, but a photo of the whole article. The article discusses South Africa and DRC(PRC in the article).
The media are taking that one photo and trying to claim Trump put up a fake picture. They aren't even mentioning the site or linking the article.

Okay. Like what the f? Hold Trump to the same standards you held Biden. It was a picture from the Congo that Trump said was proof of white genocide. This would have ended any other president’s administration. You say it is the media. The media forced him to use a picture of the Congo and claim it was proof of South African genocide. It was a deliberate lie and propaganda.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
why is pointing out that he was using photos from a massacre in the DRC outrage? people are pointing out facts.

Because it wasn't just a photo of DRC, but a photo of the whole article. The article discusses South Africa and DRC(PRC in the article).
The media are taking that one photo and trying to claim Trump put up a fake picture. They aren't even mentioning the site or linking the article.

Okay. Like what the f? Hold Trump to the same standards you held Biden. It was a picture from the Congo that Trump said was proof of white genocide. This would have ended any other president’s administration. You say it is the media. The media forced him to use a picture of the Congo and claim it was proof of South African genocide. It was a deliberate lie and propaganda.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
why is pointing out that he was using photos from a massacre in the DRC outrage? people are pointing out facts.

Because it wasn't just a photo of DRC, but a photo of the whole article. The article discusses South Africa and DRC(PRC in the article).
The media are taking that one photo and trying to claim Trump put up a fake picture. They aren't even mentioning the site or linking the article.