Should White Progressive/Liberal Women be Disenfranchised?? – Updated!

By Francis Marion

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. Shelly Garland – Huff Post

Based on the title I know what you’re thinking, “Francis you’re a damned genius,” or “Francis you are a complete and utter asshole”. Either way, you could be right. But hear me out anyway.

Every time I watch this video I want to call a buddy of mine, a conservative Jew, and tell him one thing: your chicks are selling you out. They’re going on national television with their crazy ass ideas and stirring up some serious shit. But I refrain. Because it’s not just white Jewish women (and yes they are white, even the Jewish ones), it’s a lot of white, progressive liberal women in general.

So let’s review shall we? How is having white, liberal, progressive women voting and in positions of political power in general, stacking up and working out for the western world?


Sweden is arguably the capital of progressive, liberal ideology, spurred on primarily by the progressive, liberal female who now controls and directs the nation’s political business. From the government of Sweden’s website:

Sweden has the first feminist government in the world. This means that gender equality is central to the Government’s priorities – in decision-making and resource allocation. A feminist government ensures that a gender equality perspective is brought into policy-making on a broad front, both nationally and internationally.

Interestingly, Sweden also has the second highest recorded rape rate in the world, which the BBC explains is the result of the manner in which attacks are reported.  The primary reason the number is so high we are told is that each individual incident of rape that is reported is counted. So a woman who was raped by her boyfriend on say six different occasions but who reported all six crimes on one occasion counts as six separate incidents and not just one like it would in other nations. Apparently. So that number shoots up to number two on the planet based on the difference in reporting methods? Ok then.

Interesting then that the article and the Swedish government does not compare current statistics by breaking them down into their base number and stacking them against similar statistics from ten or twenty years ago, before you know, the Swedes had unfettered immigration.

The astute of course will point out that even if we still found a significant rise in the incident of rape during this period, all things being equal, that correlation is not causation. Of course, I would simply suggest that critics spend some time in a Muslim ghetto, a few days should do it, and then we’ll talk about whether or not the rise in rape that is correlated with the influx of a foreign culture that views women as property is what is causing the problem to begin with or not.

Ladies, any takers?

I didn’t think so.


Germany, a nation run by a woman who is so left wing that she is embarrassed to hold her own damn flag.

Of course, she is happy to allow millions of unscreened foreigners into the country, most of whom have no intent of ever assimilating and whose first loyalty is to the nation of their birth and its leader. So much so that they frequently take to the streets with their native flags and are happy to denounce the very country in which they reside. Why? Because German authorities won’t allow foreign politicians to stage rallies in their countries either electronically or in person.

That’s showing some backbone Ang! Nothing like closing the barn door AFTER the horses have bolted.

Meanwhile, Merkel wannabe progressive victims welcome more “migrants” because not being able to go outside after dark or into large gatherings because it is no longer safe is apparently a good idea.

Well done ladies.

Which brings me back to the BBC article on the rape rate in Sweden (and the nugget that sparked the question) which states that although South Africa does not keep statistics on rape that as many as one in four men has admitted to committing the crime. From Swedens Rape Rate Under the Spotlight

a total of 63 countries don’t submit any statistics, including South Africa, where a survey three years ago showed that one in four men questioned admitted to rape.

So what has this got to do with reason impaired and mathematically challenged women?

I thought you’d never ask.

Well the population of South Africa is as follows (numbers are approximate and based on 2011 & 2015 data):

  • Population: approximately 55 million people.
  • Males Consist of Approximately 49% of the population
  • Females Consist of Approximately 51% of the population
  • 80 % of the population is black
  • 8% of the population is white
  • 12% of the population is Asian or ‘other’
  • 25% of the men in the country admit to being guilty of rape (allegedly according to the BBC)

Now assuming that the incidence of rape from one race to the next is equal the odds of getting raped by a black male in South Africa are still remarkably higher than any other race if for no other reason than population imbalance and frequency of contact. In fact, if my calculator is working correctly and given that the numbers above are reasonably accurate (thank you Wikipedia) then that means that of a population of 55 million people approximately 5.4 million of its male black inhabitants are guilty of sexual assault of some type or another. If I had more time and the inclination I’d look at rape rates throughout the western world by race and apply a similar weighting to the numbers in South Africa and see what we find.

Regardless of the outcome, I’d suggest that if we are going to suspend the voting rights of white males in South Africa (and elsewhere) based on poor behavior as a group that the same should apply to blacks based on the one in four number being equal. I’m a magnanimous kind of fellow so I’m happy to give my black brothers the benefit of the doubt and do that.

Of course, that’s not why silly, liberal progressive women want to do things like deny white men the right to vote. Because, apparently, rape is no reason to suspend voting privileges (or they’d be asking for black men to be sanctioned as well), the ownership of property and the color of one’s skin is.

Perhaps it is time for us to recognize what the real problem here is?

A lack of reason.

To ignore the epidemic of crime unleashed on the western world by way of unfettered immigration is suicidal in the broadest sense of the term. See Sweden, Germany and most of western Europe. To blame those who have championed universal suffrage (as imperfect as we may be) for the problems of the world simply because you know, we own shit and are the wrong color, is a logical fallacy the likes of which our predecessors couldn’t have imagined.

