WFMU-FM is podcasting For The Record–You can subscribe to the podcast HERE.
Mr. Emory’s entire life’s work is available on a 64GB flash drive, available for a contribution of $65.00 or more (to KFJC). (This is a new feature–the old, 32GB flashdrive will not hold the new material. Click Here to obtain Dave’s 45+ years’ work, complete through fall/early winter of 2024 and containing the Conversations with Monte .)
“Political language…is designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable, and to give an appearance of solidity to pure wind.”
Mr. Emory has launched a new Patreon site. Visit at: Patreon.com/DaveEmory
FTR#1375 This program was recorded in one, 60-minute segment.
Photo Credit: Wikipedia
Introduction: Beginning analysis into Team Trump’s entry into the arena, we note the similarity between the rapidity with which Hitler moved to restructure the government to suit his needs and how Team Trump is replacing the civil service and abusing the fundamentals of the constitution.
Key Points of Discussion and Analysis Include: Hitler’s contesting of an election he lost by 6 million votes; Review of a paper published by the New York Federal Reserve Board that opined that the 1918 influenza pandemic helped pave the way for the rise of Adolf Hitler; An article that opines that the rightward shift in the sentiments of young voters may well be due to the pandemic; Review of the Broederbond–the central organization in the Apartheid government in South Africa and a direct extension of the German Nazi Party under Hitler; Elon Musk’s meeting with the AfD’s Alice Weidel, in which they agreed that Adolf Hitler was a communist; The AfD and other European rightwing parties were invited to the inauguration; Adolf Hitler’s role as an undercover German Army intelligence agent in the aftermath of World War II.
Dorothy Thompson
Photo Credit: Wikipedia
1a.–The program begins with an excerpt of FTR#1356 about the rapidity with which Hitler implemented his program.
1b.“What the Press Got Wrong About Hitler” by Timothy W. Ryback; The Atlantic; 3/21/2025.
. . . . Hitler acquired German citizenship on Friday, February 26, 1932. The following day he announced his candidacy for president, setting the stage for a battle with Paul von Hindenburg, the 84-year-old field marshal and incumbent German president. One campaign poster showed Hindenburg as Atlas bearing the world on his shoulders alongside a diminutive caricature of Hitler jumping up and down in his brown shirt and screaming, “Ich bin noch viel starker!”—“I am so much stronger!” In April, Hindenburg crushed Hitler by 6 million votes. Hitler had his chief legal counsel, Hans Frank, go to court to have the election results overturned, claiming that there had been irregularities by state officials and that Hitler had been unfairly disadvantaged by not being permitted to speak on the radio. The presiding judge chided Frank for wasting the court’s time and dismissed the case, observing that 6 million votes was too large a margin for any of Hitler’s claims to have made a difference. . . .
1c.“Fed Study Ties 1918 Flu Pandemic to Nazi Party Gains” by Quint Forgey; Politico; 5/05/2020.
A new academic paper produced by the Federal Reserve Bank of New York concludes that deaths caused by the 1918 influenza pandemic “profoundly shaped German society” in subsequent years and contributed to the strengthening of the Nazi Party.
The paper, published this month and authored by New York Fed economist Kristian Blickle, examined municipal spending levels and voter extremism in Germany from the time of the initial influenza outbreak until 1933, and shows that “areas which experienced a greater relative population decline” due to the pandemic spent “less, per capita, on their inhabitants in the following decade.”
The paper also shows that “influenza deaths of 1918 are correlated with an increase in the share of votes won by right-wing extremists, such as the National Socialist Workers Party” in Germany’s 1932 and 1933 elections.
Together, the lower spending and flu-related deaths “had a strong effect on the share of votes won by extremists, specifically the extremist national socialist party” — the Nazis — the paper posits. “This result is stronger for right-wing extremists, and largely non-existent for left-wing extremists.”
