The assassination of Charlie Kirk, and to begin with, president Donald Trump announced the passing of Charlie Kirk after he was shot at an event at Utah Valley University. In his announcement, he detailed that his administration will find each and every one of those who contributed to the atrocity and to other political violence, including the organizations that fund it and support it, as well as those who go after American judges, law enforcement officials, and everyone else who brings order to the US.

President Trump exclaimed that he is filled with grief and anger at the heinous assassination of Charlie Kirk on a college campus, adding that Charlie inspired millions. Referencing to all-so-recent violent occurrences in the US, President Trump added that from the attack on his life in Butler, Pennsylvania last year, which killed a husband and father, to the attacks on ICE agents, to the vicious murder of a healthcare executive in the streets of New York, to the shooting of House Majority Leader Steve Scalise and three others. Radical left political violence has hurt too many innocent people and taken too many lives. He then asked all Americans to commit themselves to the American values for which Charlie Kirk lived and died, the values of free speech, citizenship, and the rule of law.

THE INVESTIGATION INTO THE CHARLIE KIRK ASSASSINATION IS ONGOING

Secondly, regarding details of the assassinaton, as far as the shooting is concerned, as we mentioned this incident occurred on a college campus. The suspect in the shooting is not yet in custody, according to a spokesperson from Utah Valley University, despite saying earlier the police did have someone in custody. In addition, former FBI Agent Stuart Kaplan shared that Charlie Kirk’s Assassination was a “professional hit”, which would add the implication that this was an organised and possibly even funded effort.

IT IS NOTABLE THAT CHARLIE KIRK WAS SHOT ON A COLLEGE CAMPUS

But, there is a slightly less shocking realisation to the fact that Charlie Kirk was assassinated on a college campus. He often visited college campuses and encouraged debate. He was famous for fielding extremely hostile questions and answering them civilly—the antithesis of those, such as his killer, who silence their opponents with violence.

However, in recent years, many college campuses have become dark, atavistic places of ideological possession and rage – so much so that thirty-four percent of college students recently said they supported using violence in some circumstances to stop a campus speech. More specifically, for years now, institutions of higher learning have exhibited dwindling student tolerance for opposing viewpoints, and this year is the worst yet. A new nationwide survey conducted by my organization, the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE), and College Pulse shows that 34% of college students believe that using violence to stop a campus speech is acceptable in some cases. Since 2021, that share has risen from 24 percent, which was already unacceptably high.

And so, this data is grim. More college students than ever believe that, at least in some rare circumstances, it can be acceptable for their peers to engage in violence to stop speech they don’t like. This is extremely troubling, because violence in response to speech is how our culture of free expression — and the civil society it creates — begins to crumble completely. When it comes to violence, even “rarely” is too often. And yet, a majority of students — cutting across both liberal and conservative ideological lines, by the way — oppose their schools allowing controversial speakers on campus. And more than two-thirds of students believe it’s acceptable for their peers to engage in the so-called heckler’s veto, shouting down a planned speech with the explicit intention of preventing it from being heard. In addition, more than half of surveyed students believe that physically blocking entry into such an event can be permissible.

But, as alarming as these findings are, unfortunately, they are also not very surprising. For one thing, this has been going on for a long time; FIRE has been issuing these surveys for six years, and each has produced more concerning results than the last. The data is also reflective of an overall polarization in the US and a calcifying antagonism toward perspectives that differ from one’s own.

HOWEVER, there are deeper and more consequential implications at play here as well. The preferences expressed by these students undermine principles that are not just foundational, but fundamental to higher education: and these are principles of open debate, free inquiry, and exposure to differing viewpoints. They are also the pillars of American civil society that are increasingly falling out of favour. Nothing good can come from this — especially when violence is on the table. In fact, democracy requires deliberation and debate. It is premised upon the notion that no one person or group possesses the absolute truth, and as a result they should not possess absolute power or control. When we become so convinced that we are right that we are willing to use force rather than argument to impose our will upon others, democracy dies.

THE MAINSTREAM MEDIA IS PERPETUATING THE PROBLEM THAT FUELS VIOLENCE IN SOCIETY

Speaking of an inclination to violence, to underscore the abyss of stupidity in which the political Left has sunk in America, MSNBC Host Katy Tur said on her show—while breaking the news—that Kirk is “divisive” and “polarizing.” Then, one of Tur’s guests on the show, Matthew Dowd—who ran for Lieutenant Governor of Texas as a Democrat in 2021— said, “We don’t know… if this was a supporter shooting their guns off in celebration.” Dowd, who was the chief strategist for the Bush-Cheney 2004 campaign, is an expression of the diabolical alliance between Bush era ghouls and today’s Democrat establishment.

