Trump, Ramaphosa Meeting 'Ambush' Over Afrikaner Genocide Claims
Patrick Gaspard, US Ambassador to South Africa during the Obama Administration, reacts to the oval office meeting between President Trump and South African President Ramaphosa and claims by Trump that white Afrikaners are facing genocide, as well as Elon Musk's role in the increasingly tense relationship. (Source: Bloomberg)
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
3 hours ago
- Yahoo
Column: Will Tesla suffer if Musk alienates both political wings?
Donald Trump and Elon Musk — two epic disrupters of U.S. politics and the automotive industry, respectively and vice versa. Over the past year, they united over the election and efforts to cut government spending. They parted ways amicably … and then started trashing each other. It escalated quickly with Musk suggesting that the president be impeached and that he is implicated in the Jeffrey Epstein child-prostitution scandal. Musk later reportedly called the president before posting that he regretted some of his words: 'They went too far.' It was a remarkable breakup — incredible drama between the world's most powerful man and the world's richest man, who had been the closest of allies for hundreds of days of campaigning and governing. To the extent that it was a reality TV train wreck, I'd just as soon leave it be. But since the primary business in Musk's remarkable portfolio is nominally an automaker, it actually matters in this industry we cover. Sign up for Automotive Views, Automotive News' weekly showcase of opinions, insights, ideas and thought leadership. Love it or hate it, this disruptive era in which we live is providing us all with some real-life experiments in economics — the likes of which we probably thought we would never see. For decades, basically everyone who went to college was taught in an economics or history class that widespread tariffs would do more harm than good. Trump argues for a different approach, and he's pursuing it. Or he's pursuing it to negotiate for something else. In either case, we're now seeing how that works: So far, there's been a lot of paralysis, especially among suppliers and foreign automakers, but also a big investment announced recently by General Motors. His political strategy has been unorthodox, yet he's won two electoral colleges and one popular vote. He's only the 21st president to win two elections. So he's had success, whether some people like it or not. Same for Musk, of course: He approached the auto industry unlike anyone else — with an expensive electric car — had a couple of near-total collapses, and came out as the world's richest man and CEO of the world's most valuable automaker. That success helped propel his rocket business SpaceX and other ventures such as Starlink satellites and Twitter, which he bought and renamed X. But the disruptive move I'm watching was his decision to be an automaker CEO who got personally and financially involved in partisan politics. While new-vehicle sales skew to the affluent, when you sell something in the millions or tens of millions, a brand or model has to connect with a broad swath of people. And while there can be success with, say, a polarizing design, mass-market brands generally try to avoid alienating large chunks of their potential customer base. I've cited here before the story about Michael Jordan saying he didn't speak out on politics because 'Republicans buy sneakers, too.' In retrospect, he said it was just a funny line among friends. But the thing is that he wasn't wrong, and every business school graduate knows it. Musk, however, is not your typical MBA type. So out of his frustration with former President Joe Biden — who habitually sided with the UAW and its automakers against the U.S.-based global leader in EVs, even as he advocated for a carbon-neutral future — Musk threw an estimated quarter of a billion dollars behind the Trump campaign. That's an unbelievable sum of money to many of us, but when Trump won, it looked like the greatest bet ever. From late October to late December, Tesla stock more than doubled and its market cap approached $1.5 trillion. While Musk's political activism may have upset many of his loyal, environmentally motivated customers, there were a lot of reasons to be bullish on Tesla under Trump. It seemed likely that NHTSA and the SEC would take a more sympathetic view of the company's issues. Beyond that, Musk has refocused the company's future on artificial intelligence, humanoid robots and robotaxis. (Tesla said it plans to launch its service in Austin, Texas, on June 22.) A new administration with a deregulatory inclination toward self-driving cars was a significant tailwind. Now, those advantages for Tesla are gone or at least seemingly diminished. Structures that have legacy automakers paying to buy Tesla's credits for selling