I wrote a few days ago that the Alt-Right movement is a neopagan error. It’s an “angry, inchoate reaction to a powerful, slippery heresy that preens as a winsome angel of light.” That heresy is multiculturalism, which boasts of its double standards and targets white males as villains. But how powerful is that movement, really? Was I exaggerating for effect?

No. If anything, I understated things. White men are demonized and scapegoated for nearly every evil. Highly educated people feel perfectly comfortable, even proud of themselves for doing so. It’s part of the ritual exorcism practiced by the church of multiculturalism:

“Do you renounce white males?”

“I do.”

“And all their works?”

“I do.”

“And all their books and institutions?”

“I do.”

Scapegoating a Race

Multiculturalists point to long-dead slaveowners, or to freakishly rich members of the “one percent,” to pretend that every white man partakes of “privilege.” So he ought to be suspect as a bigot till proven otherwise. Likewise, anti-Semites have always pointed to Jewish accomplishments and influence as proof of their power and wickedness.  

If you scoff at the idea that white men could ever be victims, remember this: Scholars of the Holocaust report that German Jews were the best-assimilated, wealthiest, and most successful Jewish community in the history of the world. Right up until 1933. That didn’t help them. Alas, their achievements made them a highly attractive scapegoat.

“Kill As Many White Males as Possible.”

I wonder what part the escalating atmosphere of racial/sexual hatred played in the recent mass killing in Fresno, California. The killer, Kori Ali Muhammad, interrupted his spree to go online and announce “that he was going to kill as many white males as possible,” according to Fresno Police Chief Jerry Dyer.

The killer interrupted his spree to announce “that he was going to kill as many white males as possible.”

Yes, Muhammad was deranged. But so was Charleston killer Dylann Roof. That didn’t stop observers from concluding that Roof represented a dangerous trend in racist violence. They won’t say that about Muhammad. In fact, since the facts have come out, you will not hear his name mentioned in the media ever again. Especially that name.

As proof that multiculturalism is virulent, dangerous, and ungrounded in reality, I could cite the epidemic of “deaths of despair” among less educated white men in America: Why isn’t it being taken seriously as a public health catastrophe like breast cancer or AIDS? I could point to the persecution of all-male organizations at colleges. Black and Muslim groups, of course, are exempted. Or the fact that white males, alone, are not protected by anti-discrimination laws.

Should White Men Be Stripped of the Vote?

Instead, let’s talk about an event that on the face of it seems less serious. On April 13, The Huffington Post ran a column by “Shelley Garland” that argued for depriving white males of the vote:

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.

Now, you’ll notice that I didn’t include a link to that column. That’s because The Huffington Post took it down. Why did that happen? Did some sane editor read the article and conclude, accurately, that it was hate speech against human beings who happened to be both male and white?

Silencing Satire, Like Good Little Stalinists

No, not at all. You see, it turned out that the piece was a satire. It was written by a white guy. As Heat Street reports:

Earlier this week, the gullible Huffington Post fell victim to a hoax article calling for white men to be stripped of their voting rights. The site became the subject of widespread derision and condemnation after HuffPost editors stood up to defend the article’s content.

But as was later revealed, the author submitted the piece to Huffington Post South Africa as a hoax, intending to prove a point about the outlet’s radical leftist stance. He did so under a fake persona masquerading as a feminist activist named “Shelly Garland.” …

Following its publication and subsequent retraction, the HuffPost identified the author behind the “Shelly Garland” persona as Marius Roodt, a researcher at South Africa’s Centre for Development and Enterprise. According to the site, the email address Roodt used to submit the piece was traced back to him. The site claims that his identity was further “confirmed with facial recognition technology,” as he digitally altered a picture of himself to look like a woman.

Pretty funny, right? Except that after Roodt was outed, he lost his job. No, not the editors who published the outrageous article, thinking it was dead serious and a pretty good idea. They’re still working, still shaping American minds.

You Think That’s Funny? You’re Fired.

But Roodt was stripped of his livelihood for daring to mock the pieties of the church of multiculturalism. His employer publicly denounced him. And The Huffington Post took down the post, under the rationale that it had turned out to be hate speech.

Have you got that? At first, the article seemed to call in all seriousness for hundreds of millions of people (rich and poor, including coal miners and war veterans) to be denied the right to vote because of their sex and their race.

So The Huffington Post had no problem with it. They defended it, in fact. But when it came out that the piece was in fact a satire of that position, now it amounted to hate speech.

Wrap your mind around that. Try “mansplaining” that to yourself.

No wonder some white guys are paranoid. People really are out to get them.