Of course, we have been here before in other parts of the world and at other points in time. Russia, most of Eastern Europe and much of Asia have experimented with this ideology over the past one hundred years and it has resulted in the deaths of hundreds of millions of innocent people. The only question that remains to be asked is, “Should we allow it to happen again?”

And if the primary champion of this evil, nihilistic and destructive philosophy happens to be primarily white, progressive, liberal females should we continue to allow them to vote? Given the explosion in violent crime across Europe and South Africa of late would it not be fair, for their own good and everyone else’s, to deny them suffrage since they appear to be the ones encouraging their own destruction?

It’s an important question and for the good of the planet, it is one worth answering.


Update: April 18th, 2017

Thankyou, Mr. Troll.

I have been informed that the article at The Huffington Post which spawned my essay has been removed.

The Huffington Post states:

Huffington Post SA has removed the blog “Could It Be Time To Deny White Men The Franchise?” published on our Voices section on April 13, 2017.

We have done this because the blog submission from an individual who called herself Shelley Garland, who claimed to be an MA student at UCT, cannot be traced and appears not to exist.

We have immediately bolstered and strengthened our blogging procedures that, until now, have operated on the basis of open communication and good faith. From now on, bloggers will have to verify themselves.

We will hold discussions on putting in place even better quality controls.

In addition, we note the commentary on the content of the blog post and will submit it to the South African Press Ombudsman Joe Thloloe for his analysis of the opinion we carried.

Huffington Post SA stands aligned to the Constitutional values of South Africa, particularly the Preamble of our Constitution which states that: “We the people of South Africa believe that South Africa belongs to all who live in it, united in our diversity.”

We further understand that universal enfranchisement followed a long struggle and we fully support this.

In addition, Huffington Post South Africa is a signatory to and supporter of the South Africa Press Code. We support free expression as limited by the following value as set out in that code.

5. Discrimination and Hate Speech

5.1. Except where it is strictly relevant to the matter reported and it is in the public interest to do so, the media shall avoid discriminatory or denigratory references to people’s race, gender, sex, pregnancy, marital status, ethnic or social origin, colour, sexual orientation, age, disability, religion, conscience, belief, culture, language and birth or other status, nor shall it refer to people’s status in a prejudicial or pejorative context.

5.2. The media has the right and indeed the duty to report and comment on all matters of legitimate public interest. This right and duty must, however, be balanced against the obligation not to publish material that amounts to propaganda for war, incitement of imminent violence, or advocacy of hatred that is based on race, ethnicity, gender or religion, and that constitutes incitement to cause harm.

We apologise for the oversight. We welcome further discussion. Please

So we remove a racist, sexist piece of writing because the author’s identity cannot be confirmed and not because the writing was a piece of trash? Apparently, The Huffington Post does not read what it publishes before it actually publishes it.

For what it’s worth – I don’t give a damn what trash like The Huffington Post prints. You can spew whatever garbage out into the world you want. We can always refute it with a bit of logic and in some cases, tongue in cheek type sarcasm. It’s not difficult to do. But at the very least have the balls to own it.


Original piece archived here.

9 thoughts on “Should White Progressive/Liberal Women be Disenfranchised?? – Updated!

  1. Pingback: Should White Progressive Women Be Disenfranchised? | Western Rifle Shooters Association

  2. Pingback: Should White Progressive/Liberal Women be Disenfranchised?? | -highcountryblog- « Los Diablos Tejano

  3. Good article, but Jews are not White. They are Jews. They say so themselves in their own publications like the Jewish Daily Forward.
    They have been the driving force behind the anti-White movement.


    • Yes,

      I keep hearing this from a variety of sources. No offense but I’m not sure it’s worth debating or worrying about, there are bigger problems to ponder for sure. I would just say that being Jewish is a choice, one which plenty of white European peoples have made voluntarily. Most of my Jewish acquaintances and friends would agree that it is more akin to being a member of a tribe. I have been invited to join more than once, not unlike being solicited to become Mormon, which I have been invited to become on a number of occasions as well. It would be more accurate to call it either a religious or tribal affiliation than racial since it definitely spans a variety of racial groups. Appreciate the comment though. Cheers!


  4. The simple answer to the question is a resounding, “Yes.” Libturds are incapable of logical thought or reason. Many women make decisions based on emotion. Put the two together and what one has is a logic-challenged, reason-challenged emotional being. Don’t need that kind voting.

    Take that, Shelly Garland.


  5. Giving anybody the vote is the disaster:

    “Democracy is grounded upon so childish a complex of fallacies that they must be protected by a rigid system of taboos, else even halfwits would argue it to pieces. Its first concern must thus be to penalize the free play of ideas.”
    — H.L. Mencken

    But even accepting democracy (or its equally fraudulent twin, “the republic”) as a given, female suffrage could have been done better. They should have created a Woman’s House, populated only by women who were voted into office only by women. Then legislation would have to run the gantlet of three houses, not just two. That means less legislation, always a good thing. The Men’s House could have shot down some of the loonier output of the Women’s House (e.g. gun control), while the Women’s House could do the same for the looniness of the Men’s House (e.g., constant war). It’s all in the implementation.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s