Could It Be Time To Deny White Men The Right to Vote .....

GURPS

INGSOC
PREMO Member
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.


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.

I'm pretty sure the majority of African Countries are RUN by Africans
Here is a suggestion, move to some African County with a BLACK Majority ... because ya know things are great in Zimbabwe


Democracy in African countries: five myths explored

There Are No Successful Black Nations

And the indignity and helplessness of blacks in America won’t end until we have a first-world African nation to lift up our people.

Nigeria, the most populous black nation on Earth, is on the brink of collapse. The machineries that make a nation exist, let alone succeed, have all eroded. One might argue that the nation’s creation by self-seeking white imperialists engendered its failure from the beginning, as I did in my recent novel. But this is only a part of the cause. A culture of incompetence, endemic corruption, dignified ineptitude, and, chief among all, destructive selfishness and greed has played a major role in its unravelling. The same, sadly, can be said for most other African nations. States like Zimbabwe, Cameroon, and Equatorial Guinea are farcical democracies ruled by men who exclusively cater to their interests and those of their clipped circles.

Thus, it is no surprise that in the absence of any healthy black nation — in the midst of chaos, senseless wars, corrupted religiosity, violence, and economic collapse — African and Caribbean people leave home en masse. They beg on the streets of Greece, prostitute in the red-light zones of the Netherlands, and make up 40 percent of the migrants flocking to Europe. As they turn up in these countries, helpless, unwanted, starved, or maimed, they are treated like dogs. Last month in Italy, a newly married Nigerian man was murdered simply for being unwanted. Everywhere from Ukraine to India, nearly every day, black indignity, black helplessness, stares us in the face. And all we do, we who hold the platform can do, is scream “racism!” and court the sympathy of others.
 
Last edited:

SamSpade

Well-Known Member
...........................

Of course the premise that white men really ought to be denied the vote is that there's really only one acceptable outcome for votes and dammit, all those millions of white guys exercising their right to vote - well, they're just THWARTING it!

That the left can only accept outcomes they approve of - well, we're seeing that and it's still no surprise.
 

tommyjo

New Member
That the left can only accept outcomes they approve of - well, we're seeing that and it's still no surprise.

ONLY the left can accept outcomes they approve of???

Who is our new Supreme Court Justice?? And how did he get on the bench???

You far right morons are no better in your "identity politics" than anyone one far left. Muslims should be banned from the county (remember)...people of color shouldn't be allowed to vote (remember)...poor people (anyone with less than you) should be shipped out, eliminated or cut off (remember)...

There's that old thing about glass houses and stones...
 

Bird Dog

Bird Dog
PREMO Member
Muslims should be banned from the county...people of color shouldn't be allowed to vote......poor people (anyone with less than you) should be shipped out, eliminated or cut off .......

.

I knew you'd come around to the Dark side eventually......
 

SamSpade

Well-Known Member
ONLY the left can accept outcomes they approve of???

Huh? English your first language?
Everyone accepts outcomes they approve of.

When the right loses, they accept the process and say better luck next time.
When the left loses - THEY CHEATED! NOT MY PRESIDENT! LEAVING THE COUNTRY!

The argument however is part of the original post - the writer thinks there's one "correct" outcome, and wouldn't it be better if they could disallow all those white guys the vote so things could be - you know - the way they're supposed to be and not how the people VOTED.

Because the correct outcome can never be - you know - how the people voted.
Gotta be how the "progressive" idea should be.
 

SamSpade

Well-Known Member
Who is our new Supreme Court Justice?? And how did he get on the bench???

The sore loser party - the same one that filibustered Alito -
the same one that invented the word "Bork" - (you should READ the bull#### said about him on the floor of the Senate)
the same one who filled the airwaves with the Thomas hearings -
decided they'd filibuster Gorsuch, even though they approved him previously for the Tenth Circuit.

Because they didn't want him to get an up or down vote.
Had nothing to do with him personally. It was revenge.
 

Kyle

ULTRA-F###ING-MAGA!
PREMO Member
The sore loser party - the same one that filibustered Alito -
the same one that invented the word "Bork" - (you should READ the bull#### said about him on the floor of the Senate)
the same one who filled the airwaves with the Thomas hearings -
decided they'd filibuster Gorsuch, even though they approved him previously for the Tenth Circuit.

