THE STATE OF FREE SPEECH PROTECTIONS IN THE UNITED STATES

And now onto our main discussion, regarding “The Intersection of National Sovereignty and Free Speech”. I should state now that we are going to spend a fair amount of time on points of contextualisation, so that we are able to adequately adjudicate the related issues in the status quo. And to begin with, we ought to take stock of the jurisprudence and precedent surrounding the First Amendment in the US. Now, first and foremost, the First Amendment of the US Constitution protects the fundamental rights of persons to express themselves, to gather with other people, and to protest their government, among other rights. The text of the First Amendment itself is quite short but emphatic; it states that (quote): “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

Now, since the First Amendment was ratified in 1791 as part of the Bill of Rights, this short paragraph has acted as the basis of the right to free speech in the US. People across the US have sacrificed, litigated, legislated, and organised to ensure that the rights conferred by this amendment are upheld. In light of this, here is what the overall jurisprudence and progressively litigated precedent concerning the First Amendment looks like today:

To begin with, the First Amendment prohibits government agencies from censoring, discriminating against, or applying rules inconsistently to private speech based on its viewpoint. This principle is called “viewpoint neutrality,” and it means that local and federal government agencies can NOT allow expression on a given subject from Viewpoint A – but not from Viewpoint B. For example, the government can NOT approve a permit for an pro-abortion rally, while blocking a permit for an anti-abortion rally. Not only this, but viewpoint neutrality is not even limited to political issues. For example, panhandling – or asking passersby for money in public places – is actually also constitutionally protected under viewpoint neutrality. And the idea is that governments cannot ban people from asking for money for themselves in public places, while at the same time allowing people to ask for money for something like the Girl Scouts or political campaigns.

Secondly, the First Amendment protects a person’s right to express him/herself and to testify before, petition, and protest the many branches and agencies of the local and federal government. If, for example, a person in the US wants to picket his/her local police station to protest an issue of misconduct, or wants to protest a law that council members passed, the First Amendment protects the right to do so. Furthermore, the First Amendment also prohibits all local government agencies, including public schools, from discriminating against speech based on its viewpoint. Which is why it was jarring that a Massachusetts middle school suspended a student for wearing a “There are only two genders” t-shirt – because this is protected expression.

And Liam Morrison actually asked a crucial question, and it is unfortunate the courts in the US might have missed it or deliberately ignored it, and this is the point on what is a protected class, and why are their feelings more important than his rights. Now, this question that he asks is incredibly important because it exposes the fact that in undermining first amendment protections, the federal government and activist judges and courts are arbitrarily creating a “protected class” of beings not based on objective necessity or a decent legal argument, but rather based on their feelings?! This is UNACCEPTABLE!

DISHONEST AND HATEFUL SPEECH ARE PROTECTED BY THE FIRST AMENDMENT

Then still taking stock of the jurisprudence and precedent surrounding the First Amendment in the US, here is where this amendment and the progressive precedent surrounding it got more deliberate in its protections of not just free speech, but ABSOLUTE free speech. Irrespective of whether speech is a lie, it ought not to be limited! Make no mistake: lies are a problem. In fact, one can persuasively argue that lies are one of the biggest problems in society, especially when looking at the deception that came during the COVID era, or the climate change hoax, or feminism and its insistence in vilifying men, and so many phenomena in society. I’d even go a step further to state that few behaviours are as corrosive to a nation’s social fabric or as foundational to societal divisions as lies. And this is primarily because lies severely hobble the ability to communicate effectively, the capacity to understand reality, and attempts at securing social and moral progress. HOWEVER, in recognising the gravity of the ramifications emanating from lies, a number of individuals, as a result, conclude that using government power to prohibit and eliminate lies is justified – you’d even recall the Welsh government’s 2024  decision to criminalise lies from parliament members.

However, using government power to prohibit and eliminate lies is a dangerous idea, and one that is contrary to First Amendment jurisprudence. More specifically, outside of a few narrow and formally recognised categories of unprotected speech, the First Amendment is neutral regarding the content of the speech it defends.

This principle was expressed beautifully by Justice Thurgood Marshall in the 1972 Supreme Court case of the Police Department of Chicago v Mosley, which questioned the constitutionality of a city ordinance banning non-union picketing outside of a school building. In the majority opinion, Justice Marshall wrote that (quote): “the First Amendment means that the government has no power to restrict expression because of its message, its ideas, its subject matter, or its content.” So, in observing the precedent that came from this decision, this therefore tells us that the First Amendment almost universally prohibits content-based regulations of speech. In other words, because content-based regulations of speech target the substance of speech and are easily used to suppress disfavoured ideas, content-based laws or regulations are presumed unconstitutional, and the government must meet a very heavy burden to justify them.