emission-free, fuel-efficient vehicles could be eliminated. (And let's not forget that Trump hinted at ending federal contracts with other Musk-affiliated companies.) Turning back to the auto business: The conventional wisdom is that Musk has now alienated all but the most apolitical consumers. Environmentally minded liberals might like EVs, but Musk's support of Trump (and the far-right Alternative for Deutschland party in Germany) has them seeking out other brands' offerings. There might have been an opportunity to become the preferred electric brand of the president's Make America Great Again movement — especially the tech-forward, high-income types and those motivated by the president's endorsement of the brand on the White House grounds. But after this month's blowup — with longtime Trump adviser Steve Bannon arguing to deport Musk — that notion seemed ever more remote. No fans on the left, no fans on the right. Is Elon out in deep water in an electric boat surrounded by sharks with no friends to bail him out? Maybe not. There is significant animus against Musk on the EV-inclined left, especially in the wake of his DOGE team's deep and sometimes chaotic cuts to government entities and programs. Certainly, protests at auto retail outlets are rare. The damage to stores is not acceptable, but it shows the intensity of the situation. But I still have to wonder how far consumers will follow those kinds of feelings. Michiganders, for instance, often assume that Americans prefer to buy American cars made by American (union) workers. But I've been to America, and most of them don't care. They want the best car for their money, whether it's American, German, Japanese or Korean. Some are clamoring for cheap Chinese cars: If Xi Jinping wants to pay for half of their EV, they ask, why not let him? So maybe they won't care about Elon's politics. Tesla sales are down a little this year, but some of that might be attributable to production hiccups. If the Model Y — the bestselling model in the world last year — provides a great value, they'll probably buy it regardless of what they think of the CEO. And now we get to find out. Have an opinion about this story? Tell us about it and we may publish it in print. Click here to submit a letter to the editor. Sign in to access your portfolio
Associated Press
8 hours ago
- Associated Press
Several killed as separatists clash with Malian army, Russian allies in the conflict-hit north
BAMAKO, Mali (AP) — Malian security forces clashed with members of an armed separatist group over two days, resulting in the deaths of 10 separatists, the Malian army said Friday. The Azawad separatists said it killed dozens of Malian soldiers and members of a Kremlin-controlled armed force. The clashes began with a military offensive in the northern Kidal region on Thursday, the Malian army said in a statement. On Friday, the Malian military's logistics convoy was ambushed before the attack was repelled, it added. The separatists reported they killed 'dozens' of Malian soldiers and fighters with the Kremlin-controlled African Corps in the ambush. The Azawad separatist movement has been fighting for years to create the state of Azawad in northern Mali. They once drove security forces out of the region before a 2015 peace deal that has since collapsed was signed to pave the way for some ex-rebels to be integrated into the Malian military. 'We recovered 12 trucks loaded with cereals, tankers full of diesel, one military pickup, and one armored vehicles from the 30 vehicles in the convoy,' Mohamed Maouloud Ramadan, spokesman for the Azawad separatists, said in a statement that acknowledged the death of three of their members. Viral videos shared by the separatists showed military trucks on fire in a large swathe of desert land amid gunfire as gun-wielding hooded young men posed in front of the trucks. The videos also showed bodies with uniforms that resemble those of the Malian army. The Associated Press could not independently verify the videos. The latest clashes show how difficult it is for security forces in Mali to operate in difficult terrains like Kidal, according to Rida Lyammouri, a Sahel expert at the Morocco-based Policy Center for the New South think tank. 'It's difficult to gather actionable intelligence to protect their convoys, and this gives a significant advantage to armed and jihadist groups', said Lyammouri. The latest attack occurred days after Russia's mercenary group Wagner – which for more than three years helped Malian security forces in the fight against armed groups – announced it was leaving the country. The Africa Corps, under the direct command of the Russian defense ministry, said it will remain in Mali. There are around 2,000 mercenaries in Mali, according to U.S. officials. It is unclear how many are with Wagner and how many are part of the Africa Corps.
