The Big Beautiful Bill passing in the Senate, and as we’ve established, the Senate has officially passed the GOP’s tax and spending cuts bill (also known as the Big Beautiful Bill) by a vote of 51-50 – with vice president JD Vance breaking the tie! It now heads back to the House, where it will first go to a Conference Committee and then the full house. But, to begin with, I’d like to pose a question to you (our viewers). Have you ever wondered what prompted the emphasis on immigration policy from Trump – both in his first presidency with the famous “build a wall matra”; and even in this administration with the mass deportations, completing the border, and even (recently) the plans to build a detention centre dubbed “Alligator Alcatraz”? All of this tells us that clearly, immigration policy is very central to the Trump administration’s focuses, and so why?

Here’s what comes to mind: when we think of war on the national sovereignty of a nation – that is its authority to govern itself, we tend to typically discuss this in light of an external threat; like an invasion or colonisation. Seldom do we see a government not only be culpable in the undermining of its national sovereignty but also be a chief architect in the problem. Despite the problems we’ve seen in different governments and administration, such as improperly allocated funding, incongruous responses to conflict, or even corruption, despite all of this, every citizen should at the very least be able to say that its government is not adamant on placing its citizens as a second concern to the citizens of other nations, and even destroying its nation. And yet, under the Biden-Harris administration, Americans were denied this basic privilege or hope. The border crisis (and subsequent security, economic and political issues) were an inside job orchestrated by the Democrat establishment, and was constantly chipping away at America’s sovereignty. In fact, this was so blatant that we saw the Biden-Harris administration fight Texas (which is another border state), when it sought to secure the border itself!

RECAPITULATION: THE BIDEN-HARRIS ADMINISTRATIONS WAR ON BORDER SECURITY

In more detail, the Lone Star State was embroiled in a dispute with President Joe Biden over razor wire barriers. Seeing the massive wave of illegal immigrants flooding into the United States, Texas Gov. Greg Abbott made attempts to mitigate the situation. He then signed into law a new border security bill that gave Texas state law enforcement very broad authority, such as the ability to arrest migrants who enter Texas illegally. It also allowed local judges to order the deportation of these illegal immigrants out of the country. Texas Governor Greg Abbott also ordered the Texas National Guard to put up the concertina wire barriers on the border with Mexico. However, the Biden administration had its federal officers begin to cut the barbed wire in order to get to the migrants and process them into the country. The Biden administration also sued the state, leading to a US Supreme Court 5-4 ruling that allows federal agents to take them down. However, undeterred by the court order and the Biden administration’s criticism, Governor Abbott said that he would add more razor wire to make sure the state is “doing even more to secure the border.” Especially because the court ruling seemed to not explicitly prevent the state of Texas from adding more razor wire. Here’s a recapitulation.

Well, interestingly, in reacting to the Supreme Court ruling, a spokesperson for the Department of Homeland Security said immigration law enforcement is a federal responsibility and Texas’s actions hamper those efforts. By contrast, Governor Abbott’s tough stance on border security was praised by Republicans. In fact, a group of 25 GOP governors issued a joint statement accusing President Biden of failing to secure the border and backing Mr. Abbott’s efforts. In addition, former President Donald Trump told supporters at a January 27 rally in Las Vegas that if he were elected president, he will do everything in his power to support Texas’s border efforts. And thank God he has been re-elected. But, here was the crucial sentiment at that time on the Biden-Harris’ approach to immigration policy.

This case then developed from being an immigration case and proceeded to significantly challenge the state of the union – and this is speaking to its conglutination. In essence, following this back-and-firth from the Biden-Harris administration, Texas Governor Greg Abbott then openly defied the White House and invoked Article 1 section 10 of the US constitution as a reason to ignore the Biden Administration’s demand that the State government cease erecting a border barrier along the Texas-Mexico border.

This development was bold and yet also relatively unexpected, because Republican-controlled state and local governments rarely show any willingness to oppose federal usurpations of local authority. For decades, the standard operating procedure of Republicans has been to instantly surrender the second anyone in Washington utters the phrase “supremacy clause” or the Supreme Court makes a ruling. Democrats, on the other hand, routinely scoff at federal supremacy, such as with “sanctuary cities.” That was thus a peculiar instance in which a Republican-controlled state government has not immediately bent the knee in the name of national unity and “law and order.”