Now, this heavy burden imposed on the government is understood as strict scrutiny — and is supposed to be the highest standard in First Amendment law, and it essentially requires the government to prove that the content-based regulation it wants to implement “furthers a compelling interest and is narrowly tailored to achieve that interest,” as outlined in the case of Reed v Town of Gilbert, Arizona, et al. The explanation of this burden is that: interests are “compelling,” when they are regarding “regulation vital to the protection of public health and safety, including the regulation of violent crime, the requirements of national security and military necessity, and respect for fundamental rights.” And the key here is that any regulations must not only advance a “compelling” interest, but must also not restrict people’s ability to speak freely (and dishonestly) beyond what is necessary to further that interest pursued by the government. BUT THEN, there was the case of United States v Robert J. Stevens, which offered an important challenge to this thinking.

Essentially, based on the issues that were just outlined in the excerpt we watched, in the case of the United States v Robert J. Stevens, the Court emphatically rejected as “startling and dangerous” the idea of a “free-floating test for First Amendment coverage” that requires speech to survive an ad hoc balancing of its costs and benefits by the government – because, as we stated, this was a burden on the government. As such, the development in the United States v Robert J. Stevens case is that: The “First Amendment itself reflects a judgement by the American people that the benefits of the restrictions imposed on the government through the first amendment outweigh the costs”. And so, from the precedent established in the United States v Robert J. Stevens case, it primarily means that American citizens were the ones who reserved judgement on the cost of restrictions to free speech, and not the government – which is a triumph and testament of the protectionist nature of the first amendment.

Then finally, on the jurisprudence and precedent surrounding the First Amendment in the US, it is worth noting that First Amendment protections also extend to speech that might be deemed as hateful. And, honestly, in a world where “hate speech” is either arbitrarily defined OR is a highly weaponised and politicised definition, I would argue that speech that is supposedly hateful is especially crucial to protect if any meaningful institutionalisation of free speech is to be claimed.

So, all that we’ve just discussed is the broad contextualisation of today’s discussion, and it will factor into how we adjudicate cases in the status quo that pertain to the intersection of national sovereignty and free speech. And to start us off, let’s address the Jimmy Kimmel free speech debate, because many are building on that occurrence to claim that the Trump administration is violating the first amendment, especially in light of the recent visa suspension announcement – and in addressing the cases in the status quo that pertain to the intersection of national sovereignty and free speech, we get to understand where the first amendment also ceases to protect speech.

ADDRESSING THE JIMMY KIMMEL FREE SPEECH DEBATE

So, regarding the Jimmy Kimmel case, what essentially transpired is that after the assasination of Charlie Kirk, late night host Jimmy Kimmel was suspended following the concerning remarks he made about the assassination, and claims about president Trump’s supporters trying to capitalise on the assasination for political gain. For the most part, this was an incredibly important and interesting niche in free speech discourse, and I think it had a profound impact in how Americans view comedians (who function as political commentators for the left). However, there does also appear to be a gap in an understanding of the responsibilities and powers of media broadcasters, in light of the protections of free speech. But, before we proceed, here is how Jimmy Kimmel (and frankly a lot of people on the left) viewed his remarks:

So, yes, in the aftermath of the suspension, Jimmy Kimmel painted his suspension as being based on the malicious mischaracterisation of his words; and even told his audience that he was “silenced” by Trump (because apparently Trump cannot take a joke) and even warned about comedians being censored – and yet he did say that Charlie Kirk’s assassin is a product of MAGA indoctrination, and that Trump supporters were trying to capitalise on the assassination for political gain – and so, that was just a weird attempt at averting direct accountability for the distasteful remarks he made, and somehow try to make Trump the focus of the discussion.

Nevertheless, as far as the First Amendment is concerned, Jimmy Kimmel is entitled to say what he wants, however horrendous and distasteful the remarks; and the Trump administration is also mandated by the First Amendment NOT to censor Jimmy Kimmel, even if his speech is deemed a lie or paints president Trump poorly.

WAS JIMMY KIMMEL CENSORED, & DOES THIS AMOUNT TO A VIOLATION OF THE FIRST AMENDMENT?

Therefore, we then have to ask ourselves this question: In being suspended following the remarks he made about the Charlie Kirk assassination, was Jimmy Kimmel censored and does this amount to a violation of the first amendment by the Trump administration?

The first response to this is that the suspension of Jimmy Kimmel was not based on efforts at demanding the censorship of videos that paint President Trump in a bad light – seeing that Trump himself makes jokes about Trump. BUT, even if it was about censoring videos that paint Trump in a bad light (which it was not), Jimmy Kimmel has the backing of US law to protect his free speech, meaning that he has every right and opportunity to hold Trump accountable if he thinks his speech was censored. For instance, in the case of West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette (1943), the Supreme Court explained that “If there is any fixed star in our constitutional constellation, it is that no official, high or petty, can prescribe what shall be orthodox in politics, nationalism, religion, or other matters of opinion.” In Ashcroft v. ACLU (2002), the Court declared that with few exceptions, “the First Amendment means [that] the government has no power to restrict expression because of its message, its ideas, its subject matter, or its content.” And in the second case, which is the case of United States v Alvarez (in 2012), Justice Anthony Kennedy explained that even “false statements” may not be censored, writing that “some false statements are inevitable if there is to be an open and vigorous expression of views…”.