Despite becoming popularly known as the Spanish flu, the influenza pandemic likely originated in the United States at a Kansas military base, eventually infecting about one-third of the global population and killing at least 50 million people worldwide, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
Germany experienced roughly 287,000 influenza deaths between 1918 and 1920, Blickle writes.
The paper’s findings are likely due to “changes in societal preferences” following the 1918 outbreak, Blickle argues — suggesting the influenza pandemic’s disproportionate toll on young people may have “spurred resentment of foreigners among the survivors” and driven voters to parties “whose platform matched such sentiments.”
The conclusions come amid fears that the current coronavirus pandemic will shake up international politics and spur extremism around the world, as officials and public health experts look to previous outbreaks for guidance on how to navigate the months and years to come.
For decades, America’s young voters have been deeply—and famously—progressive. In 2008, a youthquake sent Barack Obama to the White House. In 2016, voters ages 18 to 29 broke for Hillary Clinton by 18 points. In 2020, they voted for Joe Biden by 24 points. In 2024, Donald Trump closed most of the gap, losing voters under 30 by a 51–47 margin. In one recent CBS poll, Americans under 30 weren’t just evenly split between the parties. They were even more pro-Trump than Boomers over 65.
Precisely polling teens and 20-somethings is a fraught business; some surveys suggest that Trump’s advantage among young people might already be fading. But young people’s apparent lurch right is not an American-only trend.
“Far-right parties are surging across Europe—and young voters are buying in,” the journalist Hanne Cokelaere wrote for Politico last year. In France, Germany, Finland, and beyond, young voters are swinging their support toward anti-establishment far-right parties “in numbers equal to and even exceeding older voters.” In Germany, a 2024 survey of 2,000 people showed that young people have adopted a relatively new “gloomy outlook” on the future. No surprise, then, that the far-right Alternative für Deutschland has become the most popular party among Germans under 30. Like most interesting phenomena, this one even has a German name: Rechtsruck, or rightward shift.
What’s driving this global Rechtsruck? It’s hard to say for sure. Maybe the entire world is casting a protest vote after several years of inflation. Last year was the largest wipeout for political incumbents in the developed world since the end of the Second World War. One level deeper, it wasn’t inflation on its own, but rather the combination of weak real economic growth and record immigration that tilled the soil for far-right upstarts, who can criticize progressive governments on both sides of the Atlantic for their failure to look out for their own citizens first.
There is another potential driver of the global right turn: the pandemic.
Pandemics might not initially seem to cash out in any particular political direction. After all, in the spring of 2020, one possible implication of the pandemic seemed to be that it would unite people behind a vision of collective sacrifice—or, at least, collective appreciation for health professionals, or for the effect of vaccines to reduce severe illness among adults. But political science suggests that pandemics are more likely to reduce rather than build trust in scientific authorities. One cross-country analysis published by the Systemic Risk Center at the London School of Economics found that people who experience epidemics between the ages of 18 and 25 have less confidence in their scientific and political leadership. This loss of trust persists for years, even decades, in part because political ideology tends to solidify in a person’s 20s.
The paper certainly matches the survey evidence of young Americans. Young people who cast their first ballot in 2024 were “more jaded than ever about the state of American leadership,” according to the Harvard Political Review. A 2024 analysis of Americans under 30 found the “lowest levels of confidence in most public institutions since the survey began.” In the past decade alone, young Americans’ trust in the president has declined by 60 percent, while their trust in the Supreme Court, Wall Street, and Congress has declined by more than 30 percent.
Another way that COVID may have accelerated young people’s Rechtsruck in America and around the world was by dramatically reducing their physical-world socializing. That led, in turn, to large increases in social-media time that boys and girls spent alone. The Norwegian researcher Ruben B. Mathisen has written that “social media [creates] separate online spheres for men and women.” By trading gender-blended hangouts in basements and restaurants for gender-segregated online spaces, young men’s politics became more distinctly pro-male—and, more to the point, anti-feminist, according to Mathisen. Norwegian boys are more and more drawn to right-wing politics, a phenomenon “driven in large part by a new wave of politically potent anti-feminism,” he wrote. Although Mathisen focused on Nordic youth, he noted that his research built on a body of survey literature showing that “the ideological distance between young men and women has accelerated across several countries.”
