Thursday, April 13, 2017

Huff Post Writer Suggests It Could Be "Time to Deny White Men the Franchise"

Time to disenfranchise white men according to this apparently white-skinned woman named Shelley Garland who claims to be studying for a Master's degree in philosophy.   Her understanding of history and moral philosophy is pathetic.

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.za/shelley-garland/could-it-be-time-to-deny-white-men-the-franchise_a_22036640/


According to Garland's fairy tale, most of the assets, wealth, and (supposed) privilege held by white males "are the result of theft and violence." In her words:
"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."
The greater wealth in European societies couldn't be explained by the fact that Europeans have higher average IQs than all other ethnic groups except Asians.  It can't be explained by unique features of European culture, such as monogamous marriage and high-investment paternal parenting strategy (aka K-selection), which reduces the population-to-resource-base ratio and  redirects "male efforts from seeking wives to paternal investment" thereby increasing savings, child investment and economic productivity.  The poverty of non-Europeans can't be explained by their historical practice of polygamous marriage and "spray and pray" low investment paternal parenting strategies (aka r-selection), common to 85 percent of non-European societies until very recently; nor to their genetically determined low mean general intelligence.

No, its all so simple in Garland's simple mind, its all down to "colonialism, slavery, and various aggressive wars and genocides" which she ignorantly implies and apparently believes were practiced only by Europeans.

What she calls "redistribution" is better known as THEFT. "Historical debt"?  What is that?  She believes that I, a white male, owe a "historical debt" to society because someone with the same skin color allegedly committed crimes in the remote past?  It is just to punish me for the actions of some people I am not even directly related to? 

In her mind, the 'solution' to this 'problem' is to STEAL resources from and deny a voice to European men who did not perform the alleged crimes that according to her occurred over the past 500 years, and give them to non-white or non-male people who are not the direct victims of the alleged crimes.   So, in her mind,  multiple wrongs make a right? 

Never mind that most modern people today have a living standard that would have been envied by kings even 100 years ago, let alone 500 years ago; and that this high standard of living was produced by science, technology and public health measures invented mostly by the white men Garland thinks are so evil.  You know, like running water, toilets, sewage systems, efficient refrigerators, high food production, antibiotics, power generators, electric lighting, etc..  These things would not even exist in Africa, the Middle East, or much of Asia if it weren't for the supposedly evil white man. 

The Eight Men

Garland writes:
"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."
 So all white men should be denied a voice because those eight men dominate world wealth and that 10 percent of the population is unusually wealthy in the U.S.?  That's about as stupid as stupid gets.

Moreover, many of those assets that are controlled by those she believes to be all white males are things like factories, office buildings, stores, warehouses, etc. that provide jobs and thus livelihoods for millions of people. 

In what legal system or moral philosophy and by what 'logic' is it just to penalize all white men because 8 men dominate world wealth?

In what legal system or moral philosophy and by what 'logic' is it just to penalize 90 percent of white men because 10 percent own 90 percent of all U.S. assets?

By this logic, we can punish all Chinese for crimes committed by Mao.  If this is what they teach in logic and philosophy at university these days, STAY AWAY!

Who's White, Who's Not?

She also should be more careful in her claim "nearly all white" because there exists a group of people who are unusually wealthy and protected in our society, who dominate education and media, and often look white and sometimes present themselves as white (they will even change their names to hide their real ethnicity) but who do not themselves align biologically or politically with European white men.

According to Oxfam, the eight wealthiest men in the world are: Bill Gates, Amancio Ortega Gaona, Warren E. Buffett, Carlos Slim HelĂș, Jeff Bezos, Mark Zuckerberg, Lawrence J. Ellison, and Michael R. Bloomberg. According to the Jewish Forward, three of these eight (38 percent) are Jews (Zuckerberg, Ellison, and Bloomberg) and one is Mexican.  That leaves only 4 who can be said to be European.  

There are only about 15-16 million Jews in the whole world, amounting to about 0.23 percent of the world population.  White European people (non-Jews) make up about 16% of the world population (i.e. world-wide, whites are a minority).  Thus, Jews are over-represented in the top eight wealthiest men by a factor of more than 100. 

According to the Times of Israel, "Jews are disproportionately represented on the roster of the world’s wealthiest..."  Ten of the world's top 50 billionaires (20 percent) are Jewish.  Larry Ellison, the founder of the tech giant Oracle Corporation is the wealthiest Jew in the world and the fifth wealthiest person alive. At age 70, his net worth is $54.2 billion.

Other Jews on the list include former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg, Facebook's owner Mark Zuckerberg, casino magnate Sheldon Adelson ($31.4 billion), Google co-founders Sergey Brin and Larry Page ($29.2 and $29.7 billion); investors George Soros ($24.2 billion), Carl Icahn ($23.5 billion) and Len Blavatnik ($20.2 billion); Dell Computer Founder Michael Dell ($19.2 billion), Russ Weiner (founder and CEO of Rockstar energy drinks), Jerry Reinsdorf (the owner of the Chicago Bulls and the Chicago White Sox sports franchises), Ken Grossman (a co-founder of the Sierra Nevada Brewing Co.), Seth Klarman (an investor in the Times of Israel), and a few Jewish women, including Shari Arison ($4.4 billion), Karen Pritzker ($4.3 billion), Lynn Schusterman ($3.7 billion), Doris Fisher ($3.2 billion), and Sheryl Sandberg ($1 billion).

