patrick.net

HeadSet says

MolotovCocktail says

Media outlets use different pics all the time. That doesn't dispute the story.

Using false pictures ruins credibility. I understand that file photos are used at times, but they should be labeled as file photos.

Turns out this is the correct photo, according to the source. Meanwhile, Fortwaye hasn't provided any proof otherwise.



https://apnews.com/article/chickens-euthanized-animal-neglect-farm-61459549d78555f7fe121d6461b6bd41

Living in the Midwest, I've yet to meet a black farmer, ever. I don't claim to have ever studied up on SA. But blacks don't do much well and I don't care how that sounds. Taking over a farm here in IL with say a black husband and wife with 6 black helpers and 1k acres, it would be toast in minutes. Their heads would be spinning.

Farmers don't just drive tractors. They're mechanics as well. Shit breaks minutes matter to get equipment back online not days when planting and harvesting. It's chemistry of the soil as well. Again, haven't met a black with those skills and it's highly unlikely in SA that they have any of what I mention.

If it's arable soil, let them farm it and give them a cut and leave the farmers alone. The alternative will hurt because they don't have the skill set to farm and the country will be poorer like the rest of Africa for the most part.

https://www.theepochtimes.com/us/trump-ramaphosa-clash-over-afrikaner-genocide-in-white-house-meeting-5861261

Trump Confronts Ramaphosa Over ‘Afrikaner Genocide’ in Oval Office Meeting

President Donald Trump and South African President Cyril Ramaphosa clashed during a meeting at the White House on Wednesday, with Trump presenting what he said was evidence of violence and systematic targeting of white farmers, an accusation Ramaphosa rejected.

The tense exchange occurred as diplomatic tensions grow over allegations that South Africa has discriminated against white farmers, engaged in “white genocide,” and has deepened its ties with Hamas and Iran.

Did the White House get a fast food franchise bust up?

White population in south africa is 10% they own 80% of land. Which leads to how did they take over so much land. Here is what I got in Google

White people's disproportionate land ownership in South Africa is a direct consequence of historical policies and actions, primarily during the colonial and apartheid eras, which systematically dispossessed the Black majority of their land.
Here's a breakdown of how this happened:
1. Colonial Era Dispossession:
Initial Land Seizures: Starting with Dutch settlement in the 17th century, land was progressively seized from indigenous populations through various means, including conquest, treaties (often unequal), and forced displacement.
Expansion and Control: British colonization further solidified this trend, leading to increased white settlement and dispossession of African people from their ancestral lands.
2. The 1913 Natives Land Act:
Land Segregation: This pivotal piece of legislation formalized racial segregation in land ownership, restricting Black Africans from owning or even renting land outside of designated "reserves," which comprised only a small fraction of the total land area (initially about 7%, later increased to 13%).
Entrenching White Dominance: The Act effectively denied Black South Africans access to the vast majority of land, ensuring that it remained in the hands of the white minority.
3. Apartheid Era Land Policies:
Group Areas Act: This and other apartheid legislation further entrenched segregation and land dispossession, forcing Black people into overcrowded and often poorly resourced "homelands" or townships, while white people controlled prime agricultural land and urban areas.
Forced Removals: Millions of Black South Africans were forcibly removed from their land and homes during the apartheid era to make way for white-owned farms or settlements.
4. Legacy of Inequality:
Post-Apartheid Challenges: Despite the end of apartheid in 1994, the legacy of these policies continues to affect land ownership patterns in South Africa. White people still own a disproportionate amount of land, particularly agricultural land.
Slow Pace of Reform: While the post-apartheid government has implemented land reform programs aimed at redistributing land and addressing historical injustices, progress has been slow due to various factors, including the "willing buyer, willing seller" approach, legal challenges, and insufficient resources.
In summary, the vast land ownership by white people in South Africa is a consequence of historical dispossession, discriminatory legislation, and the enduring legacy of colonial and apartheid policies that systematically marginalized and dispossessed Black South Africans of their land.

So what, that could be said of EVERY SINGLE COUNTRY IN THE WORLD. All you have to do is go back far enough.

KgK one says

White population in south africa is 10% they own 80% of land. Which leads to how did they take over so much land. Here is what I got in Google

They began digging wells, waterworks, etc. over grasslands that Bushmen simply hunter-gathered through with a very low density of person:land.