These changes may not be durable. But many people’s political preferences solidify when they’re in their teens and 20s; so do other tastes and behaviors, such as musical preferences and even spending habits. Most famously, so-called Depression babies, who grew up in the 1930s, saved more as adults, and there is some evidence that corporate managers born in the ’30s were unusually disinclined to take on loans. Perhaps the 18-to-25-year-old cohort whose youths were thrown into upheaval by COVID will adopt a set of sociopolitical assumptions that form a new sort of ideology that doesn’t quite have a name yet. As The Atlantic’s Anne Applebaum has written, many emerging European populist parties now blend vaccine skepticism, “folk magic” mysticism, and deep anti-immigration sentiment. “Spiritual leaders are becoming political, and political actors have veered into the occult,” she wrote.
New ideologies are messy to describe and messier still to name. But in a few years, what we’ve grown accustomed to calling Generation Z may reveal itself to contain a subgroup: Generation C, COVID-affected and, for now, strikingly conservative. For this micro-generation of young people in the United States and throughout the West, social media has served as a crucible where several trends have fused together: declining trust in political and scientific authorities, anger about the excesses of feminism and social justice, and a preference for rightward politics.
Elon Musk and a German far-right leader appeared to come to a truly bizarre agreement during a livestreamed X chat Thursday: Adolf Hitler was a communist.
Musk had been plugging the chat with the AfD (Alternative for Germany) co-leader Alice Weidel for days, and given his recent penchant for right-wing views—and public backing of the party—it was hardly a surprise that the pair hit it off.
What was a surprise, according to Wired, was how “deeply weird” the conversation got. And among the strangest lines to come out of the chin wag was that Musk and Weidel reckon Hitler, the fascist dictator of Germany from 1933 to 1945, was in fact a communist.
However, on day one of coming to power, Hitler banned the Communist Party of Germany. . . .
1f. Next, the program excerpts Miscellaneous Archive Show M5, about Adolf Hitler’s role as an undercover German Army Intelligence Agent.
1g.“The transatlantic far right;” GermanForeignPolicy.com/Jan. 21, 2025.
The new US administration invites far-right parties, including the AfD, to Trump’s inauguration – an initiative for normalisation and transatlantic networking.
WASHINGTON/BERLIN (own report) — The new US administration has offered the AfD and other extreme right-wing parties from around Europe a stage for their further normalisation and for transatlantic networking. This is the significance of their invitation to President Donald Trump’s inauguration. Of the many heads of state and government in the European Union, only the most right-wing, Giorgia Meloni, was invited to the major event, which attracted worldwide attention. Trump’s team also welcomed representatives from the Belgian Vlaams Belang, the Spanish Vox party, the French Reconquête! party and, from outside the EU, the British Reform UK party. The AfD was also represented in the US capital with two of its senior functionaries. Their presence at Trump’s inauguration will effectively counteract attempts by the political establishment to ostracise them. Indeed, they will also be integrated to some extent into the network of transatlantic relations. We can see the emergence of the vague outlines of a transatlantic hard right. The Trump administration, now the driving force behind this trend, is backed by tech oligarchs such as Elon Musk. These supporters are among the richest people in the world and some of them openly espouse anti-democratic ideologies.