And so, free speech and the freedom to criticise policies or even portray the president in a less pleasing light are very well protected in the US constitution and free speech jurisprudence! Ergo, president Trump is not running some comedian censorship industrial complex, that is enabled by the absence of laws that protect free speech. In fact, Trump himself has proven to understand and respect the ambits of the first amendment, especially in light of what powers are available to him. For instance, you’d recall that in late 2024, president Trump sued CBS News for $10 billion for “deceptively doctoring” Kamala Harris’ 60-Minutes interview. And the harm that was argued by Trump was that CBS engaged in election interference to try to help Kamala Harris; to which Paramount (the parent company of CBS) agreed to pay $16 million to Trump’s future library or other cause. Crucial to note here is that Trump did not launch a welfare campaign to try to get CBS off air, or orchestrate the censorship of the CBS anchor who conducted the interview: he simply used the same first amendment law to hold the CBS accountable for abusing the press freedom they enjoy through the first amendment.

Then, still answering the question of whether Jimmy Kimmel was censored and whether his suspension amounted to a violation of the first amendment by the Trump administration, the second response here is that the left does not appear to have a strong grasp on the intersection between free speech and the private corporations.

So, for some additional context: the First Amendment, like the US Constitution generally, affords rights that people can use to challenge the government. Local and federal governments have many agencies, all of which must abide by the First Amendment. But free speech and association rights do not BLANKETLY apply to private organisations or people, even if those organisations or people receive funding from the government. These private organisations are thus entitled to formulate private organisational policies that people can choose to opt in or out of.

Now, what this means is that a private company can suspend or fire an employee for something they say, or a social media platform can remove a user’s post without violating the First Amendment because they are not the government.

HOWEVER, the exception is that if you can prove a private company is working with government actors to suppress speech, then the First Amendment will apply – which is what the Murthy v Missouri case is doing in light of how the Biden-Harris administrations coerced social media companies to censor speech on their platforms.

Now, the left in decrying censorship from Trump as being the reason that Jimmy Kimmel was suspended, is ignoring this aspect of the first amendment, which allows private corporations to decide if they want to air certain content. And yet, this exclusion of private corporations in the scope of the first amendment is why, while ABC is the media corporation that powers Jimmy Kimmel’s show, a number of ABC affiliates suspended his show, ad have now refused to air Jimmy Kimmel’s show altogether. It is NOT censorship by Trump, RATHER, it is the first amendment allowing private corporations to decide what they will or will NOT air.

WHITE HOUSE REVOKES VISAS FOR ANTI-AMERICAN SENTIMENTS AFTER CHARLIE KIRK ASSASSINATION

So, let’s bring in the factor of national sovereignty. As we alluded to earlier, on October 15th, White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt announced that US visas are a privilege revocable for foreign nationals expressing death wishes toward America, especially following the September 10th assassination of Charlie Kirk at Utah Valley University. The State Department has thus revoked visas for at least six individuals accused of celebrating Kirk’s death on social media, extending the policy to international students in pro-Hamas protests cited as national security threats. This move has drawn support from conservatives who see this as a defence of American values but, simultaneously, this has also drawn criticism from what are said to be civil liberties groups over free speech concerns. But before we proceed, here are the remarks from the Press Secretary.

Now, in addressing this development in the status quo, here we must ask: Is this policy by the Trump administration a weaponisation of national sovereignty against free speech?

Well, interestingly, this consideration is not at all new in US politics. In fact, in a case that considered whether lawfully present non-citizens in the United States have First Amendment rights, a federal district judge answered that question with a resounding “yes.” Judge William G Young, ruled that the Trump administration’s policy to detain and deport foreign scholars over their pro-Palestinian views violates the US constitution and was designed to “intentionally” chill free speech rights. Judge Young further stated that although no one’s freedom of speech is completely unlimited, the key is that whatever limits that exist “must be the same for both citizens and non-citizens alike.” He even added that the Trump administration claimed the authority to deport non-citizens who have committed no crimes but whose presence it deems to pose a threat to US foreign policy. And so, after a 2-week trial, Judge Young ruled that this authority was being used to target people based on their constitutionally protected speech.

HOWEVER, I’d like to offer a practical rebuttal to this position. With ALL the extensive protections that the First Amendment offers to speech, it also draws the line on speech that is both “directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action” – in other words, the First Amendment does not protect protesters who chant “death to America”, or make remarks about how they wish someone would kill Charlie Kirk. and all of this are things that have occurred in the US.

