Post: #1

Emphasis added for comedy factor.

Quote:Could It Be Time To Deny White Men The Franchise?

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.

13/04/2017 03:56 SAST | Updated 18 hours ago

Shelley Garland
MA Philosophy Student

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.

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. 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, a denial of the franchise to white men, could see a redistribution of global assets to their rightful owners. After all, white men have used the imposition of Western legal systems around the world to reinforce modern capitalism. A period of 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 these are mainly men), along with 97 percent of the Johannesburg Stock Exchange, this is also the norm in the rest of the world. Namibia has similar statistics with regard to land distribution and one can assume this holds for other assets too. As Oxfam notes eight men control as much as wealth as the poorest 50 percent of the world's population. In the United States ten percent of the population (nearly all white) own 90 percent of all assets – it is likely that these assets are largely in the hands of 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.

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.



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.

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.

As we saw after the recent altercation between a white man and Lebohang Mabuya at a Spur restaurant in Johannesburg, white males still believe that they are in control, and people who aren't white or male (in 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.

That's right, folks. It's all the fault of (((white males))) like George Soros, and that guy that ekes out a living selling hand crafted wooden lawn ornaments in Hicktown, Idaho.

edit: On a more serious note, this is the kind of propaganda that will be rolled out while the white genocide in Africa ratchets up another notch. Laughable as it sounds, keep your eye on the ball.

Post: #2

hm. A seemingly white progressive from South Africa. I wonder what ethnic group she belongs to.

But anyway it is amazing how straightforward their logic is. It makes sense, gotta give them that.

What have white men ever done for America, Britain, etc anyway?

Post: #3

It isn't racist if it's white people. It isn't discrimination if it's white people. It isn't violence if it's white people. It isn't genocide if it's white people.

Fucking irredeemable nutcases at HuffPo.

Post: #4

There is nothing, that contains less value, than the opinion of black women.

Post: #5

Ah yes, because denying white men the franchise in Zimbabwe and South Africa is working out so well for the pigment-privileged population down there.

God save us from people who mean well. -storm

Post: #6

If I look at this author's name, am I going to find paranthesis around it?

Post: #7

This sounds like a great proposal!

It would prevent one of the world's greatest bloc of leeches from continuing to vote themselves more largesse from the treasury and more leeway to enact violence.

Oh darn, forgot that I had that Chrome add-on that replaces "White" with "Black" for Huffington Post articles.

Post: #8

Post: #9

I didn't realize there is a Huffington Post in Zambia. I don't know if many will see it.

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.za/shelley-..._22036640/

It would actually be a blessing in disguise, of course. When men aren't allowed to vote, they resort to other tactics. History also shows that those "other tactics" are much more effective than voting.

Post: #10

This may be a funny article but make no mistake about it: the goal is genocide and that's exactly the direction we are moving in.

Edit: now that I think about it, it may not even be so funny. Huffpo is not a fringe publication, much as it deserves to be insofar as it deserves to exist at all. It's possible this article is a one off never to be seen again, but then again, remember how "white privilege" and "micro-aggressions" and "trans rights" got started: at each of their onsets, you'd have hardly believe they could ever gain momentum they were so ludicrous, yet look where we are now.

I think we'll see this concept of denying white males "status" (ie making them slaves) become mainstreamed going forward. Now, they won't actually implement it for a good long while, but they'll make it so that the idea starts pervading the public consciousness and its eventual implementation becomes more or less baked in once demographics are favorable. This isn't at all surprising, as the anti white narrative has continued on an ever intensifying trajectory.

First it was equality. Then it was affirmative action. Then it was "white privilege." Soon it will be "temporary disenfranchisement to right past wrongs." And once you have disenfranchisement then genocide will follow hot on the heels.

Post: #11

How on earth is this not hate speech?

Post: #12

(04-13-2017 11:47 PM)SamuelBRoberts Wrote:  If I look at this author's name, am I going to find paranthesis around it?

It might not be foghorns, it might just be daddy issues.

Also, I think this is just clickbait, we really shouldn't give them a link.

Post: #13

Hence the total article was quoted and no hyperlink was given.

Post: #14

Post: #15

".....would go some way to seeing a decline in the influence of reactionary and neo-liberal ideology in the world....."

The mere fact that the article makes this statement - which is the only bit of truth in the whole thing is good, no???

I read this as they are losing and they know they are losing badly.

Post: #16

I guess you have to give them a little credit for finally coming out and saying it. It's not as if we didn't know that's what they've been thinking.

Post: #17

(04-14-2017 01:45 AM)Handsome Creepy Eel Wrote:  

How on earth is this not hate speech?

It's not, because 'hate speech' is one of those doublespeak terms invented by the Left. Just like rape culture, male privilege, neoliberalism, homophobia, sexism etc.

The leftists are the ones who define what hate speech is, and what isn't. That's because it exists only in their minds, and nowhere else.

Post: #18

This makes me want to make a lot of white babies and teach them to be shitlords.

Post: #19

What I find striking is the butthurt run at political mathematics they're making.

Take America for example. The left lost by a slim margin in many senses. White men make up maybe 35% of the population and not all of them voted Trump by a long shot.

So the claim that white men need to be stripped of their franchise because their vote ensures tyranny is absurd. Why not just be honest and say "everyone who votes against my wishes should be stripped of their franchise"?

Post: #20

No comment necessary.

Come and take it, bitch

Post: #21

Thats a tranny.

Post: #22

I hope so, otherwise its a female cave troll witg 5 inches of makeup.

Post: #23

Down with capitalism!!!!!!

Sent from my iPhone

Post: #24

You know how they say there's the soap box, the ballot box, and then the bullet box?

SJWs are working hard to destroy our soap boxes, and having some success at it. If they try to destroy our access to the ballot box, what does that leave?

Post: #25

(04-14-2017 04:52 AM)Foolsgo1d Wrote:  Thats a tranny.

Who needs glasses