Meloni plays a key role
Italy’s Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni was the only one of the heads of state and government of the 27 EU member states to receive an official invitation to Donald Trump’s inauguration on Monday. Interestingly, Hungary’s Prime Minister Viktor Orbán, who is quite close to Trump politically, was not invited. Meloni had previously visited Trump in Mar-a-Lago on 4 January for an exchange of views. She is now considered predestined for the role of mediator between the new US president and the EU in the context of likely conflicts going forward. Trump’s inauguration was attended by top officials from various parties that form a right-wing faction in the European Parliament together with Meloni’s own party, Fratelli d’Italia. The European Conservatives and Reformists group (ECR) embraces figures such as the former Prime Minister of Poland, Mateusz Morawiecki from the PiS (Prawo i Sprawiedliwość) party, and George Simion, the leader of the Romanian AUR party (Alianța pentru Unirea Românilor). Politicians from parties that form another parliamentary faction in the European Parliament in alliance with Orbán’s Fidesz party were also present. This group, called the Patriots for Europe (PfE), includes the leaders of the Belgian Vlaams Belang, Tom Van Grieken, the Spanish Vox party, Santiago Abascal, and the Portuguese Chega! party, André Ventura.[1]
Nigel Farage and Éric Zemmour
The celebrations in Washington were also attended by far-right politicians from the three largest countries in Western Europe, i.e. France, the UK and Germany. Nigel Farage, now heading the Reform UK party, has been particular close to Trump for years. He also enjoyed overt support from Elon Musk, until recently when Farage came under attack from the tech oligarch for not allying with a violent hard-right figure in England. But Farage is likely to repair his relationship with Musk. Also travelling to the event were two politicians from the right wing of the Conservative Party, former Prime Minister Liz Truss and former Home Secretary Suella Braverman. In France, Éric Zemmour and Sarah Knafo from the Reconquête! party had received invitations, but not the leadership of the Rassemblement National (RN) around Marine Le Pen and Jordan Bardella.[2] A few years ago, Zemmour was seen as the future hope of the extreme right in France. But despite the backing of billionaire Vincent Bolloré, he only received seven per cent in the presidential race in April 2022. Zemmour did do well in well-healed constituencies such as the posh Parisian district of the 16th arrondissement or on the Côte d’Azur. However, anti-immigrant Zemmour and his party Reconquête! were ultimately unable to prevail against the rapidly growing RN.
The AfD
Finally, several officials from the Alternative for Germany (AfD) were invited from Germany. Although the AfD has traditionally had a difficult relationship with the United States, Trump enjoys considerable sympathy among their supporters. A survey conducted at the beginning of December revealed that 54% of AfD supporters were in favour of the German government putting aside its scepticisms and approaching the Trump administration with open arms. The proportion of party supporters who called for this stance was significantly higher in the AfD than in any other party (FDP: 37 per cent; CDU/CSU: 34 per cent; SPD: 24 per cent; Greens: 23 per cent).[3] In particular, AfD federal spokesperson Alice Weidel was invited to Trump’s inauguration show. She had been strongly praised by Elon Musk, who held a live online chat with her on 9 January. However, Weidel did not turn up in person, explaining that she was unavailable due to the election campaign commitments in Germany. The party’s co-spokesperson, Tino Chrupalla, went instead. Chrupalla actually belongs to the wing of the party that has major reservations about Germany’s relations with the United States. He has explicitly criticised Trump’s “America first” policies, but agreed to attend, accompanied by Beatrix von Storch, the deputy chair of the AfD parliamentary group.
Engaging and networking
Their high-profile participation in Trump’s inauguration is helping the parties of the far right in Europe to move ahead strongly on their agenda of normalisation. At EU level, the process is already well advanced. Through Meloni in particular, with her Fratelli d’Italia party and other parties of the ECR group, these political forces are now largely integrated into the political establishment of the Union.[4] This has not yet happened in the case of parties in the PfE group or the AfD but they, too, can now hope for some progress on normalisation. Attendance in Washington gave them the opportunities for networking both internationally and, above all, transatlantically. This is by no means a given. After all, the far right in Europe is traditionally more pro-Russian than transatlantic. Trump’s inauguration also drew politicians from the far right in Latin America, including Eduardo Bolsonaro, son of former Brazilian President Jair Bolsonaro. The latter is not allowed to leave Brazil due to ongoing criminal proceedings against him. Also in Washington was Argentina’s President Javier Milei, who has been seeking to establish a transatlantic network with Europe’s far right with visits to Spain and Germany (german-foreign-policy.com reported [5]).