But, finally, for people concerned about censorship and even being offended, I’d also like to make the argument that free speech has a place in a functional society for 2 reasons. First, when people speak frankly about even hateful sentiments they hold, you have the privilege of an honest discussion, and an adequate measure of the moral inclinations of society. Furthermore, it is easier to challenge and debate (for instance) racist ideas with people who are openly racist than with people who form secret clubs and societies in which they share their racist inclinations among others who think the same. Therefore, there is less inspiration for change toward acceptable virtues, if those who do not yet possess them are not challenged to assess their thinking through open debate and free speech. In addition, when someone is frank with you about what they think, it is a manifestation of respect as opposed to that person telling you what they think you want to hear.

HOWEVER, also consider that in having the liberty to speak frankly, be prepared to be held accountable for what you say, where you abuse that speech- through litigation, and not laws that justify censorship.

Written by Lindokuhle Mabaso

Under the first directive, applicants to the H-1B visa program which allows U.S. companies to employ foreign workers in specialized fields must now pay an additional $100,000 fee. The second order introduces a new “Golden Card” program offering expedited immigration to individuals who invest at least £1 million (approx. $1.3 million USD) into the U.S. economy.

Massive Fee Hike for H-1B Visa Applicants

Effective immediately, all new H-1B visa applications will be put on hold until the $100,000 payment is made, according to the White House briefing. The administration says the move is intended to ensure that foreign workers are not undercutting American jobs and to fund domestic workforce programs.

“For too long, American workers have been forced to compete with low-cost labor imported from abroad,” President Trump said. “We are putting American talent first and ensuring only the best and most committed applicants come to our country.”

The H-1B program has been a critical pipeline for U.S. companies especially in tech, healthcare, and engineering  to hire international talent. Industry leaders, including Tesla and SpaceX CEO Elon Musk, have previously defended the program, arguing that it is essential to U.S. innovation and competitiveness.

“If America doesn’t bring in top global talent, that talent will go to China, India, or Europe,” Musk posted on X (formerly Twitter), adding that the new fee may “strangle startups.”

Golden Card: Fast-Tracked Visas for the Ultra-Wealthy

Trump’s second executive order establishes a new “Golden Card” visa program a pathway for ultra-wealthy foreign nationals to receive expedited U.S. residency and work authorization in exchange for a substantial investment.

Key details of the Golden Card program include:

• Minimum investment of £1 million (~$1.3M USD) in approved sectors

• Fast-tracked processing for permanent residency (green card)

• Eligibility for U.S. citizenship within 3–5 years

Critics argue the policy favors the rich and commodifies the immigration process.

“We are turning U.S. citizenship into a luxury item,” said one immigration rights advocate. “This undermines the principle of equal opportunity and opens the door for more corruption and inequality.”

Divided Reactions: Nationalism vs. Globalization

The dual orders reflect Trump’s long-standing “America First” stance on immigration, rooted in economic nationalism and workforce protectionism. Supporters say the changes will reduce abuse of the H-1B system and bring in high-value investors, while opponents warn of brain drain, workforce disruption, and discrimination against lower-income applicants.

Economists have also expressed concern that the sudden cost spike could have a chilling effect on U.S. startups and mid-sized companies that rely on H-1B workers but cannot afford the inflated fees.

“You’re effectively slamming the door on foreign PhDs, engineers, and researchers,” said a spokesperson for the American Immigration Council. “This doesn’t help the American worker it isolates them.”

What Comes Next?

Legal challenges to both executive orders are already being prepared. Several immigration advocacy groups and civil rights organizations say they will challenge the new fees as unconstitutional and discriminatory, while business associations are expected to lobby for revisions or exemptions.

Congressional Democrats have also criticized the move, calling it an attempt to “auction off” American immigration policy.

Meanwhile, the Department of Homeland Security is expected to release formal implementation guidelines for both programs within the next two weeks.

The Metropolitan Police estimated the crowd at around 110,000, a turnout that reportedly overwhelmed expectations police sources said parts of the approved route, especially Whitehall, were too full to accommodate all protesters.A counter‑protest was organized by Stand Up to Racism, drawing about 5,000 people.

Clashes & Police Response

Although much of the march was peaceful, tensions boiled over in several places. Officers said some protesters attempted to veer off the approved route, trying to enter “sterile areas” meant to keep opposing groups apart. Confrontations involved hurling of bottles and flares, physical assaults (kicks, punches), and verbal abuse. The police described the violence from some participants as “unacceptable.”

A total of 26 officers were injured, four of them seriously, in the course of the events. Around 25 arrests were made, with authorities warning more are likely as investigations continue.

