The right-wingers' hidden agenda for SA
White conservatives – some get upset if you call them right-wingers, even if their politics verges on neo-Nazism – are on a high around the world, following the election of Donald Trump.
Just as the US president has promised to 'Make America Great Again' so, too, have other right-leaning groups around the world been emboldened to accelerate their fightback against the perceived ills visited upon Western civilisation in general and white people in particular.
These range from 'woke' changes to culture and education and the ravages of legal and illegal immigration from countries whose people are slightly darker in hue.
And, around the world, the right has been flexing its muscles through networking – both on social media and in person – which has seen organisations like the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) gaining massively in influence.
CPAC has its roots in America but has achieved major success in Europe in the past few years.
ALSO READ: Afrikaner 'refugees' continue to arrive in US on commercial flights – reports
Across that continent, right-wingers have been coming into the mainstream, increasingly winning elections, as Europeans feel their countries are being overwhelmed by foreign people and foreign cultures.
A dedicated devotee of CPAC is AfriForum leader Ernst Roets who, along with others from South Africa, has been lobbying in both Europe and with Trump to bring about serious political change in South Africa.
Make no mistake – the issue of alleged persecution of whites, a fire lit by Roets and others, is a sideshow when compared with AfriForum's goal, which – as repeatedly stated by Roets – is to bring about 'decentralisation' and 'self-government' for communities.
That ideal has never been tested at the ballot box and, indeed, white voters have turned their backs on the idea of a 'Volkstaat'.
However, global conservative muscle will undoubtedly be applied to SA to move the country towards change, no matter what the majority may say.
NOW READ: Ramaphosa not condemning 'Kill the Boer' smacks of 'double standards', AfriForum says
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
TimesLIVE
23 minutes ago
- TimesLIVE
US legislators advance bill that could sanction SA over its foreign policy
US legislators have voted to advance a bill that proposes reviewing the US relationship with South Africa due to objections over its foreign policy and potentially imposing sanctions on South African officials. The US House foreign affairs committee voted 34-16 on Tuesday to send the US-South Africa Bilateral Relations Review Act to the full House of Representatives, where it could be subject to a vote, according to a video of the proceedings. The measure would need to pass the House and the Senate before it could be signed into law. Many bills at this stage never go to a vote. However, the committee's approval took the bill a step further and underscored tensions between Washington and Pretoria as South Africa seeks to fend off a looming 30% US tariff and counter false claims of white 'genocide' made by President Donald Trump. South Africa's foreign ministry and a spokesperson for President Cyril Ramaphosa declined to comment. The bill was introduced in April by Ronny Jackson, a Republican congressman from Texas who cheered the move on X, writing: 'South Africa made its choice when they abandoned America and our allies and sided with communists and terrorists.' The bill accuses South Africa of undermining US interests by maintaining close relationships with Russia and China, which are among its allies and trading partners. It also accuses South Africa of backing Palestinian militant group Hamas that is at war in Gaza with Israel, which South Africa has denied. South Africa has long been a supporter of the Palestinian cause and filed a case accusing Israel of genocide at the International Court of Justice in 2023, which is mentioned in the bill as one of its concerns. The bill proposes 'a full review of the bilateral relationship' and to 'identify South African government officials and ANC leaders eligible for the imposition of sanctions'. It says these would be people determined by Trump to have engaged in corruption or human rights abuses. No individuals are named. South Africa's relationship with the US has sharply deteriorated during Trump's second term, during which he has accused the government of anti-white racism and started a refugee programme for Afrikaners.
