Friday, April 14

HuffPost writer: We need to ban white males from voting for, oh, 20 years or so. And she's serious.

The Huffington Post is a cesspool of socialist idiots.  They're the type of people who think food comes from the grocery store and electricity comes from a socket in the wall.  They believe if the West disarms unilaterally, all will be well because no communist or socialist nation would ever get territorial ambitions or use force to get what it wants.

Of course you think this is way too harsh, and that the ultra-Left, self-proclaimed "liberals" at HuffPo are actually nice people who just support a different candidate and party.

Okay, let's turn to the tape:  Here's an article in HuffPo's South African rag, in which the author suggests that all that's needed for so-called "progressives" to fix things is a trivial fix:  she urges barring white males from voting for a short period--which the author starts at 20 years but later widens to "between 20 and 30 years."

Now, liberals and Dems and social justice warriors and feminists may well counter that because this article was posted in the rag's South Africa edition it's unfair to ascribe the same views to the American staff.  This is horse-shit:  The article got the endorsement of the editors of the SA website, and who do you think hired those worthless wastes of oxygen?

Why, that would be the owners of the parent (American) version of the rag.  Think they would have hired women who disagreed with the owners?  Not damn likely.

So as you read this, keep in mind that a) this is how these people really think; b) this is what they really want to do; c) they won't spontaneously stop seeking that end unless forced to see the error of their ways.

Now I'll admit, a lot of men are worthless pieces of shit who should be shot as soon as possible:  the socialist president of Venezuela, for example.  That fat dictator dictator of North Korea who's been starving a few million of his fellow citizens for years.  That charmless goblin who claims to be the head of ISIS.  Hell, every ISIS thug who's played any part in beheading or drowning or burning caged prisoners.  But to suggest that all problems are generically caused by white males is nuts.

Anyway, the article:

Some of the biggest blows to the progressive cause in the past year have often been due to the votes of white men.

If white men were not allowed to vote, it is unlikely that the United Kingdom would be leaving the European Union, it is unlikely that Donald Trump would now be the President of the United States, and it is unlikely that the Democratic Alliance would now be governing four of South Africa's biggest cities. [see end-notes]

If white men no longer had the vote, the progressive cause would be strengthened.  It would not be necessary to deny white men indefinitely – the denial of the vote to white men for 20 years (just less than a generation) would go some way to seeing a decline in the influence of reactionary and neo-liberal ideology in the world. 
Wait...this implies the gal thinks "neo-liberal" is bad?  I thought they pushed that liberal was good.  Sounds like she's referring to liberals who aren't revolutionary enough.
The influence of reckless white males were one of the primary reasons that led to the Great Recession which began in 2008. This would also strike a blow against toxic white masculinity, one that is long needed.

At the same time, denying white men the vote could see a redistribution of global assets to their rightful owners.
And who does she think determines the "rightful owners"?  Why, anyone who sits on their ass and demands that the gruberment give 'em stuff they want but can't pay for.
After all, white men have used the imposition of Western legal systems around the world to reinforce capitalism. 
Getting a message that the author hates capitalism.  What a surprise!
Twenty years without white men in the world's parliaments and voting booths will allow legislation to be passed which could see the world's wealth far more equitably shared. The violence of white male wealth and income inequality will be a thing of the past.

This redistribution of the world's wealth is long overdue, and it is not just South Africa where white males own a disproportionate amount of wealth. While in South Africa 90 percent of the country's land is in the hands of whites (it is safe to assume mainly men), along with 97 percent of the Johannesburg Stock Exchange, this is also the norm in the rest of the world.

In the United States ten percent of the population (nearly all white) own 90 percent of all assets – and it's likely most of these assets are owned by males. Although statistics by race are difficult to find from other parts of the world, it is very likely that the majority of the world's assets are in the hands of white males, despite them making up less than 10 percent of the world's population.

It is obvious that this violent status quo will not change without a struggle, and the only way to do so will be through the expropriation of these various assets and equitably distribute them to those who need them. This will not only make the world a more equitable place, but will also go some way to paying the debt that white males owe the world.

Over the past 500 years colonialism, slavery, and various aggressive wars and genocides, have been due to the actions of white men. Redistributing some of their assets will go some way to paying the historical debt that they owe society.
*I* don't owe you--or your snowflakes--a fucking thing, bitch. 
 It is no surprise that liberalism – and its ideological offshoots of conservatism and libertarianism – are the most popular ideologies among white males. These ideologies with their focus on individuals and individual responsibility, rather than group affiliation, allow white men to ignore the debt that they owe society, and from acknowledging that most of their assets, wealth, and privilege are the result of theft and violence.

Some may argue that this is unfair. Let's be clear, it may be unfair, but a moratorium on the franchise for white males for a period of between 20 and 30 years is a small price to pay for the pain inflicted by white males on others, particularly those with black, female-identifying bodies. In addition, white men should not be stripped of their other rights, and this withholding of the franchise should only be a temporary measure, as the world rights the wrongs of the past.

A withholding of the franchise from white males, along with the passing of legislation in this period to redistribute some of their assets, will also, to a degree, act as the reparations for slavery, colonialism, and apartheid, which the world is crying out for to be paid.

White males still believe that they are in control, and people who aren't white or male (particularly black female-identifying people) have to bow to their every whim. There are numerous other examples of white angry male violence in South Africa and abroad, often against black bodies (Dylann Roof's terrorist actions in the United States is only one of many examples). It is time to wrestle control of the world back from white males, and the first step will be a temporary restriction of the franchise to them.

Although this may seem unfair and unjust, allowing white males to continue to call the shots politically and economically, following their actions over the past 500 years, is the greater injustice.
==
To put this piece of absurdity into context you need to know that 20 years ago a coalition of western nations and virtue-signalling liberals forced the government of South Africa--once a world-class nation-- to hand the keys over to the communist "ANC."  The latter has ruled ever since, but with so much corruption and mismanagement that everything's turned to shit.

That's what her reference to the Democratic Alliance running the nation's four largest cities is:  The DA is the main opposition to the thoroughly corrupt ANC, which is becoming more and more desperate in its determination to retain total control of the government.

One of the tools the ANC wants to use to keep control is to confiscate land owned by white farmers and "redistribute" it to blacks.  They've been doing this for 20 years, but because the top thugs of the ANC have stolen so much cash, they don't have enough to buy land at a fast rate.  So the head thug has proposed to simply confiscate the land without paying the owners anything.  This is called "stealing" but in the communist dictionary it's perfectly legal.

So in pushing "redistribution" the author is shilling for the communists.

Finally:  imagine the howls of outrage if a conservative outfit had written "What's needed is to ban women and blacks from voting for, oh, say 20 years."  Liberals would be screaming their damn heads off.  But hey, two parties, two sets of standards.  And safe spaces for snowflakes.

0 Comments:

Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

<< Home