Organisers & Messaging

Tommy Robinson (real name Stephen Yaxley‑Lennon) delivered a speech framing the march as a defense of British heritage, free speech, and national identity. In his address, he claimed that migration policies had eroded rights of native Britons and called for political change. Supporters echoed such themes, carrying signs reading “send them home” among others.

Besides domestic figures, the rally attracted international voices. Elon Musk addressed attendees via video linkage, criticizing the UK government and lamenting what he described as cultural erosion. French far‑right politician Éric Zemmour also appeared via video, invoking ideas such as the “great replacement” theory.

Political & Social Context

Immigration has increasingly become one of the UK’s most talked about and divisive issues. Record numbers of asylum applications and migrant arrivals via small boats across the Channel have stirred strong public emotions. This march, following a summer of anti‑immigration protests including outside hotels where migrants were being housed reflects significant social tensions.

Prime Minister Keir Starmer acknowledged the right to peaceful protest but condemned the violence and what he called the misuse of national symbols to instil fear. He emphasized Britain’s values of diversity and tolerance.

Why It Matters & What Comes Next

The scale of this protest marks a possible turning point for the far‑right in Britain. Analysts warn that such large mobilisations give increased visibility and legitimacy to fringe views that previously operated on the margins. The involvement of foreign figures like Elon Musk furthers this sense of global resonance with the UK’s far‑right movements.

Questions remain about how law enforcement and politicians will respond. There may be tighter regulation of protests, especially in sensitive areas. Legal action against those who broke the route or engaged in violence seems likely. Also under scrutiny is the interplay between online radicalisation, political speech, and public safety.

The legislation, approved on Thursday, comes as part of a long standing immigration and border security strategy aimed at reducing the number of individuals Australia deems a risk due to criminal activity. The new law expedites the process, bypassing some previous legal hurdles to deportations.

Last Friday, Australia formalized a 30-year agreement with Nauru, under which it will provide A$2.5 billion (approximately US$1.62 billion) to support the island in hosting up to 350 deportees. This deal includes an upfront payment of A$400 million to establish an endowment fund aimed at resettlement support, as well as A$70 million annually for ongoing costs related to housing, healthcare, and integration programs.

The arrangement underscores Australia’s continued reliance on offshore processing facilities to manage immigration and asylum issues, a policy that has drawn criticism from human rights organizations over the years for its impact on refugees’ wellbeing.

Nauru, a small island country in the Pacific with limited resources and infrastructure, will now assume a larger role in Australia’s immigration enforcement. Officials from both countries have emphasized cooperation, stating the deal is intended to offer safe, sustainable solutions for those deported.

Background and Implications

Australia has faced mounting pressure to manage non citizens convicted of crimes within its borders, balancing security concerns with international humanitarian obligations. The new law reflects a tougher stance, expediting deportation to countries like Nauru, which have served as detention and resettlement centers since the early 2000s.

Critics argue that offshore resettlement raises serious questions about the treatment and rights of refugees and migrants, particularly given Nauru’s history with controversial detention centers. Proponents claim the deal offers a practical solution that alleviates domestic pressures while supporting a small Pacific nation financially.

The long-term impacts on both deportees and Nauru remain to be seen, as the implementation phase begins under increased international scrutiny.

Sound economics is backed by law and order. Strong businesses thrive in stable environments where property rights are protected, and criminals face real consequences. But right now, the UK’s shoplifting crisis is a textbook example of how left-wing policies erode economic foundations, inflate costs for everyone, and reward bad behavior. We’re talking about a rampant epidemic that’s draining billions from retailers, pushing up prices for hardworking families, and signaling a broader breakdown in society. And let’s be clear: under Keir Starmer’s Labour government, things have only gotten worse. They’ve talked a big game on cracking down, but their actions—or lack thereof—reveal a soft-on-crime approach that’s emboldening thieves and hammering the economy.

The Grim Numbers: A Surge That’s Costly

Uk’s Shoplifting Epidemic: 800 Unsolved Cases Daily

Let’s start with the cold, hard facts. Shoplifting offences in England and Wales hit a staggering 530,643 in the year ending March 2025—a 20% jump from the previous year and the highest since records began in 2003. That’s nearly three thefts every minute during trading hours, doubling since the 2020. Worse still, over 80% of these cases—289,464 to be precise—were closed without identifying a suspect, equating to about 793 unsolved thefts per day, up 18% year-on-year. Around 800 of these incidents go unsolved every day.

From a financial standpoint, this isn’t just petty crime; it’s organized looting that’s costing retailers £1.8 billion annually in losses alone, according to industry estimates. Add in security upgrades—tags, cameras, guards—and those costs get passed straight to consumers, adding an estimated £147 to the average household’s yearly shopping bill. It’s a hidden tax on the law-abiding, fuelling retail inflation and squeezing margins for small businesses already battered by high energy costs and taxes. And here’s the kicker: this surge has accelerated under Labour’s watch. Crime overall is up 7% since they took power in July 2024, with shoplifting leading the charge. Shadow Policing Minister Matt Vickers nailed it: “Shoplifting has surged by 20 per cent under Labour, with more than half a million offences in the last year alone.” As someone who values fiscal responsibility, this as a direct result of misguided priorities—pouring taxpayer money into everything but effective policing.