The Jerusalem Post says that Russian president Vladimir Putin has "an army of Jewish billionaires" at his side. 

Yet Garland didn't suggest that it is time to deny Jews the franchise or other influence.  Would she suggest that the vast Jewish wealth was obtained by route of "colonialism, slavery, and various aggressive wars and genocides"?  What name is applied to people who suggest that Jews have done evil things? 

Why, after all, doesn't she recognize the over-representation of Jews and the difference between Jews and non-Jew Europeans?  Jews are not "white" in the sense usually meant i.e. Anglo-Saxon, Gaul, Germanic, or other European heritage.  Jews themselves deny being white people, they never tire of reminding non-Jews that they are Semitic people, not Europeans.  They are from the Near and Middle East, not from Europe.
"Genetic studies indicate that modern Jews (Ashkenazi, Sephardic and Mizrahi specifically), Levantine Arabs, Assyrians, Samaritans, Maronites, Druze, Mandaeans, and Mhallami, all have an ancient indigenous common Near Eastern heritage which can be genetically mapped back to the ancient Fertile Crescent, but often also display genetic profiles distinct from one another, indicating the different histories of these peoples.[14]"
There are powerful Jews who do not identify as Europeans and in fact actively work against the best interests of European peoples, such as Barbara Spectre, who wants to replace European culture with a fanciful "multicultural" society of her design.


She is saying that native Europeans "must" be replaced with non-Europeans, which amounts to calling for genocide of European people in their own lands.  Notice how she has no concern for what Europeans themselves want.  She believes that Europeans "must" take the direction that Jews want them to take and anyone who disagrees is "anti-Semitic."  So much for "democracy" and self-determination.  Who appointed her tribe the rulers over Europeans who "must" bow to Jewish governance?

Jewish interest groups have been using deception and, when that failed, military actions of the State to dominate Europeans at least since the years 390-395 CE when they succeeded in getting the emperor Theodosius to initiate the forced conversion of Europeans from their native 'paganism" to Christianity, a Jewish messianic religion.  This religion teaches all of its followers to accept that Jews are the original divinely chosen people and to worship a Jewish man – Jesus – who the church fathers fraudulently claimed was the one and only incarnation of GOD on Earth.

Group Affiliation

Garland accuses white men of lacking a sense of "group affiliation" and ignoring "the debt they owe society." She writes:
"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."
Ironically, all of the world's top eight billionaires have "progressive," globalist political views, leaning toward socialism and anti-white European policies like mass non-European immigration into Europe and the U.S.A..  Those who are Jewish have strong group affiliation with their ethnic group and its homeland, Israel and generally promote anti-white European policies.

Regarding the accusation that white men avoid group affiliation, the fact is, the promotion of individualism rather than group identity and affiliation (i.e. nationalism) among white people has been used to fragment the European people, while group affiliations and "identity politics" are encouraged to all non-whites.  Blacks are allowed to have their NAACP, and Black Lives Matter.  Latinos have La Raza ("The Race"), and Jews have the ADL, Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC), and at least 48 Jewish-American political organizations.

But white Europeans are actively discouraged from organize into pro-European, i.e. pro-white or nationalist groups. The SPLC is notorious for claiming that all such groups that promote interests of whites are  "racists" and "hate groups."  If whites express an affiliation with and care for a land (e.g. Europe) and suggest that Europe is for Europeans, while Asia is for Asians and Africa is for Africans, they are labeled xenophobes.  Africans are allowed to violently kick Europeans out of Africa, but Europeans MUST give Europe to non-Europeans, because "Europeans bad, non-Europeans good" as "explained" by the non-European invader of Europe in the video below, who is essentially calling for the genocide of Europeans through immigration.



 Latinos are allowed to call their organization "The Race" but if white Europeans called their interest group by that name, what would happen?  Just imagine Europeans calling themselves The Race.  Also, try to imagine what would happen if someone created a group called White Lives Matter.  Most likely such a group would be branded "white supremacist."

Some whites are now forming groups such as Identity Evropa to promote white European interests, culture and fraternity in response to the legitimization of anti-white rhetoric and action that is exemplified by Garland's article.  Such groups are loudly denounced as 'fascist," "neo-Nazi," "white supremacist," and "hate groups" by the SPLC.  Thus Jewish interest groups actively attack whites who attempt to organize into groups to support their own nation and peoples and care for their own homelands.  Groups like the ADL and SPLC promote the idea that Europeans must only care for non-Europeans and abandon any group affiliation themselves.

Never mind facts, in Garland's mind, the sins of the fathers can be visited on the sons, contrary to one of the most basic and civilizing principles of European common law, which is one of the principles that put an end to blood feuding that ate up lives and resources wherever it was practiced.  She wants to return to barbaric "law" where any group can enslave all members of some other group because "your great grand-dad shot my great grand-uncle."