But, then looking at Texas Governor Abbott’s declaration in invoking Article 1 section 10 of the US constitution, the declaration made the case that the Biden administration has been ignoring federal immigration laws and illegally withdrawing border-control operations from the Texas-Mexico border.Governor Abbott stated that (quote): “Under President Biden’s lawless border policies, more than 6 million illegal immigrants have crossed our southern border in just 3 years. That is more than the population of 33 different States in this country. This illegal refusal to protect the States has inflicted unprecedented harm on the People all across the United States.” (end quote)

But, then Governor Abbott said that the US Constitution provides a remedy for the situation: the Framers included both Article IV, § 4, which promises that the federal government “shall protect each [State] against invasion,” and Article I, § 10, Clause 3, which acknowledges “the States’ sovereign interest in protecting their borders.

But, the final paragraph of the declaration from Governor Abbot is where it got interesting. Abbott writes: (quote) “The failure of the Biden Administration to fulfil the duties imposed by Article IV, § 4 has triggered Article I, § 10, Clause 3, which reserves to this State the right of self-defense. For these reasons, I have already declared an invasion under Article I, § 10, Clause 3 to invoke Texas’s constitutional authority to defend and protect itself. That authority is the supreme law of the land and supersedes any federal statutes to the contrary. The Texas National Guard, the Texas Department of Public Safety, and other Texas personnel are acting on that authority, as well as state law, to secure the Texas border.”… So in this text, Governor Abbot was essentially saying that federal supremacy in this case had been rendered null and void by a federal refusal to enforce federal law. And expectedly, concerns began to ensue about the state of the union.

Well, based on this recapitulation, responding to the immigration crisis is clearly a necessity, because poor immigration policy under the Biden-Harris administration not only caused a porous border, but threatened American sovereignty to the point of almost even fragmenting the union. Evidently, strong immigration policy is first and foremost about preserving the sovereignty of a nation; which is why it has been a key strategy for the Trump administration to address the border crisis and associated concerns, like the security issues (where gangs hijack buildings and citizens are murdered), or economic issues (where the federal government reduces spending on Medicaid by removing illegal immigrants from the beneficiary roll) – which is where the big beautiful bill comes in.

THE BIG BEAUTIFUL BILL AND IMMIGRATION LAW

Now, according to president Trump, the One, Big, Beautiful Bill delivers on his promise to Make America Great Again! And as far as immigration law is concerned, it focuses on accomplishing four things: (1) to permanently secure American borders; (2) to deport at least ONE MILLION illegal immigrants a year; (3) to finish Phase Two of the border wall; and (4) to hire 10,000 new ICE agents & 3,000 Border Patrol agents.

Why are these focuses important? Let’s begin with the first and third focuses, being to permanently secure American borders and to finish Phase Two of the border wall respectively. In unpacking this focus, I’d like to frame the discussion to emphasise why borders matter. Now, when it comes to frustrations with less secure borders, driving the growing outrage in Europe and North America is the ongoing elite push for a borderless world. Among elites, borderlessness has taken its place among the politically correct positions of our age — and, as with other such ideas, it has shaped the language that people use. The descriptive term “illegal immigrant” gave way to the nebulous “undocumented immigrant,” then it was just “immigrant,” or the entirely neutral “migrant” — which is a noun that obscures whether the individual in question is entering or leaving.

In addition, today’s open-borders agenda has its roots not only in economic and political factors — the need for low-wage workers who will do the work that native-born Americans or Europeans supposedly will not, and the desire to flee failed states — but also in several decades of intellectual ferment, in which Western academics have created a trendy field of “borders discourse.” What we might call post-borderism argues that boundaries are mere artificial constructs, methods of marginalisation designed by those in power, mostly to stigmatize and oppress the “other” — usually the poorer and less Western — who arbitrarily ended up on the wrong side of the divide. Well, this view (part of the woke border discourse) assumes that where borders are not drawn, power is not exercised — and yet, immigrants pouring into nations like the UK and Czechia wield considerable influence by their sheer numbers and adroit manipulation of Western grievance politics – and New York Representative Zohran Mamdani is perhaps a notable example.

Yet the truth is that formal borders do not create difference — they reflect it. Therefore, the so-called elites’ continued attempts to erase borders are both futile and destructive. This is to say that borders — and the fights to keep or change them — are as old as agricultural civilization. In ancient Greece, most wars broke out over border scrubland. Throughout history, the trigger points of conflicts have traditionally been such borderlands — this includes the methoria between Argos and Sparta, or the Alsace-Lorraine powder keg between France and Germany. These disputes did not always arise, at least at first, as efforts to invade and conquer a neighbour. Rather, they were instead mutual expressions of distinct societies that valued clear-cut borders — not just as matters of economic necessity or military security but also as a means of ensuring that one society could go about its unique affairs without the interference of its neighbours.