Root Causes: Economic Mismanagement and Soft Policies

Sure, the cost-of-living crisis plays a role—rising prices for essentials like food and energy have pushed some to desperation. But let’s not kid ourselves: this isn’t just about poverty; it’s about impunity. Police have deprioritized low-value thefts (under £200) since 2014, a policy that’s persisted and worsened under Labour, leading to brazen gangs filling trolleys and walking out unchallenged. Organized crime is a big driver too, with reports linking a chunk of thefts to networks reselling stolen goods. And while it’s politically incorrect to say, frontline security in places like London’s West End claims 70% of shoplifters are asylum seekers—stealing by day and retreating to taxpayer-funded hotels by night. This ties into broader immigration failures, where lax borders allow in those who exploit the system, adding to the chaos without contributing economically.

But it’s not just the asylum seekers. Violence is escalating too: retail workers face daily threats, with weapons involved in a rising number of incidents. This isn’t sustainable — businesses are locking up basics like chocolate and baby formula, which disrupts operations and deters customers. The economic ripple? Slower high street recovery, job losses, and reduced investment in UK retail.

Labour’s Role: Promises Unkept, Blame Shifted, and Soft Justice

Labour came in promising to “take back our streets” by scrapping the £200 threshold, creating a standalone offence for assaults on shop workers, and recruiting 13,000 more neighbourhood police.

 Sounds good on paper, right? But over a year in, where’s the action? Instead of bolstering cops, they’ve advised shopkeepers to hide “high-value” items from entrances—like blaming the victim for the crime. Policing Minister Dame Diana Johnson was “shocked” by brazen thefts during a visit to Hull, yet the government’s response has been tepid at best. Worse, Labour’s pushing “soft justice” reforms: abolishing short-term sentences for many offenders, which critics warn will unleash a crime wave—including more shoplifting and burglaries. They’ve even floated using tax hikes on farmers to fund anti-shoplifting measures, treating the public like fools by linking inheritance tax grabs to crime fighting.

Starmer’s soft touch—echoed by Sadiq Khan’s bizarre claim that London’s theft surge is just because “we have a lot of shops”—shows a disconnect from reality. Meanwhile, early prisoner releases and deprioritizing thefts mean catch-and-release is the norm, with police numbers down 1,300 on the streets. This isn’t leadership; it’s ideological indulgence. Labour’s blamed middle-class thieves, the Tories, even shop layouts—anything but their own failures. As a result, we’ve got record unsolved rates (e.g., 76.9% in the Met), and the epidemic rages on.

The Economic Toll of the UK Shoplifting Epidemic

Financially, this is a disaster. Retail crime is inflating prices, closing stores, and deterring investment—exacerbating Labour’s GDP slowdown (halved to ~1% in their first year) and rising unemployment (up to 4.4%). Taxpayers foot the bill for ineffective policing while businesses suffer. The solution is straightforward: tougher sentences that actually deter because prison works, real border control to stop exploitation by migrants, and prioritizing police resources on high streets—not virtue-signaling abroad. Labour’s dithering is destroying Britain’s economic fabric. We need a return to these principles: fiscal prudence, strong law enforcement, and policies that put British workers and businesses first.

The Rise of Shoplifting in the US: Blue State Failures and Trump’s Crackdown

But it’s not just the UK where this is happening. You see, when crime runs rampant, businesses suffer, investments dry up, and everyday Americans pay the price through higher costs and lost jobs. Right now, the surge in shoplifting across the US—particularly in Democrat-run blue states—is a glaring example of how leftist policies have turned cities into free-for-all zones for criminals. We’re talking billions in losses, store closures, and a hidden tax on families that’s fuelling inflation. And let’s be straight: this mess is largely the fault of Democrats’ soft-on-crime agenda, from no-bail releases to decriminalizing theft under $950. Thank God for President Trump’s return in 2025—he’s already taking bold steps to restore order, arming law enforcement and sending a clear message that crime doesn’t pay.

A Crime Wave Hitting Blue Strongholds Hardest

The data doesn’t lie—shoplifting exploded in recent years, with blue states bearing the brunt due to their lax policies. In 2024, incidents skyrocketed 24% in the first half compared to 2023, leaving rates about 10% above pre-plandemic levels nationwide.

The National Retail Federation (NRF) reported a staggering 93% jump in average incidents per store from 2019 to 2023, with losses hitting $13 billion annually—over $35 million a day—and projected to balloon to $115 billion by the end of 2025. Urban areas, mostly in blue states, account for 65% of incidents, thanks to higher density and weaker enforcement.