The reason the Bushmen - who once dominated all Africa, as proven by some closely related languages spoken in East Africa, 100s of miles from the South African Border - lived in the Savannah was that Bantus and Zulus ejected THEM from more benign climes.

Glock-n-Load says

So what, that could be said of EVERY SINGLE COUNTRY IN THE WORLD. All you have to do is go back far enough.

yes, but theirs barely ended in the 90s. there’s still people who lived through it and are today fucked by it. apartheid ended, land didn’t get redistributed

KgK one says

Which leads to how did they take over so much land. Here is what I got in Google

White people's disproportionate land ownership in South Africa is a direct consequence of historical policies and actions, primarily during the colonial and apartheid eras, which systematically dispossessed the Black majority of their land.
Here's a breakdown of how this happened:
1. Colonial Era Dispossession:

Any cursory look at history shows that stronger groups, everywhere and always, appropriate resources from any weaker groups within their range by any means necessary.
The question to me is what made White Western Civilization, in Europe, North America, & South Africa, suddenly the weaker group, giving up resources with little struggle?
The Reconquista in California is unstoppable, more than 40% of Californians speak a language other than English at home. Coincidentally an incredible 40% of Californians are on Medicaid.
Around 22% of the U.S. population speaks a language other than English at home.

America is occupied. Strong groups are no longer physical or even weapon dominant. It’s psychological.

https://beforeitsnews.com/agriculture/2013/06/whites-never-stole-land-from-black-south-africans-2448548.html

Historic documents show that the Black Population in South Africa has thrived over the past 100 years. Its black population increased by an astonishing 920% since 1913, mainly thanks to the lavish food supplies produced by ‘white’ farmers and the socio-economic-medical benefits of Western infrastructure.

Meanwhile its white population remained stagnant: in 1913 there were 1,2million whites and 100 years later, there are an estimated 3,4million whites. At least 1million ‘whites’ have already fled since the start of black rule in 1994: an estimated 70,000 whites have already been killed by black-racist murder gangs, amongst them at least 4,000 white ( mostly Boer Afrikaans-speaking) farmers and family-members. ...

In reality, “whites who came to South Africa in 1652 and thereafter, found a land devoid of basic development and infrastructure, sparsely populated by meandering tribes who had no written word and whose way of life was the absolute antithesis of Western mores.

“It is now acknowledged that the Khoi-San groups, and their sub-groups, are the indigenous peoples of South Africa.
“Whites and black African groups arrived in various parts of the country around the same time. They met at the Fish River in the Eastern Cape, and wars followed.” ...

The TAU also pointed out that prior to the arrival of the whites, blacks did not have any concept of land ownership or even writing. ...

A great migration of black people from Great Lakes region southwards…

“It is known that a great migration of black people took place from the Great Lakes region southwards, eventually reaching Southern Africa. Numerous reports exist as to which tribe went exactly where. But these reports are not the historical property of the black peoples. ...

Only 6 percent of farmers in South Africa produce 95% of all the food for 53-million people…

This means that only 6 percent of farmers in South Africa produce 95 percent of the food for 53 million people.

So, what kind of numbers are we talking here? Tens of thousands, thousands, hundreds, tens per year?

And why aren't they forming militias, patroling their land, fighting back?

RWSGFY says

So, what kind of numbers are we talking here? Tens of thousands, thousands, hundreds, tens per year?

And why aren't they forming militias, patroling their land, fighting back?

our government likes to choose whom is special and needs help. I really don’t think our government represents us.

Fortwaye says

RWSGFY says

So, what kind of numbers are we talking here? Tens of thousands, thousands, hundreds, tens per year?

And why aren't they forming militias, patroling their land, fighting back?

our government likes to choose whom is special and needs help. I really don’t think our government represents us.

Tangent. Do we have the numbers? One can't call 8 death per year a genocide, so it must be more.

PS.Unless the guy is "being sarcastic" 🤡

There 10 items on the list of factors(?) that make a genocide. Supposedly, SA meets 8 out of 10 of those items.