But, perhaps one of the greatest proofs that borders matter (in addition to Trump’s election victories) is that there are nations in the EU threatening its existence through euroscepticism, as nations demand more control over their borders. Their argument is typically that the EU’s approach to migration weakens nation-states and their sovereignty. And we saw this especially with Germany demanding to have greater control of their immigration policy.

And so, the need to resist the elitist and ultra-liberal claim of the nobility of borderlessness is crucial, and certainly reflected in the Big Beautiful Bill through the focus on securing American borders. Not to mention, if God conceptualises and respects borders, nations ought to do the same.

But, let’s then proceed to the second and fourth focuses of the OBBB on immigration, which is to deport at least ONE MILLION illegal immigrants a year and to hire 10,000 new ICE agents & 3,000 Border Patrol agents (respectively); and let’s begin by standardising the understanding of President Trump’s approach to deportations. In essence, it can be summarised as being two-fold: first, is the deportation of illegal migrants, which will culminate in millions of illegal migrants being jettisoned from the US. Secondly, is the focus on especially criminal illegal migrants, who have been found guilty of crimes in the US (in addition to entering the country illegally) but have likely been released through the Biden-Harris “catch and release” policy; or have never even been charged, but are wanted persons.

This is important to clarify because for the longest time the left tried to curate the narrative that Trump lied when he said he is ONLY planning on deporting illegal migrants guilty of committing crimes – but, of course, this misses the crucial context that entering a country illegally is indeed ALSO a crime. And so, the focus on deportations does place emphasis on migrants who have committed especially violent and heinous crimes (in effort to correct the ills produced by the “catch and release policy” of the Biden Harris administration), HOWEVER, the plan is the deportation of all illegal migrants.

Then, as far as enforcement of this deportation approach is concerned, we have seen numerous measures put in place. For instance, the Trump administration shuttered the use of CBP One, which was a President Joe Biden-era app meant to help process migrants seeking to apply for asylum in the US. The Department of Homeland Security issued memos to repeal limits on Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents imposed by former DHS Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas. And, in addition, federal officers swept into sanctuary cities on President Trump’s first full day in office, nabbing more than 300 illegal migrant criminals — including an attempted murderer and a child molester — to hold them for deportation. But, here’s president Trump discussing the policy further.

It’s a fair approach to deportations. It focuses on enforcing the laws that demand compliance with legal conditions for entering the US, it prevents family separations by deporting the entire family together, and it does not close off America to people with hopes of living in America and contributing good to the society. Furthermore, president Trump gives a crucial response to the annoying question on “deportations and migration law being difficult to implement because there are always peculiar circumstances”. He stated that irrespective of the peculiar circumstances and different cases, the US (like any country) SHOULD have laws and regulations that serve as a reference and form precedent on migration related matters. And this is not only true but also important because, firstly, strong leaders do not back out of making tough decisions because they are difficult, otherwise the status quo would never change and only worsen!

Secondly, president Trump’s response serves as a crucial refutation to Democrats and liberals who have tried to use the “difficulty and peculiar circumstances” argument to suggest that these perceived challenges become a reason for a rescission of president Trump’s approach to deportations and legal immigration. But, clearly, having and enforcing laws for legal migration in the ENTIRE NATION would benefit more people than the few that would be inconvenienced by enforcement of these laws; like in cases where one relative has legal status and does not want to be separated from the family, in which case they have the option to be deported with the rest of their family.

WHAT IS THE JUSTIFICATION AGAINST THE DEPORTATION OF ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS?

Therefore, the question that those who oppose Trump’s approach to deportation have not answered is: what is the justification against the deportation of immigrants who have entered the US illegally, and also who have committed crimes? And there certainly is no legal justification, besides the Biden Harris having invented laws to keep illegal immigrants while also having policies like “catch and release” which ensure that immigrants who’ve committed crimes are released back to society. However, as far as legal justification is concerned, deportations are not only legally permissible, but even deportations of children of illegal migrants do not get citizenship under the 14th Amendment.

Ultimately, under president Trump, strict immigration is not just about protecting the borders of the US and allowing due process to adjudicate who enters (which is essential), RATHER, we are learning more and more that those who are strict on immigration understand the price that is paid by even those from outside their respective nation. In fact, we saw the same attitude from President Trump’s Border Tzar, Mr Tom Homan.

