Huffington Post writer ~ “Lets ban white men from voting”.

An anti-white male article?

On the Huffington Post?

Wow, who would have ever seen that coming?

From Huffington Post

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.

How dare these white men vote in favour of their demographic interests? That’s racist and sexist. But if women or racial minorities vote as a bloc for their demographic interests, that’s “progressive”.

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.

Just long enough to make sure the damage is done, and that they’ll be powerless to reverse it by then anyway.

events-haitian-revolution-1791-1804-black-slaves-attack-whites-wood-CP404M.jpg
And then once they’re powerless and disenfranchised, this will start happening… AGAIN.

The influence of reckless white males were one of the primary reasons that led to the Great Recession which began in 2008.

Yeah, “white males” did that.

Jewish-Bankers.jpg

Or how about that non-pictured above “white male”, Richard Fuld, who was the chairman of Lehman Brothers, before it collapsed, and dragged the world down with it.

This would also strike a blow against toxic white masculinity, one that is long needed. 

I think that ship has already sailed…

skirts-rape-march-men.jpg

BILD.JPG

da28cd20fec1e007beafa695f4c12ee6a9fbb9e3760972c93f200322d05dc1b8.jpg

red-high-heels-rose-barracks-vilseck-germany.jpg

post-11155-044029400 1334577519_thumb.jpg

db00db762fe81e89ae43d8aa0331dddc_pajama-boy-memes-memesuper-pyjama-boy-meme_500-375.jpeg

Yeah, not really seeing much “toxic masculinity” from white men these days.

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.

Yeah, those “white men” again, are the ones responsible for that.

ClintonDonors90.jpg

billionaires.jpg

rothy.jpg

Untitled-1.png
Source

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.

Yes, because the redistribution of wealth has never led to violence, when it has been tried in the past.

36d6ee74490bf20e9b54b75a372a6908.jpg
The real violence is all that wealth that “white males” own.
 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. While in South Africa 90 percent of the country’s land is in the hands of whites (it is safe to assume these are mainly men), along with 97 percent of the Johannesburg Stock Exchange, this is also the norm in the rest of the world.
I’ve dealt with South Africa already.

No need to repeat myself.

Namibia has similar statistics with regard to land distribution and one can assume this holds for other assets too. 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’s always funny how Jews are “white” when they do something bad, or are disproportionately over-represented in something good, but they quickly revert to their Jewish identity, whenever they want to claim victimhood.  If I didn’t know better, I’d suspect that they were looking to pawn off the blame for their wrongdoings on another group.

– it is likely that these assets are largely in the hands of males. Although statistics by race are difficult to find from other parts of the world, it is very likely that the majority of the world’s assets are in the hands of white males, despite them making up less than 10 percent of the world’s population.

Might have something to do with the fact that most of the really successful countries in the world, such as those of Europe, North America, Australia, and New Zealand, were built by white males, and white people are still the majority demographic in these countries. But don’t worry, if Zimbabwe, Haiti, and South Africa are any indication of things to come, these countries won’t be so successful for much longer.

It is obvious that this violent status quo will not change without a struggle, and the only way to do so will be through the expropriation of these various assets and equitably distribute them to those who need them.

The mindset of people like this is astounding. How exactly is this status quo “violent”? Who exactly is experiencing “violence”? This is what they always do. It’s the same tactic utilised by those Antifa scum, whenever they brutally attack people for having political opinions they disagree with. They classify non-violent acts, words, or in this case, situations, as being violent, in order to justify their own acts of actual violence (when they eventually happen), as being “self defence” against the “violence” that they claim they are experiencing from their target. It’s insane, but that’s just how these Communist thugs operate. It’s all about conditioning people over time to perceive things a certain way, by using certain language and repeating it over and over until it sinks in.

montreal4march.jpg
The Antifa guys, kicking the guy on the ground, aren’t the violent ones. They’re just engaging in self defence against the violent political opinions of this man.
South-Africa.jpg
The black South Africans aren’t the violent ones, when they brutally murder white South Africans. They’re just engaging in self defence against the violence of the white South Africans, by having more success than them.
This will not only make the world a more equitable place, but will also go some way to paying the debt that white males owe the world. 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.