Well, immediately following this, a statement from MSNBC president Rebecca Kutler was released, which stated that (quote): “During our breaking news coverage of the shooting of Charlie Kirk, Matthew Dowd made comments that were inappropriate, insensitive and unacceptable. We apologize for his statements, as has he. There is no place for violence in America, political or otherwise.” In addition, Matthew Dowd has also been fired from MSNBC after blaming Charlie Kirk for his own death, in light of Kirk’s Support for gun ownership. It’s incredible to see that Charlie Kirk’s passing has inspired a sense of remorse in the mainstream media, and I hope it does not only become manifest in instances where a person has died.

THE LEFT TRIED TO USE KIRK’S DEATH TO DRUM UP SUPPORT AGAINST THE 2ND AMENDMENT

But, to further the discussion, I’d like to once again respond to the frankly now aggravating misplaced talk about the second amendment and gun ownership in instances where a person dies. However, people minimise the intent of the second amendment, because it is rather incredibly valuable in the grand scheme of things. In more detail, the Second Amendment was originally intended to provide states with the ability to rapidly stand up a militia if needed to push back against federal oppression. As such, the argument that “guns won’t stop a government” comes from a place of defeatism and misunderstanding. Sure, firearms cannot counter a nuclear strike, but that is not the point. The sheer number of guns in America, more than one per person, makes a ground invasion by any foreign power a logistical nightmare. Unlike countries with stricter gun laws, such as those in the UK or Canada, the US is uniquely fortified by its armed populace. Would it be chaotic and bloody? Absolutely. But it would never be a walkover. Therefore, the Second Amendment acts as a powerful deterrent against both foreign and domestic threats on a large scale.

Secondly, it is possible to infer that the existence of the Second Amendment has slowed down a number of so-called “new world order” and big government agendas. This is considering that the American Founding Fathers did not enshrine this right for minor disputes; they designed it to prevent a tyrannical government from overreaching, drawing a clear line in the sand after breaking free from British rule under King George III. They wanted a system that empowered citizens to resist oppression, distinct from the monarchical control they escaped. And so, ultimately, the 2nd Amendment insures that the people are sufficiently respected by governmental authority to deter those who would use government power to strip them of their rights. Which is what Charlie Kirk advocated for.

However, when a shooting does occur, it is easy to see the weapon as the reason for the loss of life. But, here’s how we can think about it: if the shooter did not have a gun, would they also not have the same motive to kill? And chances are, they would likely still have the motive to kill, and would have found other ways to do it. Afterall, we’ve all heard of cases of domestic violence, or terror attacks where it was not a gun that was the primary weapon.

But, the truth is, using Charlie Kirk’s assassination through a gun is only a cover for the evil motives that lie beneath what liberals and Democrats stand for. And I think this was perhaps demonstrated by the fact that Democrats protested praying for Charlie Kirk before they learnt of his passing. In what was one of the most repulsive and evil things ever seen, just before we learned Charlie had passed, Republicans tried to lead a prayer on the House floor – praying for his recovery after he was tragically shot. The Democrats started booing and yelling at them. And yet, it is their rhetoric that often influences these sorts of behaviours! Kindly watch this.

THE LEFT IS THE VIOLENT DANGER THEY PRETENTIOUSLY WARN ABOUT

Shaun Maguire put it aptly when he said, “The Left lectured us for the last decade about the dangers of violence from the Right. But, from the assassination attempts of President Trump, to Brian Thompson, the United Healthcare CEO, being murdered, and now to Charlie Kirk – all this exposes that the danger was actually on the Left. They are the ones who peddle violence against opposents, and actually take violent actions! They are the ones who applaud public speeches relishing the thought of killing Trump and his supporters. They are the ones who applaud as being an artistic edge, artists who make music videos or portrayals of Trump being beaten and fatally shot – they stand behind this, and perpetuate it themselves.

THE MURDERS OF CONSERVATIVE NEWS PERSONALITIES INDICATES A WAR ON PRESS FREEDOMS

You’d recall that we discussed here on The War Room earlier this year the murder of an info wars reporter. In essence, while limitations on press freedoms were being placed on journalists in Ukraine, people like Jaime White were exposing the atrocities of the Ukrainian government. While this was happening, Jamie White, not only covered the proxy war in Ukraine, but posted on X on the 12th of June, in the year 2024, that he found out that he was on the Ukrainian ‘Enemies List’ due to his reporting work on the Ukraine proxy war. In addition, the group that is said to have compiled this so-called ‘Enemies List’ is tied to the US State Dept, USAID, CIA and George Soros.

With this in mind, and considering the fact that the report from law enforcement says that Jaime White was killed by car burglars – here is why I think this connection between Jaime White and the Ukraine proxy is important to consider in light of his unacceptable and the broader war on press freedom. First, if he reported in June 2024 (which is before the second Trump administration and DOGE) that the so-called ‘Enemies List’ he was put on is tied to the US State Dept, USAID, CIA and George Soros – then this should immediately raise alarms, as being one of the clandestine operations that USAID financed that resulted in the deaths of innocent people or oven specific figures of interest. I say this, because we now know that USAID (which is a CIA front) even funded terrorist organisations.

