Friday, April 14, 2017

The Racist Totalitarian Left.

Sure, it's an ugly fever-swamp idea, but it is an ugly fever-swamp idea being casually discussed in the Huffington Post.

Can you imagine the level of outrage sparked if the National Review talked about taking the vote away from Asian women?

//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.//



1 comment:

Anonymous said...

As an originalist, I prefer to limit the vote to white men who own real property. Generally, this practical approach is not only what the founders intended, a well defined rule limits everyone whining about who votes and who doesn't. Then we can focus even more energy on making sure everyone owns several guns (at a minimum) in line with what our founding fathers clearly wanted. If it worked 250 years, it would work now.

 
Who links to me?