Gizmodo
9 hours ago
- Gizmodo
The Manosphere Is at War With Itself Over Israel's Strike on Iran
From the outside, the manosphere often appears monolithic: a band of hyper-online masculinity influencers united in their war against feminism, political correctness, and what they see as the softening of Western civilization. Whether it's red-pillers, tradCons, incels, nationalists, or so-called alpha gurus, their message is usually loud, synchronized, and singular. But beneath the surface, the ecosystem is messy and fragmented. These men can't even agree on what a 'true alpha' is, other than to claim, for self-serving and brand-conscious reasons, that Donald Trump and Elon Musk are the ideal masculine archetypes. Now, a geopolitical crisis has cracked the whole thing wide open. For months, speculation swirled that Israel would launch a preventive strike on Iran. Inside the manosphere, this prospect was a source of simmering tension. Some influencers warned of a coming World War 3. Others tried to keep their feeds focused on fitness, feminism, and Western decline. But when Israel launched a large-scale airstrike on Iranian nuclear facilities late Thursday night, June 12, the fallout across the online masculinity space was immediate and brutal. The strike has exposed a bitter ideological rift. On one side are those rallying behind Israel, defending what they see as the values of Western civilization and Judeo-Christian supremacy. On the other flank are anti-interventionists, neo-traditionalists, and Muslim influencers who either support Iran or reject the idea of U.S. involvement in yet another Middle East conflict. What's unfolding is an identity crisis for a movement built on certainty and dominance. Ben Shapiro, co-founder of The Daily Wire, is leading the charge on the pro-Israel front. A longtime vocal supporter of Israel, Shapiro went live on YouTube shortly after the strike, streaming for over an hour to explain 'Why Israel was 100% right to do it.' His post on X and Daily Wire's live feed have been viewed by hundreds of thousands of users. Shapiro, who is Jewish, has since flooded his feed with support for Israel and shared any coverage that reinforces the idea that Trump and other global powers are backing the attack. To his 7.8 million followers, the message is clear: Israel isn't alone. But while Shapiro affirms Israel's role in defending the West, most of the manosphere's power players are sounding the alarm, and they are not on his side. Tucker Carlson, with 16.3 million followers on X, used his newsletter to blast the Trump administration's response, particularly that of Secretary of State Marco Rubio. Rubio said the U.S. was not involved in the attack, a claim Carlson flatly rejects. 'The U.S. says it was 'not involved.' That's not true,' Carlson wrote on June 13. 'This could be the final newsletter before an all-out war.' He warned that Iran's threat to retaliate will escalate and that American citizens may be the ones paying the price. Charlie Kirk echoed the warning. With 5 million followers, Kirk warned that Iran could strike American military bases more easily than Israeli targets and argued that involvement in this conflict would be catastrophic. 'Dragging America into this war might be irrational and suicidal,' he wrote, comparing the situation to Ukraine. 'In any drawn-out war with Iran, America loses—even if we win.' Andrew Tate, the controversial influencer and recent Muslim convert, took a more ironic route. He reposted a thread skewering the language used to defend Israeli military actions. The post satirically lists 'rules' for discussing Israeli wars, including: 'Rule 1: Israel is never the aggressor' and 'Rule 14: The U.S. government has never lied about anything, ever.' Here's the thread he reposted. Myron Gaines, a fellow Muslim and co-host of Fresh & Fit, was more direct. 'I hope Trump doesn't make the same mistake Bush did and tarnish his legacy with more foreign wars in the Middle East that do NOTHING for the United States,' he wrote. Just hours before the strike, Matt Walsh, another Daily Wire personality, warned his 5 million followers that Iran poses no credible threat to the U.S. 'We do not need to get involved in yet another war in the Middle East for reasons that have nothing to do with defending our own nation,' he declared to his 3.7 million followers on X. The fallout is even more complex because many of these figures are stalwart Trump supporters. Now, they find themselves in opposition to Trump's foreign policy, or at least to the narratives being pushed by those closest to him. It's a splintering that no one in the movement seems to know how to manage. The divide is between entire ideological tribes that make up the masculinity ecosystem. The Christian nationalists find themselves at odds with pro-Muslim influencers. The Western traditionalists now clash with isolationist libertarians. The common ground that once united them—feminism bad, Trump good—is no longer enough. More fringe figures, like Nick Fuentes, are also weighing in, using the moment to amplify their openly anti-Israel stance. This rift matters. If Israel's strike escalates into a wider conflict, or if U.S. troops are drawn in, the fracture in the manosphere may become permanent. Influencers who have built empires on the illusion of ideological clarity are being forced to confront contradictions they'd rather ignore. Christian nationalists are struggling to square support for Israel with growing resentment among their base. Muslim influencers can no longer co-sign Western dominance while denouncing Western intervention. And libertarians are finding themselves surrounded by warhawks in their own movement. This is a test of what the manosphere really stands for when the stakes are higher than culture wars. What began as a fight about masculinity is now a battle over war, empire, and whose lives are worth defending. The grift is straining. The alliances are buckling. And no matter who wins this war, the brand may never be the same.