The second reason why this link between Jaime White and the Ukraine proxy war is important is because we now know that USAID funded operations in Ukraine; and those operations were not exclusively tied to financing what was (itself) an unjust war. Rather, these operations even include the coup in Ukraine in 2014, and even the killing of political opponents and persons of interests in and outside of Ukraine. All of this to say, that the US military industrial complex, has a vested interest in the proxy war in Ukraine, not only as a means for profit, but also as a tool of shaping geopolitics in Europe through NATO.

And so, if the assassination of Charlie Kirk was a professional hit (which can be deduced from the circumstances), and also if Jaime was on a Ukrainian ‘Enemies List’ due to his reporting work on the Ukraine proxy war, then there very well could be an intentional targeting of the conservative media and prominent voices.

DEBATE AND DISCOURSE REMAIN PARAMOUNT IN THE FIGHT AGAINST DECEPTION

Finally, I think what remains unchanged is that debate and discourse remain paramount. Not only is the freedom of speech an inalienable, God-given right but it is instrumental to bridging gaps that fuel misunderstanding. I’ve followed Charlie Kirk for some time and had a genuine appreciation for his approach to engagement with the youth (while emphasising the Christian perspective), and I think it lies in part with the shared value for debating. Since literally the 6th grade when I took debating as an extra-curricular activity, to high school and university, where I was blessed with opportunities to travel to various countries and debate with students in high school and universities (on various matters, which included beating two Oxford university teams on a Brexit motion, to debating the merits of operation car wash and its role in Bolosanaro’s accession to power in Brazil) – with all of this, to many around the world, debate became more than an extracurricular activity, and became a tool for organised and meaningful discourse. Hear’s why:

First, debate (at least competitively) encourages one to form an antagonistic relationship with ignorance. And this is because those who want to do exceptionally, or deliver speeches with great impact, are compelled to learn the most and go beyond ideas that are on the surface – meaning that you genuinely always want to know so much that you can adequately deliver nuanced approaches to the subject of discussion.

Secondly, debate (when done in sincerity) demands the development and practice of compassion. This is because, often, you will have to debate motions that are trying to solve an issue that does not affect your immediate circumstance, but it will still be required of you to understand the characterisation and circumstances of the primary actors affected enough to contribute a meaningful solution to their crisis. It is why, despite never having lived in the UK, I care deeply about the fact that they do not have a written constitution, which has enabled the Labour government to perpetuate a war on free speech; it is also part the reason why so many of us around the world used various platforms of engagement to foster constructive discourse about the necessity of a second Trump administration, and analysing policy comparisons between him and Kamala Harris before the November 2024 election – despite the fact that we were NOT all Americans who would have an opportunity to cast a vote. Debate, make critical issues matter to you beyond on-the-surface consideration – even if they may seem factually distant to your everyday circumstances.

But then most importantly, debate is one of the most paramount means for facilitating civility among people who disagree, and is also a paramount tool in the fight against deception. This is to say that people are certainly not homogenous beings: people who come from different backgrounds, and are exposed to different information will not often share the views of those who’ve experienced different circumstances. Therefore, building on this concession, debate nevertheless promotes a structured engagement between different people and views, where what matters is who is able make the most compelling case – as opposed to relegating people to isolated thinking silos, where their ideas are never challenged. This is why, even here on ‘The War Room’, I make an effort to reference and display the views that I believe are contrary to truth and what I stand for, before proceeding to offer a refutation and direct response. This is because debate and constructive discourse invites others to share their views; it does not benefit from the censorship of others.

Similarly, debate is a paramount tool against deception – and Charlie Kirk understood this. In his engagements with youth in campuses, he demonstrated that often the disagreements that liberals promulgated against conservatives were based on distorted representations or strawmans of what conservatives actually stand for. He spent a lot of his time dispelling deception by making truth or facts apparent through direct engagement. And so, his activism for Christianity and conservative political ideas was effective for this: he welcomed debate from those who thought differently to him. And so, this is what I hope does not get lost.

I hope it is not lost on us that Charlie Kirk had a gift for embracing his critics, for refuting their arguments in open debate. He loved debate and he loved ideas. He believed in discussion and openness, and urged this country to open it up so that everyone had a place, not just those who agreed with codified claims of mainstream media. Kirk even ran a nationwide debating society, building it from its founding to a huge national presence. His talent for debate, more than any other force in the country, even played a significant role in President Trump winning the Gen Z vote in November 2024 – emphasising that debate is a powerful force capable of turning what was said to be one of the most liberal and political confused generations into a force that rallied behind God’s choice for America. But, here’s Charlie Kirk (himself) making the point himself that when people stop talking (meaning when debate and meaningful discourse stops), that is when bad things happen.

Written By Lindokuhle Mabaso

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