Because they didn't want him to get an up or down vote.
Had nothing to do with him personally. It was revenge.

those are just a few of the reasons I've come to despise ALL Democrats over the last 40 years.
 

Hijinx

Well-Known Member
The sore loser party - the same one that filibustered Alito -
the same one that invented the word "Bork" - (you should READ the bull#### said about him on the floor of the Senate)
the same one who filled the airwaves with the Thomas hearings -
decided they'd filibuster Gorsuch, even though they approved him previously for the Tenth Circuit.

Because they didn't want him to get an up or down vote.
Had nothing to do with him personally. It was revenge.

Isn't it funny that TJ had to ask that question, and she always says she is so informed.
I hope your post jogged some deep memory she must have forgotten about.

And I hope she remembers that Harry Reid fired the first Nuclear shot in the Senate.
Thereby ruining the filibuster and fair play forever.
 

Rommey

Well-Known Member
If they disallowed white males from voting, I'd say there would be a lot of white males that would all of a sudden identify themselves as "black". Isn't that allowed in the progressive playbook?
 

Larry Gude

Strung Out
If they disallowed white males from voting, I'd say there would be a lot of white males that would all of a sudden identify themselves as "black". Isn't that allowed in the progressive playbook?

:lol:

They. Now, whom would 'they' be? And you make an outstanding point! If I self identify as a black female, might I not be in line for some recompense from those blue eyed devils?
 

Larry Gude

Strung Out
"they" would be those people that advocate/opine for such a situation to become a reality.

I know but, 'they' is us, white males. White males still rule this planet. 'They' would have to not only be the potus and vice potus but the VAST majority of elected and bureaucratic power holders in the nation and the world.

Modern progressive-sm has reached a point of infinite regression. In order to establish that, somehow, simply eliminating what males from power is, de facto, going to mean a just and fair world is perhaps the greatest example of a non sequitur possible. There is absolutely, positively Zero evidence that non white people were MORE, let alone even equally, peaceful and just.


Consider; one of the key arguments of progressives against White Christianity is that Jesus was not and could not be white. OK, granted. Now what? All that does is proves that, regardless of the fact or myth of a Christ, his era was ruled by brown people and was incredibly unjust and violent. You weren't crucified in the press. Your ass got NAILED to a cross and left to die as warning and punishment to all who dared speak out. Mohamed wasn't white. He is the embodiment of peace through absolute dominance. The breath taking violence of Asian lands further supports the point. Bloodthirsty for $200, Alex, what is 'ancient South America'? Slavery? Africa long before the white man came back.

WTF is it about white men who can't answer these nonsensical positions and arguments?

I mean,
 

GURPS

INGSOC
PREMO Member
Gullible Huffington Post Falls for Hoax Article Calling for White Men to be Stripped of Voting Rights


Then, following the extensive backlash, Huffington Post deleted the article, replacing it with a meek apology and a claim that they were unable to confirm that Shelley Garland was a real person. They even had to hilariously clarify that they are in favor of universal voting enfranchisement.

A person claiming to be Shelley Garland has since reached out to Cliff Central, with evidence of the original pitch email she had sent to Huffington Post. “Shelley” says she received the website’s content guidelines, which her piece certainly does not adhere to despite the site’s decision to post it.

Further documentation from “Shelley” elaborates on how she conducted the ruse armed with a heavily photoshopped image taken from the Internet and phrases employed by the “less sensible left.” The hoaxster says that her editors at Huffington Post did not correct any of the false claims, factual errors and logical fallacies she purposely embedded in the piece, and accepted it without question.

A further indictment on the Huffington Post is the fact that its editor, Verashni Pillay, then took it upon herself to defend the total garbage that I had written. Although Ms Pillay claims that her website does not necessarily agree with what I said, it is unlikely that she would publish a piece with the same sentiments but aimed at a different race group written by someone ostensibly from the other side of the political spectrum.

It is highly doubtful that she would publish a piece saying perhaps apartheid wasn’t that bad, or defending Donald Trump’s ban on people of certain nationalities entering the United States, and rightly so. Pieces defending apartheid or the ‘Muslim ban’ would be hurtful claptrap. What we have seen is the South African equivalent of the Sokal Affair, where something will be published, even if it’s ‘liberally salted with nonsense if (a) it sounded good and (b) it flattered the editors’ ideological preconceptions’. My article does not meet criteria a, but it certainly meets criteria b.
 
Top