‘The unthinking demos’
This second Trump administration, which will be driving forward the hard-right trend, is now supported by tech oligarchs such as Elon Musk. The three richest people in the world, Musk, Jeff Bezos (Amazon) and Mark Zuckerberg (Meta/Facebook), all attended the inauguration in a display of acquiescence. Trump’s early supporters in his first term included tech billionaire Peter Thiel. Thiel was previously involved in the founding not only of PayPal but also of Palantir, a tech company specialising in the analysis of huge amounts of data, especially under contracts from in the US intelligence services and the military. Thiel, who gathered together Trump’s billionaire entourage in Washington at a party on Saturday to mark the upcoming inauguration, is regarded as Vice President JD Vance’s political mentor. He published an essay in April 2009 in which he wrote, “In our time, the great task for libertarians is to find an escape from politics in all its forms – from the totalitarian and fundamentalist catastrophes to unthinking demos that guides so-called ‘social democracy’. Thiel declares, “I no longer believe that freedom and democracy are compatible.”[6]
More on this topic: An oligarch for the AfD and Ein Oligarch für die AfD (II).
[1] Nicholas Vinocur, Nahal Toosi: Who’s been invited? World’s far right populists pack guest list for Trump’s inauguration. politico.eu 16.01.2025.
[2] Lucas Minisini: Investiture de Donald Trump : les grandes manœuvres de Sarah Knafo pour se faire inviter avec Eric Zemmour. lemonde.fr 18.01.2025.
[3] Sollte die Bundesregierung aktiv auf Trump zugehen oder eher abwarten? In: Internationale Politik Januar/Februar 2025. p. 5.
[4] See also: The firewall is crumbling, Die Brandmauer rutscht (II) and Die Brandmauer bricht.
[5] See also: Milei auf Europareise (I) and Milei auf Europareise (III).
[6] Peter Thiel: The Education of a Libertarian. cato-unbound.org 13.04.2009.
The Political Implications of the UFO Phenomenon and the "ET" Myth
It’s white genocide. Non-stop white genocide being perpetrated by the government of South Africa. And President Trump isn’t going to quietly stand by while it happens. That’s the demented narrative that has eclipsed the US government’s relationship with South Africa in the opening months of the second Trump term. Months heavily defined by the seemingly unchecked antics of Trump’s co-President Elon Musk, someone who didn’t just grow up in apartheid South Africa but who hails from a family that was deeply invested in the apartheid South African project. This really is moment of enormous opportunity for Afrikaner movement’s seeking out special ‘assistance’ from the US.
And yet, as we’re going to see, while the white South African movements that have been actively lobbying the Trump administration have indeed been offered shockingly extensive ‘help’, it’s not the kind of help they are looking for. Because, so far, President Trump has been eager about on particular form of help for white South Africans: resettling them in the US and even granting them US citizenship. Trump really seems to want that to happen. In large numbers. And he’s basing it largely on fraudulent ‘white genocide’ claims. The kind of claims that, if true, would probably see a lot more takers with those US resettlement offers.
So what are the white South African leaders hoping to get from the Trump instead? Well, some are asking for Magnitsky-like targeted sanctions against their political opponents. And one group in particular has much bigger plans: Orania — a white separatist enclave of about 3,000 Afrikaners — is seeking US recognition as an independent state. The whites-only Orania — which has been a loud promoter of the ‘white genocide’ narrative in recent years — already effectively operates as an autonomous state inside South Africa and even issues its own currency. But they have much bigger ambitions. Former Orania Movement leader Carel Boshoff likens their ambitions to that of Israel and dreams of a territory stretching 1,000 miles away to the South African west coast. Boshoff’s grandfather, Hendrick Verwoerd, is widely viewed as the architect of apartheid.