Besides the fact that it’s completely unjustifiable to hold people collectively responsible for the sins committed by people in the past (why should I for example, be held responsible for Colonialism, when I wasn’t even born when it happened?), it also ignores the fact that all these sins, colonialism, slavery, aggressive wars, and genocides, have been practiced by all races. In the case of colonialism, to name a few examples, we have the Empire of Japan, the Inca Empire, the Aztec Empire, The Ottoman Empire, and The Mongol Empire (the last two of which even colonised white lands).

64886-004-2353B724
Oh look at that, The Turkish Ottoman Empire colonised white lands in Europe.
Mongol_Empire-largest.png
Same with the Asian Mongol Empire. Where’s my reparations from Turks and Mongolians?

Wars and slavery have been practiced by every culture that has ever existed, but only white people willingly put an end to slavery (even having to use their power in the world to force its abolition on other races that practiced it). In the case of genocides, we have examples such as the Jewish bolshevik led Holodomor (the victims of which, were white), the Turkish led Armenian and Greek Genocides (again the victims being white), and the black led Rwandan Genocide, just to name a few examples. It’s ridiculous to hold all white people collectively responsible for historical crimes committed by other white people, but not holding members of other races to the same standards. But of course, this isn’t about justice. It’s just purely racial hatred towards white people.

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.

Most of our assets and wealth came from theft and violence?

“Citation needed”

Interesting how she complains about white men having political ideologies that focus on individuality, rather than on collectivism. I can guarantee, that if we did develop demographic awareness, and started playing the identity politics game, just like every other racial group does, she’d complain about that as well, for being “racist”. Essentially, we’re damned no matter what we do, because she isn’t a rational person, looking to have a rational discussion, to potentially resolve any perceived injustices (that can even be proven to exist). She’s just a hate filled bitch, who despises everything about us, and nothing less than handing over everything we own to people who aren’t “white males”, and getting down on our knees before them, will ever satisfy her. Even then, it probably still wouldn’t be enough, because we’d still be breathing.

Some may argue that this is unfair. Let’s be clear, it may be unfair, but a moratorium on the franchise for white males for a period of between 20 and 30 years is a small price to pay for the pain inflicted by white males on others, particularly those with black, female-identifying bodies.

The pain that “white males” inflict on “black, female-identifying bodies”.

tumblr_n2i5w0KYgO1qaeo2oo1_500.png
What about the pain that “black males” inflict on “white, female-identifying bodies”?
In addition, white men should not be stripped of their other rights, and this withholding of the franchise should only be a temporary measure, as the world rights the wrongs of the past.

Yeah, sure.

“Temporary measure”

A withholding of the franchise from white males, along with the passing of legislation in this period to redistribute some of their assets, will also, to a degree, act as the reparations for slavery, colonialism, and apartheid, which the world is crying out for to be paid.

The more I read on, and see how ridiculous it is, the more I start to think it’s a satirical article, just to annoy people like me. Then again, the Huffington Post really has been terrible in the past, so it probably is real. At the very best, the article might have been submitted by a troll, and isn’t intended seriously, but the Huffington Post still published it, so at the very least, they approve of its message, serious or not.

As we saw after the recent altercation between a white man and Lebohang Mabuya at a Spur restaurant in Johannesburg, white males still believe that they are in control, and people who aren’t white or male (in particularly black female-identifying people) have to bow to their every whim.

Interesting, lets watch the video of that incident.

Notice how at the very start of the video, the man makes a comment about how his child was hit in the head by one of her children? In fact, this article that has eye-witness accounts from before the recording began, backs up this accusation. He wasn’t being aggressive with the woman because he’s a white man, and she’s a black woman. He was being aggressive, because one of her brats hit his daughter, and she wouldn’t discipline the child. What parent wouldn’t be pissed off in a situation like that? According to this Huffington Post writer, he has no right to stand up for his child, just because he’s a white man, dealing with a black woman.

There are numerous other examples of white angry male violence in South Africa and abroad, often against black bodies (Dylann Roof’s terrorist actions in the United States is only one of many examples).