Regarding "debts to society," is Garland prepared to pay her dues for inheriting the science, technology, medicine and legal system created by white males?  Does she have any awareness of what white men have given to the world far in excess of the contributions of non-white men to make it possible for her to use a computer in her climate-controlled office to bash white men?

What About Arab Men?

According to her warped sense of 'justice,' living Arabs should be made to pay up for the Ottoman Empire and the Arab slave trade.  

Arabs of the Ottoman Empire waged wars of conquest and colonization, including invasion and colonization of Europe, for 700 years (13th to 20th century) and
"During the 16th and 17th centuries, at the height of its power under the reign of Suleiman the Magnificent, the Ottoman Empire was a multinational, multilingual empire controlling much of Southeast Europe, parts of Central Europe, Western Asia, the Caucasus, North Africa, and the Horn of Africa.[14] At the beginning of the 17th century the empire contained 32 provinces and numerous vassal states. Some of these were later absorbed into the Ottoman Empire, while others were granted various types of autonomy during the course of centuries.[dn 5]"

A 19th-century European engraving of Arab slave-trading caravan transporting African slaves across the Sahara.
 Image Source: Wikimedia

The Arab slave trade began in the medieval era and extended into the early 21st century and Arabs enslaved millions of Africans and Europeans:
"Muslims also enslaved Europeans. According to Robert Davis, between 1 million and 1.25 million Europeans were captured between the 16th and 19th centuries by Barbary corsairs, who were vassals of the Ottoman Empire, and sold as slaves.[18][19][20] These slaves were captured mainly from seaside villages from Italy, Spain, Portugal and also from more distant places like France or England, the Netherlands, Ireland and even Iceland. They were also taken from ships stopped by the pirates.[21]" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arab_slave_trade
Giulio Rosati, Inspection of New Arrivals, 1858–1917, Circassian beauties.

Arabs also practiced piracy for hundreds of years, and Europeans and Americans were some of their main targets.   In 1798 Thomas Jefferson sent the Marines to deal with the Islamic Barbary pirates that seized U.S. merchant vessels off the shores of North Africa and held them for ransom (learn about the First Barbary War).

There are some pretty wealthy Arabs in the Gulf States.  Surely no more than 10 percent of Arabic people control 90 percent of assets in the Arab world.   ArabianBusiness.com lists 50 Arabian men who in 2013 commanded assets ranging from $1.95 billion to $31.2 billion.  Their combined assets amount to $260.23 billion. 

According to the NYT, the combined assets of the 8 wealthiest individuals picked on by Oxfam amount to $427 billion, which according to Oxfam means these 8 individuals hold more assets than the bottom 50 percent of the entire world population.  These 50 Arabs probably hold more assets than the bottom 25 percent of the entire world population, but Oxfam didn't make a big stink about that, nor does Garland. 

Given the bloody history of war, conquest, piracy and slavery in the Arab world, why doesn't Garland think that the current immense wealth of those 50 Arab males is ill-gotten or demand that the assets of Arab men be "redistributed" to the non-Arabic people, including Europeans, that suffered for several hundred years under Arab slavers and conquest?

In Garland's fairy-tale cultural Marxist version of history, only white (i.e. European) males – and apparently in her mind, all white males – behaved badly while every other race of men was angelic and victimized.  This in her mind justifies using all white males as scapegoats.

Think of her stupidity.  According to Garland's warped sense of justice, the poor white coal miners of the Appalachians in the U.S. should be deprived of a political voice – the right to vote – because four white non-Jewish men are among the top eight wealthiest men in the world, and because elites of the past 500 years did some things that she doesn't like.

I am a white man and I did not acquire my possessions by theft or violence. None of my ancestors were slave owners to my knowledge. As for privilege, if white males are so "privileged" then how does she and so many others get away with constantly blaming white men for everything that makes them unhappy? She needs to tour the midwest, KY, TN, etc to see how "privileged" ordinary white men are in those areas.

Meanwhile, last year in Britain, almost 800 native Britons (i.e. mostly whites, and mostly males) who busted their buts to get straight A grades in order to get into medical school were denied admission, while 6,000 foreign-born (i.e. non-white) immigrant doctors were hired in the U.K., "despite the fact overseas staff are four times more likely to be struck off for blunders than British counterparts."  How's that for white privilege?  Think about all the people who will get substandard medical care because its more important to hire non-white non-Britons than it is to get the most qualified people into the medical profession, just so we can signal our anti-white racism. 


2 comments:

FXScouse said...

Very interesting post, Don. Thanks.

Of course, you will be roundly condemned for contradicting modern political correctness no matter how true your words might be.

However, I have one point you might want to consider. The Ottomans were not Arabs but Turks. While both were and are majority-Muslim ethnicities, there is a real difference between the two. Many Arabs resented Ottoman rule and sought an independent Arab state(s). This was how Lawrence of Arabia was able to organise Arab forces to fight the Turks in WW1

Mrs. Cote said...

Gutsy and informative post. Thank you for writing it.