Orania’s leaders — like other white South African leaders — have been making trips to the US to directly network with US conservatives. And while it sounds like they’ve been warmly embraced, they are still expressing dismay over the fact that the only help being offered by the Trump administration is an offer to resettle in the US. An offer of help that, again, would probably sound a lot more tempting if the ‘white genocide’ was actually happening.
But there is one other pretty significant ‘gift’ the Trump administration just handed to the South African white separatist movements, albeit a largely symbolic one: the new US ambassador to South African happens to be Brent Bozell III. And while Bozell is best known as a longstanding right-wing media critic, it turns out he has another biographic detail that should be very pleasing to the leaders of Orania and their fellow travelers. Bozell was an open opponent of the South African black liberation movement and even lobbied the Reagan administration against meeting with black South African leaders. It was back in 1987, when Bozell was serving as president of the National Conservative Political Action Committee when he declared that his organization was “proud to become a member of the Coalition Against ANC Terrorism.” That coalition consisted of at least 34 different right-wing groups that lobbied Reagan’s secretary of state, George Shultz, from a planned meeting with ANC president Oliver Tambo. The lobbying included holding hearings presided over by Jesse Helms. The lobbying failed and Shultz did end up meeting with Tambo. But the fact that Bozell has this in his background make his appointment as the new ambassador to South Africa a kind of slap in the face on behalf of the white separatists. It may not be the help they are asking for, but it’s an indication of the depths of Trump’s sympathies. The kind of sympathies that are presumably going to be lobbied even more aggressively now that they know they have Trump’s ear thanks to all those debunked white genocide claims:
“A South African court has dismissed claims of a white genocide in the country as “clearly imagined” and “not real”, undermining comments made by US President Donald Trump and his adviser Elon Musk.”
As we can see, this South African court ruling didn’t just block the estate of a wealthy white South African from leaving a $2.1m gift to a the “Boerelegioen”. The ruling implicitly undermined the public accusations of “white genocide” repeatedly made by President Trump and Elon Musk:
But President Trump isn’t just making public accusations of “large-scale killing of farmers”. He’s offering to allow white South Africans to settle in the US:
We’ve finally found a refugee community Trump is eager to embrace: white South Africans. the fact that this embrace is based on made up claims of white genocide is all the more on brand. And as the following article describes, while unfounded claims of white genocide may have resulted in Trump’s offers to resettle white South Africans inside the US, the white South African leadership isn’t interested in resettlements. They aren’t enthusiastic about the blanket sanctions Trump imposed on the country. Instead, they want the US’s help in targeting their political opponents, possibly with Magnitsky Act-like targeted sanctions. Which is a rather mild request for the leaders of group allegedly experiencing genocide:
“In a Friday post on his own Truth social platform, Mr. Trump once again offered “safe refuge” to Afrikaner farmers who feel unsafe in South Africa. That came after, on Feb. 7, Mr. Trump signed an executive order accusing the South African government of adopting racist laws that discriminate against Afrikaners, an ethnic group made up primarily of the descendants of Dutch settlers who started arriving in the country hundreds of years ago and now amount to about 13% of the population. ”
President Trump appears to be pretty serious about the “safe refuge” offer for white South Africans. He not just
repeatedly publicly making the offer. He’s already ordered Secretary of State Marco Rubio to prioritize an Afrikaner resettlement program:
Ironically, of of these diplomatic tensions arising from the false claims of “white genocide” are happening at the same time the South African government irked the US by accusing Israel of committing genocide in Gaza. A genocide with extensive US support.
And then there’s the diplomatic tension directly related to Elon Musk’s Starlink, which he claims are being unfairly discriminated against because he’s “not black”. A claim that distorts South Africa’s policies which requires that at least 30% of a company must be owned by previously disadvantaged groups as part of the criteria to gain a communications license:
But then we get to the part where we learn that the Afrikaners President Trump has been championing don’t want to resettle in the US. Nor are they excited about blanket tariffs. Instead, they’re asking for targeting Magnitsky-like sanctions against South African leaders:
And that growing Trump administration fixation on South African ‘white genocide’ brings us to the recent choice for the US ambassador to South Africa: Brent Bozell III. It turns out Bozell isn’t just a long-standing fixture of the right-wing media ecosystem. He’s also a longstanding open supporter of the apartheid government going back to the Reagan administration:
“As Black activists in South Africa fought against their country’s racist apartheid government decades ago, some on the American right felt they took it too far. One of those people who stepped up and spoke out against their fight was L. Brent Bozell III, the right-wing activist that President Trump tapped this week to serve as America’s ambassador to South Africa.”