THE CRUX OF THE DISCUSSION WITH SOUTH AFRICA IS SPIRITUAL, AND NOT POLITICAL

And now onto our main discussion, and we ought to begin with the point that many are either ignorant of or are blatantly choosing to ignore – which is that the crux of the developments in South Africa is the spiritual ramifications of decisions by leadership. More specifically, the South African government acted in error: instead of opposing the ills of a terrorist organisation shamelessly murdering Israeli citizens (along with its sponsors), it was influenced to vilify Israel under the pretentious guise of claiming that it was operating as an apartheid state. Now, the claim that Israel is an apartheid state only seems plausible to those ignorant of history. At best, when it comes to territorial disputes, Israel and Palestine are classic examples of what happens when varying colonial powers enforce an a-historical division of land, and further exit the formerly colonised territories in a destabilising manner, thus making the formerly colonised area susceptible to civil strife. History literally documents many of these cases.

Nevertheless, the South African government peddled this narrative, and it is largely said to be in part because some in the South African government were paid to do so. More specifically, the argument is that South Africa brought the genocide case against Israel at the International Court of Justice (ICJ) in return for bribes from Iran. This argument is substantiated by the observation that the then ruling party, being the African National Congress (or simply the ANC) experienced a sudden financial turnaround after it launched the ICJ case. Furthermore, there were a series of meetings between ANC leaders and Iranian officials. For instance, days after October 7th, the then minister of international relations and ANC member Naledi Pandor flew to Tehran to meet her Iranian counterpart Hossein Amir-Abdolla-hian, to discuss what Pandor referred to as Israel’s “apartheid”. And all of this conveniently took place a few months before the South African national election in May 2024.

This exposes that there was a propensity for some in the South African government to act foolishly, and use corruption (not sincere concerns) to place the nation against Israel. And, unfortunately, the ramifications of foolish conduct from leadership are not only spiritual (especially when dealing with Israel, whom God has chosen as His timetable on earth through grace) – but the ramifications always affect the the people themselves, until the leaders come to repentance. We are taught this in the scriptures, especially observing what happened when David was moved by the devil to number Israel.

This is why there is a categorical imperative to pray for leaders and their nations. And not to just pray for a change in leadership, but to pray even for those that are already in power. To cut off the influence of those who whisper evil schemes to leaders (as we’ve done with Klaus Schwab), and also to declare that all evil and corrupting counsel is turned to foolishness. After all, the “The king’s heart is in the hand of the LORD, [and] as the rivers of water: he turneth it whithersoever he will.” And this is established through our prayers.

THE PROBLEM IN SOUTH AFRICA IS CRIME, AND NOT RACIALISED CRIME

Which brings us to the second portion of our discussion, and here we have to make an important point of clarity. Those opposing the “white genocide” or “white farmer gencide” claim are not refuting the fact that caucasian people have lost their lives due to brutal murder in South Africa. What is being refuted is the claim that this is a problem exclusively experienced by caucasian people, or predominantly experienced by caucasian people in a manner that amounts to racially-driven genocide. In fact, there certainly are farm killings in South Africa. But, there are no reliable figures that suggest that white farmers are being targeted in particular or that they are at a disproportionate risk of being killed. Furthermore, farm attacks are part of a broader crime problem in South Africa and do not have a racial motivation.

Secondly, the murder of farmers and even murders that take place on farms (by farmers, interestingly enough) have long been an issue of interest and focus in South Africa. This has not been some silent racialised genocide that the government has tried to keep quiet from spectators. Rather, the phenomenon, and the extent to which it is politicised, has been the focus of a number of investigations. For instance, the 2003 Report of The Special Committee of Inquiry Into Farm Attacks by the SAPS found that most incidents were driven by a desire for material gain and that “very few cases have political overtones.”

There is also (unfortunately) insufficient data to reliably estimate a murder rate for South African farmers.The South African government’s data indicated between 58 and 74 murders on farms annually in the period 2015–2017; out of an annual murder count of 20,000 total murders in South Africa; these figures are broadly consistent with figures collected EVEN by the Transvaal Agricultural Union (TAU), which is a farmers’ union. And the one issue that was highlighted with that data is that due to the problems associated with counting the number of South African farmers and farm murders, it is unclear whether farmers are at greater risk of being murdered than other South Africans.