Dylann Roof is a reasonable case to criticise. Going into a church full of black parishioners and gunning them down, just because of their race, is not acceptable. Of course, it’s still a drop in the ocean compared to the black on white violence, that this woman wouldn’t dream of condemning.

crime_statistics_01.jpg

It is time to wrestle control of the world back from white males, and the first step will be a temporary restriction of the franchise to them.

Although this may seem unfair and unjust, allowing white males to continue to call the shots politically and economically, following their actions over the past 500 years, is the greater injustice.

Just repetition of (dumb) points already made earlier in the article. Exactly the kind of writing skill I would expect from a Huffington Post “Journalist”.

LA school to get less funding, for having too many white students.

quote-the-worst-form-of-inequality-is-to-try-to-make-unequal-things-equal-aristotle-6833.jpg

I remember a few months ago, shortly after Trump’s election victory, a girl on my Facebook “Friends” list, posted some pathetic self-flagellating article about white privilege. The gist of the article she posted, was this. The writer (a black woman) was lecturing white liberals who were upset that Trump won, that they had no right to talk about how upset they were, because they all had white privilege, and so only minorities had the right to talk about how upset they felt. My “friend” (a white liberal herself), didn’t dispute this. Instead, she agreed with it and posted it to virtue signal and to pontificate to the rest of us, probably with the expectation of a bunch of comments praising her for being so enlightened, and plenty of “likes”.

Instead of this happening, myself and one other guy questioned why she was posting such a condescending article and asked her why she thought it was alright for this person to generalise and attack people (people who ideologically agree with her no less), on the basis of their skin colour? We also questioned the validity of the existence of white privilege, and asked her to explain how it exists. Rather than respond to our questions in her own words, she just posted some really long articles that talked about white privilege, and tried to let the articles do the talking for her, rather than talking herself, and using the article as a source to confirm her own points. Very quickly, she stopped responding, both to me, and to the other guy who was questioning her. About a week or so later, she quietly unfriended me, possibly because I had offended her by daring to question her. I don’t think I was particularly offensive or aggressive btw. In fact, I can post the whole debate we had, right here, minus the links to the articles she posted (which I never bothered to save).

So here was my first comment:

“But what about the Hispanics, Black people, and members of other minority groups that chose to vote for Trump? How can it be assumed that it was racism that won out, in that regard? If anything, I think it’s attitudes like that of this author that helped cause the Trump victory. Instead of having civil and open dialogues with Trump supporters (of all demographics), trying to understand why they supported him, and listening to their concerns, there’s been nothing but insults, bullying, and shaming tactics against them and all this did was push them further towards him. Even now, instead of looking at the victory and trying to really understand why he won, there is still nothing but insults and tarring every person who voted for him with the same brush. Yes, I’m well aware of the KKK and Neo-Nazi support he received, but acting as if all his support was from people like that, isn’t constructive at all.”

She then replied:

“The value in the article is about evaluating privilege and bringing awareness to systemic racism in America. However you can clearly see in the election statistics that Trump won due to voter turnout in rural counties with overwhelmingly white populations.”

white-privelege.jpg

Along with the above comment, she posted a bunch of links to articles talking about how white privilege is totally a real thing, and not just some racist conspiracy theory designed to demonise white people as a whole.

So I replied:

“Of course, I’m well aware that the majority of Trump’s voters were white, but the point I’m making by bringing up the non-white Trump voters is that they do in fact exist. The media keeps focusing on the “whitelash” as I’ve heard it referred to, while ignoring the minorities who supported him at a roughly similar percentage as they supported Romney in 2012. I think instead of automatically jumping to conclusions about racism, it might make more sense to actually engage with the voters (including these minorities who clearly didn’t have a problem with any of his “racist” remarks) and listen to their reasons for voting for him. For example, beyond the minorities who voted for Trump, many white people who had voted for Obama in previous elections, voted for Trump in this one. While I know that there obviously are many genuine racists who voted for him, it would be unfair to assume that racism was the primary motivator when taking those minorities and former Obama supporters into account.