TimesLIVE
2 hours ago
- TimesLIVE
Columbia University to pay more than $200m to resolve Trump probes
Columbia University said on Wednesday it will pay more than $200m (R3.5bn) to the US government in a settlement with President Donald Trump's administration to resolve federal probes and have most of its suspended federal funding restored. Trump has targeted several universities since returning to office in January over the pro-Palestinian student protest movement that roiled college campuses last year. He welcomed the agreement between his administration and Columbia in a post on social media late on Wednesday. In March, the Trump administration said it was penalising Columbia over how it handled last year's protests by cancelling $400m in federal funding. It contended that Columbia's response to alleged anti-Semitism and harassment of Jewish and Israeli members of the university community was insufficient. 'Under today's agreement, a vast majority of the federal grants which were terminated or paused in March — will be reinstated and Columbia's access to billions of dollars in current and future grants will be restored,' the university said in a statement. Columbia said it also agreed to settle investigations brought by the US Equal Employment Opportunity Commission for $21m and that its deal with the Trump administration preserved its 'autonomy and authority over faculty hiring, admissions, and academic decision-making'. After the government cancelled funding, the school acquiesced later in March to a series of demands that included scrutiny of departments offering courses on the Middle East and other concessions that were widely condemned by US academics. Last week, Columbia adopted a controversial definition of anti-Semitism that equates it with opposition to Zionism. The school said it would no longer engage with pro-Palestinian group Columbia University Apartheid Divest. 'Imagine selling your students out just so you can pay Trump $221m and keep funding genocide,' the pro-Palestinian group said on Wednesday, calling the settlement a bribe. Israel denies genocide accusations in Gaza and casts its military action as 'self-defence' after a deadly October 2023 attack by Palestinian Hamas militants.
TimesLIVE
4 hours ago
- TimesLIVE
US appeals court blocks Trump's order curtailing birthright citizenship
A federal appeals court ruled on Wednesday that US President Donald Trump's executive order curtailing automatic birthright citizenship is unconstitutional and blocked its enforcement nationwide. The 2-1 decision by the San Francisco-based 9th US Circuit Court of Appeals marked the first time an appeals court has assessed the legality of Trump's order since the US Supreme Court in June curbed the power of lower court judges to enjoin that and other federal policies on a nationwide basis. The Supreme Court's June 27 ruling in litigation over Trump's birthright citizenship order limited the ability of judges to issue so-called universal injunctions and directed lower courts that had blocked the Republican president's policy nationally to reconsider the scope of their orders. But the ruling contained exceptions allowing courts to potentially still block it nationally again. That has already allowed a judge in New Hampshire to once again halt Trump's order from taking effect by issuing an injunction in a nationwide class action of children who would be denied citizenship under the policy. The 9th Circuit's majority in Wednesday's ruling said the Democratic-led states that had sued to block the policy — Washington, Arizona, Illinois and Oregon — likewise still were entitled to a nationwide injunction as a more narrow order would not provide them 'complete relief'. 'The court agrees that the president cannot redefine what it means to be American with the stroke of a pen,' Washington attorney-general Nick Brown said in a statement. The Trump administration could either ask a wider panel of 9th Circuit judges to hear the case or appeal directly to the Supreme Court, which is expected to have the final word in the litigation. 'We look forward to being vindicated on appeal,' said White House spokesperson Abigail Jackson. In a statement, she said the 9th Circuit misinterpreted the US constitution's 14th Amendment in reaching its decision. Trump signed the order on January 20, his first day back in office, as part of his hardline approach towards immigration. Trump's order directed federal agencies to refuse to recognise the citizenship of US-born children who do not have at least one parent who is an American citizen or lawful permanent resident, also known as a 'green card' holder. It was swiftly challenged in court by Democratic attorneys-general from 22 states and immigrant rights advocates who argued it violates the citizenship clause of the US constitution's 14th Amendment, long been understood to recognise that virtually anyone born in the US is a citizen. The constitution's 14th Amendment citizenship clause states that all 'persons born or naturalised in the US, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the US and of the state wherein they reside'. The first judge to block Trump's directive was Seattle-based US District judge John Coughenour, an appointee of Republican president Ronald Reagan, who called it 'blatantly unconstitutional'. The 9th Circuit's ruling upheld his decision. US Circuit judge Ronald Gould, writing for Wednesday's majority, said Coughenour rightly concluded that Trump's executive order violated the citizenship clause of the US constitution's 14th Amendment by denying citizenship to many persons born in the US. Gould said a geographically limited injunction would harm the four states by forcing them to overhaul their government benefits programmes to account for how people denied citizenship under Trump's order might move into them. 'It is impossible to avoid this harm absent a uniform application of the citizenship clause throughout the US,' Gould wrote. His opinion was joined by US Circuit judge Michael Hawkins, a fellow appointee of Democratic president Bill Clinton. US Circuit judge Patrick Bumatay, a Trump appointee, dissented, saying in his view the Democratic-led states lacked standing to challenge Trump's order, as he warned of the risks of 'judicial overreach'.