Furthermore, data released by the South African government in 2018 showed that the number of farm attacks had increased between 2012 and 2018, but that the number of murders on farms had decreased year by year during the period. During the same year farming organisation AgriSA reported on police statistics which suggested that the murder rate on farms had declined to the lowest level in 20 years, to a third of the level recorded in 1998

Then, more recently, in the Third Quarter of 2024-2025 Financial year (specifically looking at October 2024 to December 2024), the farm murders were reported to be on a decline, with a total of 5 farm murders. Afriforum, which is an Afrikaner lobby organisation, disputed those numbers. And when the police commissioner demanded they provide their evidence that would prove a contrary reality in February, well the matter escalated with the involvement of the US, and hence this discussion.

But, then finally, South Africa has a highly unequal society, and this has fueled a crime problem. This has also meant that the majority of crimes in South Africa are motivated by material gain. Therefore, this makes the problem of crime more broad in who it affects. Furthermore, contrary to depictions based on claims of gencode, criminal offenders (of even heinous and violent crimes) are also of a caucasian background. That includes four suspects arrested on the 25th of  February 2025, facing charges of trafficking in persons, illegal possession of drugs, illegal possession of the SANDF uniform, and illegal possession of firearms and ammunition. This also includes a teacher implicated in the rape of a primary school girl, while AfriForum refuses he submit to a buccal test. And of course, the two white farmers who killed a woman and fed her remains to pigs, and a male farmer who ran over a child for stealing an orange. What is aggravating about having to discuss these cases is that I have to use examples that otherwise do not reflect well on my country, but I do this not to try to justify crimes against caucasian people. Rather, it is to highlight that crime is an issue in South Africa period, and it is not primarily driven by racist inclination. But, what AfriForum and even the South African government has evidently missed is that the reason for the broad crime issue in South Africa also has a notable spiritual context of its own.

“KILL THE BOER”: ADDRESSING THE “EVIDENCE” BEHIND THE CLAIM OF A RACIALISED GENOCIDE

Once again, let’s address the “kill the boer” chant, because it remains the primary evidence behind the claim of systematic government-sactioned white genocide. This “kill the boer” chant-related issue is cherry picked by people who lack context of South Africa’s history as evidence of the systematised discrimination against and murder of white farmers. In fact an excerpt of Julius Malema on the chant was posted by conservative alternative media account “Libs of TikTok” and even reported by Elon Musk. Allow me to provide the missing links. “Kill the boer” is an atrocious chant” but it is NOT a policy statement.

Secondly, the atrocious chant that is “Kill the boer” is not a recently crafted phenomenon; rather, this was a chant sung by militant or insurgent groups comprising of people of colour, typically black South AFricans, during the apartheid era, when there would be violent exchanges with racist boers or apartheid officers at the time – who by the way, were literally killing black people without much retribution, in fact, during that time, brutalising black people was expected – which should not be a surprising considering the world’s collective understanding of the history of slavery, colonialism and the holocaust. In any case, today, “Kill the boer”  is a chant that if meant as a policy statement would amount to a racially motivated incitement of violence, which our constitution rejects (as the highest law of the republic).

I mention this because firstly, there are people who lack the context of what this means. Does it make it acceptable to chant “kill the boer” – emphatically no! In fact, this was a big discussion in South Africa after Julius Malema and the EFF party echoed the chant or song, and even had to stand in court in light of these remarks.

Secondly, people who invoke the “kill the boer” song conveniently leave out that a majority of South Africans have rejected the chant, on the basis that it does not fit in today’s society, and once again, this followed Julius Malema and the EFF party echoing the chant, “Kill the boer”. The concession is that, in a post-apartheid society, the chant (although not a policy statement) has the potential to invoke a sense of racial division and hatred, even though that is not necessarily the aim. In fact, this very issue has placed the EFF party (which was inclined to using the chant) at odds with South Africans, which was even made apparent with its significant loss of support in the recent elections in May 2024.

BUT… there is a hypocrisy that must not be missed. If we argue that the “kill the boer” chant represents a horrible portion of South Africa’s history, but does not amount to a policy statement; and merely serves as a reminder of one of the struggle songs that were sung during apartheid, then why is this used as evidence of a white farmer genocide when conservatives have used the same logic to defend keeping statues of the confederate leaders and the flying of the confederate flag. I ask this because I understand that logic: I do not think societies need to completely erase factual observations of history, just because they represent a horrible past. And so, if conservatives have defended raising the confederate flag, and confederate leader statues – why is this chant regarded as a policy statement? Despite South African law not allowing the incitement of violence against another group.