Zoom in on blue states, and it’s even worse. California, the poster child for Democrat mismanagement, saw a 13.8% increase in 2024 alone, 47.5% above 2019 levels. Chicago—a Democrat stronghold—endured a 46% surge in 2024. New York City’s rates jumped 48% from 2021-2022 and remained 55% higher in 2023 than 2019. Even as overall violent crime dipped in mid-2025 (down 6.6% from May 2024 to April 2025), shoplifting bucked the trend in many cities, up 14% in 2024 despite national declines elsewhere.

Retailers are shelling out for security, passing costs to consumers (adding hundreds to household bills yearly), and shuttering stores in high-crime blue cities like San Francisco and New York, killing local economies. But here’s the good news—since President Trump took office in January 2025, national trends show signs of reversal, with shoplifting down 12% in the first half of 2025 across sampled cities. That’s no coincidence; it’s leadership in action.

Root Causes: Democrats’ Soft Policies Fuelling the Fire

This isn’t just economic hardship or post-plandemic fallout—it’s policy-driven chaos courtesy of Democrats. Their obsession with “criminal justice reform” has created a revolving door for thieves, emboldening organized gangs and repeat offenders. Take California’s Proposition 47, championed by then-Attorney General Kamala Harris in 2014, which reclassified theft under $950 as a misdemeanour, essentially decriminalizing it. Trump called it out: Harris is directly responsible for this mess, allowing shoplifters to walk free without consequences. The Result? Smash-and-grab robberies skyrocketed, with losses in the billions and stores fleeing blue havens. Democrat DAs in cities like Manhattan and Los Angeles have worsened it, pushing cashless bail and declining to prosecute low-level crimes. As one GOP candidate put it, “Shoplifters got the message: You can do this and you won’t go to jail.” In New York, Gov. Kathy Hochul and Democrats clashed over tougher penalties, with progressives blocking real reforms in favour of “services over penalties.” Even when some Dems like California’s Gavin Newsom signed anti-theft bills in 2024, it was too little, too late—often clashing with business groups and overridden by voter-backed measures like Prop 36. These policies aren’t just naive; they’re economically destructive. By prioritizing criminals over victims, Democrats have driven up retail losses (90% increase in dollar terms from 2019), forced lockdowns on everyday items like toothpaste, and contributed to urban decay. Critics on the right, including me, see this as part of a broader leftist agenda that exploits crime for political gain while ignoring the real costs to businesses and families.

Trump’s Role: Restoring Law and Order with Decisive Action

Enter President Trump, who’s wasting no time in his second term to combat this epidemic. Just days ago, on August 25, 2025, Trump signed an executive order targeting cashless bail—the very Democrat policy that’s let thieves roam free. This builds on his April 2025 fact sheet, which strengthens law enforcement by increasing surplus military assets to locals, evaluating their use in crime prevention, and prioritizing federal resources against organized retail crime.  Trump’s been vocal: He suggested police get “extraordinarily rough” with shoplifters to deter them instantly, echoing his 2023 call for tough enforcement. In 2025 alone, Trump has signed 191 executive orders, many aimed at public safety, including detaining non-citizens arrested for theft under new DHS rules.  His administration supports bipartisan bills like the Combating Organized Retail Crime Act of 2025, reintroduced in April to align federal efforts against gangs. And look at the results: Violent crime in DC has plummeted under Trump’s historic push, proving that strong leadership works. Unlike Democrats’ dithering, Trump’s America First approach—outlined in policy briefs—focuses on deterrence, prosecution, and supporting retailers to slash losses.

Financially, this shoplifting scourge is a disaster: $150 billion projected losses by 2026, job cuts from store closures, and inflation spikes as retailers hike prices. Blue states’ failures exacerbate inequality, hitting low-income areas hardest as essentials get locked up or vanish. The fix? Double down on Trump’s playbook: End cashless bail nationwide, lower felony thresholds, and equip police with the tools they need. Blue states must ditch their progressive experiments and adopt conservative principles—tough sentences, border security (to curb migrant-linked theft), and pro-business policies.

Written By Tatenda Belle Panashe

A new policy alert issued by U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) on Monday outlines how the change will impact foreign athletes seeking entry into the United States for competitive sports.

According to the alert, USCIS will now consider whether a biological male athlete has competed in women’s categories as a negative factor when determining whether the applicant qualifies as being among the “very top of the field” a requirement under specific O-1 and P-1 visa classifications for elite athletes.

Executive Order Driving the Change

The policy shift follows President Trump’s executive order signed earlier this year, which mandates that U.S. immigration and sports authorities enforce sex-based protections in athletics, particularly for female and youth sports categories.

Trump’s administration has argued that allowing biological males to compete in women’s sports “undermines fair competition” and creates disadvantages for women and girls. Critics argue the new policy discriminates against transgender individuals and risks politicizing sports and immigration decisions.