Maybe a separate homeland for whites is a good answer.

https://www.coffeeandcovid.com/p/my-familiar-thursday-may-22-2025

South Africa’s President, Cyril “Chuck” Ramaphosa, 72, asked for the meeting with President Trump, which was probably his first mistake. I’m going to try not to be too critical of Chuck, since it seems he is expecting. That, or we now know where Uncle Bosey is. But I digress.

The genesis of the “astonishing confrontation” was a series of sharp criticisms over the last few months by Trump and various Trump Administration officials aimed at South Africa’s non-diverse government. As the Times characterized it, Trump has baselessly accused the South African government of genocide against the country’s original inhabitants, the Afrikaners, who happen to be people of pallor.

The problems have been growing for months. The Times seemed most offended about a recent official visit from white Afrikaner lobbyists, since the White House’s media briefing called them “civil rights leaders.” How dare they. Another widely covered story last week reported about how, after suspending all other refugee claims, DHS admitted dozens of white South African families to the US as political refugees, which appeared to officially endorse the “genocide” agenda.

In February, Trump signed an Executive Order pausing all foreign aid to South Africa in response to a new law called the “Expropriation Act,” signed by Ramaphosa himself (not the Autopen), which allows the South African government to confiscate white people’s land without compensation. In March, Secretary of State Rubio expelled South Africa’s ambassador to the US, Ebrahim Rasool, calling him “a race-baiting politician who hates America,” applying to Ebrahim the dreaded diplomatic designation of persona non grata.

Anyway, President Ramaphosa, for those reasons and maybe most of all because of Trump’s 31% tariffs, finally wished to meet face-to-face, to convince President Trump through the force of his affable personality that the American President was wrong, that there is not actually any race problem in South Africa. The Times, showing the kind of keen journalistic skepticism it normally reserves for claims of Biden cognitive impairment or jab injuries, felt the matter was settled, since President Ramaphosa’s government’s official crime statistics “prove” there is no problem:

The American president was not much interested in the answer,
which is that police statistics do not show that white people are
more vulnerable to violent crime than other people in South Africa.

In outrage, the Times claimed President Trump staged the meeting —a meeting he didn’t ask for — for political optics. But, arguably, Chuck started it, and not particularly helpfully. South Africa ironically fielded an all-black delegation to rebut claims of anti-white racism. Bad optics. True, Chuck hauled along two token white golfers, but the large political team accompanying President Ramaphosa was so monochromatic and so non-diverse it would have set an HR manager’s hair on fire.

The two leaders chatted genially at first. But problems started when Ramaphosa, prompted by a reporter’s question, strained to deny the allegations of a "white genocide.” President Trump saw him coming 1,000 miles away. He turned to an aide and said, “play the video.” The Oval Office lights dramatically dimmed, and viewers (and the South African delegation) endured a painful five minutes of video clips showing one black South African leader calling for the death of white farmers after another. ...

Ironically, last October, South Africa officially accused Israel of genocidal acts in the International Court of Justice. Equally ironically, when Trump questioned one of Ramaphosa’s token white golfers, things went sideways. Reteif Goosen, who once survived a golfing lighting strike, admitted his South African family relies on an electric fence for protection, their farm suffers constant arson attacks “trying to drive us away,” that many of his father’s friends have been murdered, and that his brothers and his mother have been attacked in their homes.

More bad optics.

Trump and Ramaphosa continued the meeting, had lunch and, according to reports, discussed trade in a friendly way. But the narrative fuse was lit, and the dramatic Oval Office video dominated yesterday’s headlines and social media. If nothing else, we can say —wielding his customary patented media prowess— President Trump has at least focused the world’s attention on the plight of white South African farmers.

Patrick says

that’s not genocide, just very shitty economic conditions, unrest and violence. but not genocide. and it’s not for us to bring everyone who has problems. it’s their colony, they can fix it themselves. otherwise we are war and fixing entire world out of fake compassion. if that’s genocide, entire mexico can move right on in with drug cartel wars.

i’m simply not supporting any migration till Trump starts bullshitting us and actually deports 15m illegals he promised. because all we got from him is noise, no action. Trump built a transactional relationship with his supporters. i’m waiting on promises kept part, or no deal.

Glock-n-Load says

There 10 items on the list of factors(?) that make a genocide. Supposedly, SA meets 8 out of 10 of those items.

The number of victims sure is one of them, right? What is it per annum?