Now, personally, I would do away with vocalising the chant altogether (while accurately documenting in history books nad museums) because it is vile, BUT… conservatives need to clarify why the confederate flag and confederate leader statues are not racist or connoting a desire to enslave black people, if “kill the boer” is evidence of a white genocide.

MEANWHILE, WESTERN MEDIA (ON EITHER SIDE OF THE ISLE) REPORTS ON AFRICA IN IGNORANCE

Meanwhile,the Western media also has a loose grapes on the context in South Africa and it shows. While conservatives are adamant that a few videos of the EFF and BLF rallies constitute context, liberals are also just making up history in a while trying to use this development in South Africa to refute immigration law in the second Trump administration. Here’s an example.

So two responses to this. First, this white refugee case does not negate President Trump’s immigration policy; in fact, this policy remains justifiable on its own. First, it was Biden’s “open border” policies that created the unprecedented border crisis. On day one of becoming president, Biden announced an order to terminate former President Donald Trump’s declaration of a national emergency concerning our southern border. Biden’s EO also paused the construction of the border wall and redirected the funds elsewhere. On day two, Biden suspended Trump’s “Remain in Mexico” program and ended the program formally six months later. The “Remain in Mexico” program kept in Mexico asylum-seekers from Central America and elsewhere until their immigration court hearings in the U.S. The program successfully returned an estimated 68,000 migrants to Mexico during the Trump presidency.

Furthermore, the Biden administration also relinquished its responsibility to enforce immigration law. According to a 2023 House Judiciary Committee report, “the Biden Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has failed to remove more than 99 percent of illegal immigrants through immigration court proceedings” between Jan. 20, 2021, and March 31, 2023. During this period, there were more than 5 million illegal alien encounters. The Biden administration reportedly “eased its scrutiny in reviewing asylum claims,” and “immigration judges have granted nearly 80% of claims in the last three years.” Fewer than 6,000 illegal immigrants were removed from the United States. In 2022, the Biden administration also introduced a parole program that has had significant consequences. This program allows up to 30,000 asylum-seekers from Cuba, Haiti, Nicaragua, and Venezuela to enter the U.S. each month. The program allowed the Biden administration to release nearly half a million “inadmissible immigrants” into the interior of the US, often with “little or no vetting, – all of which was discovered through the House Committee on Homeland Security’s latest fact sheet.

There was thus a categorical need to deport illegal immigrants, first because it resulted in increased crime, second because it resulted in a surge in human and child trafficking, and also to restore law and order in the immigration process. And this has been proven by various ills that Americans have had to endure during the Biden-Harris administration.

Secondly, there actually is no white genocide and so this dicussion should not be hinged on race.

IT’S IMPORTANT TO ADDRESS THE LIES, SO WE BEGIN TO ADDRESS GENUINE ISSUES

What has been another bizarre development is the utter incapacity of Western Media to report adequately on the African continent, and its respective nations. This was always a problem, but in this age where we are moving away from the generic narratives and reports from the mainstream media, I genuinely expected that there would be people who dared to look at the story from more than one angle. Clearly, Western media still has an unqualified presumption of credibility – despite the overwhelming evidence of how media has for the longest time served as the fourth arm of the state. Even more disappointing is that this same unwillingness to do even basic critical analysis of the story beyond a single narrative is also done by alternative media – the people who are supposed to be better than the mainstream.

Meanwhile, it will not even take a lot to understand the historical and socio-political context of South Africa. It just takes one to ask about a different perspective on the matter. But, in a world where caucasian people have been associated with all manner of evil, it clearly has become very convenient for those who have been fighting this to capitalise on a narrative that portrays the victimisation of the caucasian race instead. Well, let me state categorically that we do not believe caucasian people are an inherent evil, at least certainly not here at LN24 International. We have investigated and reported on systematised discrimination against caucasian people where it took place, like the great replacement agenda in Europe and the Americas. In addition, we have also outlined the issues with the Expropriation Act in South Africa, and even engaged government officials on it.

However, what is intolerable is the blatant disregard for facts by the Western media, while having the audacity to pronounce judgement on the South African nation – without even understanding the state of the nation and its society. It is therefore critical to put aside the obvious misrepresentation of the affairs in South AFrica and deal with the broader dispossession agenda that has the potential to be effected through the Expropriation Act, while also addressing restitution of plundered land and property, and nullifying the war on food. In any case, as the book of Proverbs tells us in the 17th verse “He who states his case first seems right, until his rival comes and cross-examines him.”

Written By Lindokuhle Mabaso