Yes, the new ambassador to South Africa is Brent Bozell III, someone with a history of advocating on behalf of the apartheid government. Activism that included publications accusing the ANC of Soviet and communist ties back in the 80s:
And as we can see by Bozell’s social media posts following the 2013 death of Nelson Mandela, his loathing of the anti-apartheid movement hadn’t dissipated. Which underscores how the selection of Bozell as the new South African ambassador is intended to be a slap in the face post-apartheid South Africa:
The Trump administration just keeps handing the Afrikaner community more and more symbolic goodies. And yet, as the following piece describes, the full ambitions of this movement isn’t simply sanctions on their political opponents. As the leaders of the Orania whites-only separatist enclave describe, they want official recognition of their ethnostate as an independent state. Or at least that’s a start. Because as we’re also going to see, Orania — which has a population of around 3,000 — doesn’t just have a rapidly growing population. It also has dreams of a much larger territory stretching 1,000 miles away to the South African west coast:
““We wanted to... gain recognition, with the American focus on South Africa now,” Orania Movement leader Joost Strydom told Reuters, on a hill strewn with bronzes of past Afrikaner leaders, including from the era of racist white minority rule that was ended by internal resistance and international outrage.”
As we can see, all the “American focus” on South Africa at the moment has the residents of Orania feeling optimistic. Of course, that’s not so much an “American focus” as it is Donald Trump’s and Elon Musk’s focus. But if you had to choose two people in the US government to champion your cause at this point those are the two individuals you want on your side. Especially if your movement happens to be a white nationalist movement. It’s not hard to see why Orania’s leaders are seeking ‘autonomous entity’ recognition from the Trump administration. This is probably the best opportunity they’re ever going to get. And yet, as we can see, while they had high hopes for some sort of autonomous entity recognition, the Trump administration only seemed to want to talk about resettling white South Africans to the US. Trump seems to genuinely desire a large Afrikaner refugee community in the US. Hence all the Trump administration clamoring about ‘white genocide’. A ‘white genocide’ narrative Orania has been promoting for years. It’s a sadly ironic situation: all the false claims about ‘white genocide’ have succeeded in garnering the US president’s sympathy but now that president is only offering to resettle the alleged genocide victims when all they really wanted was official recognition of their ethnostate:
Also note how the leader of the Orania Movement, Carel Boshoff, just happens to be the grandson of Hendrick Verwoerd, the architect of apartheid. But also not how Boshoff is openly dreaming of a territory stretching to the west coast nearly 1,000 miles away. Those are the kinds of dreams that suggest Orania has much more than just hopes for recognition as an autonomous state. Orania has vast territorial ambitions:
And those dreams of a much larger chunk of land stretching 1,000 miles away brings us to another important detail in this story: the booming population. This is a rapidly growing movement:
It’s a rapidly growing separatist movement that has no intention of going anywhere. Quite the opposite.
Will the Trump administration give up on its Afrikaner resettlement ambitions? President Trump seems to genuinely want to see an influx of white immigrants and it’s hard to imagine he wouldn’t be gleeful about becoming the chief patron for that new US community. But they aren’t interested. So what’s Trump going to offer them next? The assistance they’re asking for in setting up an ethnostate? Or will he just try to sweeten the resettlement incentives? It’s worth keeping in mind that the closer Trump returns the US towards a formal white supremacist government, the sweeter those resettlement offers are implicitly going to get so we might not want to rule that out quite yet.