Patrick says

Love pictures. Prefer numbers when forming a position.

I see claims of between 8 and 50 farmers killed in SA in 2024.

What number did Donnie present?

Patrick says

Maybe a separate homeland for whites is a good answer.

They are not doing it though.

RWSGFY says

I see claims of between 8 and 50 farmers killed in SA in 2024.

What number did Donnie present?

if that’s genocide, any of our cities crime stats are practically holocaust bordering human extinction.

Fortwaye says

RWSGFY says

I see claims of between 8 and 50 farmers killed in SA in 2024.

What number did Donnie present?

if that’s genocide, any of our cities crime stats are practically holocaust bordering human extinction.

One can argue that our city crime is random while killing of farmers is systemic. But the numbers must be substantial. You can't call something systemic on a set of 4-5 cases, lol.

you can’t, statistics don’t prove it

Isn't this why God invented Zulus? Airdrop them in armed and unleash them on the fatted bush league 65 IQers. Nothing like a good Heglelian Tribal slaughter to take the heat off the farmers.

Fortwaye says

you can’t, statistics don’t prove it

So far I didn't see any reliable numbers.

Ceffer says

Isn't this why God invented Zulus? Airdrop them in armed and unleash them on the fatted bush league 65 IQers. Nothing like a good Heglelian Tribal slaughter to take the heat off the farmers.

Wut?

Trump to reduce refugee slots over 90% next year - but reserve most of the slots remaining for... BOERS!!!!!!
https://patrick.net/comment?comment_id=2212596

https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2025/10/06/report-trump-to-cut-refugee-admissions-94-percent-mainly-aiding-white-south-africans/

President Donald Trump is reportedly looking to reduce annual refugee admissions by 94 percent compared to former President Joe Biden’s last year in office.

According to a report from the New York Times, Trump will reduce the refugee resettlement program’s annual cap to 7,500 admissions after Biden imported more than 100,000 refugees in Fiscal Year 2024 alone.

The refugee resettlement cap is merely a numerical limit and does not serve as a figure to be reached like a goal.

Most of the slots, according to the Times, would be reserved for South Africans who are the descendants of Dutch and French settlers.

Already this year, the Trump administration has welcomed such South Africans to the United States as refugees — a move that came with rebuke from the establishment media, Democrats, and refugee agencies, even as the refugees faced racial discrimination and violence in their home country.

https://www.westhawaiitoday.com/2025/10/31/nation-world-news/trump-cuts-refugee-admissions-and-prioritizes-white-south-africans/

The Trump administration is drastically cutting the number of refugees it will admit to the United States, rejecting thousands of people fleeing war and persecution while reserving the record-low number of slots for mostly white Afrikaner South Africans.

The administration lowered the ceiling of refugee admissions to just 7,500 for the fiscal year that started this month, down from the cap of 125,000 set by the Biden administration last year, according to a notice in the Federal Register posted Thursday.

The notice made plans official that had been in the works for months. They overhaul a program that for decades made the U.S. a sanctuary from persecution and turn it into one that gives preference to English speakers and white people overseas whom President Donald Trump has pledged to protect.

The Afrikaners definitely have a legitimate complaint about persecution by blacks in South Africa, and it does make sense to prioritize people who can assimilate into America instantly. Elon may have had some influence on this decision.

But also, it feels like classic Trump trolling. He knows that the Democrats will be outraged about this, but that's exactly what he wants: free publicity for the plight of the Afrikaners, because it helps to illustrate how racist woke Democrats have been against white people. The more the left talks about it, the more it becomes apparent that their objection to prioritizing Afrikaners is entirely because they hate white people. That ultimately builds yet more support for Trump.

Patrick says

Maybe a separate homeland for whites is a good answer.

Sun is the enemy here . If whites stay away from equator sunny area they might survive or over centuries they will get melenin n turn dark.

https://www.instagram.com/reel/DM8Xgu3BJRO/

Why white ppl are white, sun is true enemy

https://thehill.com/policy/international/5651783-south-african-raid-us-refugee/

South African authorities raided a U.S. refugee facility in Johannesburg, briefly detaining U.S. staff who have been processing white Afrikaner refugees. ...

Trump earlier this year designated the lowest refugee cap in history, directing that the majority of the 7,500 slots go to white South Africans.