Impact on International Competitions

This new rule could affect international athletes seeking to compete in U.S.-based tournaments, including the Olympics, professional leagues, and college-level sports. Advocacy groups for transgender athletes have condemned the measure, while supporters of the executive order view it as a step toward protecting biological women’s sports categories.

“This is about fairness and biology,” a senior USCIS official told reporters anonymously. “Athletes entering the U.S. to compete should not have an unfair advantage in women’s events.”

Ongoing Debate Over Gender and Sports

The move reignites the broader cultural and legal debate over transgender participation in sports, an issue that has divided lawmakers, athletic organizations, and the public in recent years.

Several U.S. states have already enacted similar bans or restrictions at the school and collegiate levels. Now, the federal government’s immigration policy appears to be taking cues from those state led efforts, applying them to non-citizens and foreign athletes.

As President Donald J. Trump reaches the six-month mark of his historic second term in office, the White House is celebrating what it describes as a series of substantial achievements both at home and abroad. Having been inaugurated for a second time on January 20, 2025, President Trump’s administration has maintained what officials call an “unprecedented pace of action” across multiple fronts.

White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt addressed the media on Monday, providing a detailed overview of the administration’s accomplishments since returning to office. Leavitt praised the president’s “unmatched energy, strategic clarity, and unwavering commitment to the American people.”

“In just six months, President Trump has already delivered on many of the promises he made to the American people,” she said. “From restoring American energy independence to reasserting strength on the world stage, this administration has hit the ground running.”

Key Highlights from the First Six Months:

• Legislative Wins:
  President Trump met his self-imposed deadline to secure passage of a major legislative package the American Renewal Act which includes tax reforms, border security funding, and incentives for domestic manufacturing. The bill passed both chambers of Congress after intense negotiation.

• Foreign Policy Moves:
  Trump has made high-profile diplomatic and military decisions, including a renewed peace push in the Middle East, tougher trade policies with China, and a withdrawal from certain multilateral climate frameworks reaffirming his “America First” platform.

• Border and Immigration Enforcement:
  The administration has accelerated construction of new border infrastructure and introduced revised immigration policies aimed at limiting illegal crossings and tightening asylum criteria.

• Economic Initiatives:
  Job growth has shown a modest uptick, particularly in energy and manufacturing sectors, with the administration crediting deregulation efforts and investor confidence tied to tax incentives.

• Judicial Appointments:
  Dozens of federal judicial nominees have already been confirmed, continuing the Trump-era effort to reshape the federal judiciary with conservative appointments.

Leavitt said the administration’s rapid start reflects a sense of urgency to undo what Trump has repeatedly called “the damage done by the previous administration.”

Despite political tensions, Trump’s base remains firmly supportive. Recent polls show that a majority of Republican voters approve of his performance so far, praising his leadership style and policy direction.

As the administration moves into the second half of its first year, all eyes will be on the continued implementation of Trump’s domestic agenda and his evolving foreign policy decision specially in regions such as Eastern Europe, East Asia, and the Middle East.

Speaking at the White House, Trump defended the deployment of National Guard troops to Los Angeles, claiming the city would be “on fire” without their presence.

“We had to act. What’s happening in Los Angeles is lawlessness, funded by radical groups and paid troublemakers,” Trump stated.

The unrest erupted after a series of mass U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) arrests across the city, which critics say targeted undocumented immigrants indiscriminately. Protesters clashed with law enforcement over the weekend, leading to dozens of arrests and injuries.

President Trump confirmed that he spoke with California Governor Gavin Newsom and urged stronger action from local authorities. “We need the cooperation of every state. If they can’t control it, the federal government will step in,” he said.

The Insurrection Act, last invoked in 1992 during the Los Angeles riots, allows the president to deploy U.S. military forces domestically in cases of civil disorder or rebellion.

Critics warn that invoking the act now would escalate tensions and raise constitutional concerns about federal overreach.

Governor Newsom has not publicly commented on the call, but California officials have previously criticized the federal government’s handling of immigration enforcement.

The move comes after tensions flared between demonstrators and federal agents across several city blocks, as hundreds gathered to denounce the recent crackdown on undocumented immigrants.

Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth stated that the Pentagon is monitoring the situation closely and warned that active-duty troops could be mobilized if the unrest escalates. “The Marines at Camp Pendleton are on high alert,” Hegseth said during a press briefing. “We will not allow lawlessness in our streets.”

The protests began shortly after reports emerged of coordinated ICE operations targeting suspected undocumented immigrants in the Los Angeles area. Protesters have accused the administration of targeting immigrant communities unfairly and called for an immediate end to the raids.

City officials have urged calm, but emphasized the right to peaceful protest.

There has been no confirmation of serious injuries or arrests as of Sunday afternoon.

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