The “very badly treated / reverse discrimination” line has a lineage.

In the 1920s–30s, Virginia segregationists were blunt about what they feared: equal citizenship would end “Caucasian ideals” and eventually produce a “mixbreed” President, Cox’s word, not mine. Earnest Sevier Cox was operating in the same Virginia “racial integrity” ecosystem tied to John Powell and Walter Plecker. That ecosystem didn’t just talk. It built a legal/cultural machine (Virginia’s Racial Integrity regime) and then fed the later Massive Resistance playbook: treat equal rights as an existential threat to “order” and “culture,” then call the pushback “defense.”

Then the strategy evolves. Historian Randall Balmer argues the modern Religious Right didn’t first cohere around abortion, but around the federal government threatening the tax-exempt status of segregationist Christian schools (Bob Jones University being the famous case). The genius move was rebranding: you don’t have to say “segregation". You say “religious liberty,” “parental rights,” “Christian education,” “freedom,” “government overreach.”

Whether you buy Balmer’s exact origin story or not, the pattern holds: rights expansion → white grievance → institutional mobilization. So when Trump says civil rights were “bad for whites,” it’s not a one-off. It’s a recycled argument: equal protection recast as oppression, and the rollback sold as “merit” and “freedom.”

Trump looks to be adopting increasingly authoritarian, autocratic, state capitalist approach.

These are emergency measures for specific short-term goals in response to communists. It's not the same as idolizing the command economy as a positive in itself.