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2016/11/trump-won-a-lot-of-white-working-class-obama-voters.html

As for the “privilege” argument, I don’t buy into that stuff for a second. All “privilege” is, is an excuse to disregard the viewpoints and opinions of, and tear down members of certain demographics, just because of the group they were born into. Privilege theory is just a redirection of Marx’s theories from economics (ie, the ‘haves’ and ‘have nots’) to identity politics (the oppressed and oppressors), further causing division and resentment between groups. If white people are such a privileged group for example, then why is it that they’re the only group that aren’t allowed to vote as a bloc for their group interests without being considered racist for doing so, when it’s perfectly acceptable for a politician to go after “the black or Hispanic vote”? Why is it that other groups can make insulting, derogatory and sweeping generalisations about white people as a whole (like this author is doing with her white liberal allies), when if a white person did the same thing about any other group, they would be crucified?

And as for “systematic racism”, this is a legit question, because obviously you would have a much better insight into the American situation than I would, but how exactly is there still systematic racism? Where does it come from, and how does it work? I don’t understand how in a country where the majority of white people are terrified of the social stigma of being considered a racist, and where in the past 50 years at least, there has been a lot of time, effort, and money spent on racial integration, affirmative action, “no child left behind” in schools etc, how it exists, who is behind it, and examples of it in action.

I’m not trying to be a smartass or anything as I genuinely am interested in learning things that I may been ignorant of, because I do acknowledge that I’m only a distant observer, and you’re right there living it, but at the same time, I’ve read so many articles from, and seen so many videos on youtube from people who seem more interested in hating, blaming, and shaming white people as a whole, rather than just opposing racism, that I’m always very skeptical when I read articles like this one.”

I don’t think anything I said was particularly unreasonable here. I even acknowledged the fact that she, being an American, would obviously know more about the American situation than I would, and I legitimately asked her for evidence of systematic racism in action in her country.

Her response:

“[Name redacted], I think there is too much for me to cover regarding your post. There are smarter people than me who better articulate why privilege is very real and what is happening in this country right now and the historical context so I will point you to some reading. Posted below.”

And again, she posted a few long winded articles, rather than actually making the arguments in her own words. Just for the record, I have no issue with posting links in a debate, but I think they should be posted as support material for an argument being put forward, not as the argument itself.

I then replied with this:

“I don’t buy into the reality of white privilege for a second [Name redacted]. What they refer to as “privilege” is simply an excuse to attack and belittle white people as a whole simply for being born white in a predominately white country. It would be like saying “Asian privilege” to a Chinese person in China, “Black Privilege” to a black person in Nigeria, Arab privilege to an Arab person in Saudi Arabia etc. It’s just an anti-white slur, based on Frankfurt school theories from the 1960s. Do the white people who are suffering severe racial discrimination in Zimbabwe and South Africa right now also benefit from white privilege?

For that matter, if white privilege and structural racism really does exist in America then why is that it’s Asians and Jews (many of the latter don’t consider themselves white and instead consider Jewishness a racial category) who are the most highly educated and wealthy demographics on average, moreso than white people? In theory, in a white privileged, structural racism based society, wouldn’t those groups be held back as well?

I think the problem is the use of what I’ve heard referred to as the “apex fallacy”. People see that most of the most powerful people in a country are white (which just makes sense based on the fact that most people in general are white in the West so demographics alone would cause this) and therefore assume that all white people have the same benefits as that small group of powerful people. It would be like me citing people like Obama, Loretta Lynch, Jesse Jackson, and various top black figures in entertainment and sport, and claiming that their success was representative of the experience of all black people, something which would obviously be quite rightfully dismissed as inaccurate.

As for the list on white privilege, it’s about as offensive and unfair as this meme.

http://41.media.tumblr.com/74a6c468e85f790f44403d0114f1e629/tumblr_n0hjq6l5Ge1ts7lqzo1_1280.png

I’m just getting tired of the moaning and accusations against white people as a whole, as if we all need to feel bad for being born white in a mostly white country. If there are real problems then by all means, they should be explained so that they can be worked on. But attacking us as a whole solves nothing, and only causes would be allies to lose sympathy after a while.”

WhitePrivilegeMyth_zpst90w2j4i

And she never responded to this, and I heard nothing from her again until the notification a week or so later, telling me that she had unfriended me.

Anyway, I kind of went off on a tangent there. I was just reminded of this little debate we had, when I read this article below. I wonder if my former “friend” would still believe that it’s white people who are the privileged ones in America, after reading this.

From ABC 7

Outrage has grown at Walter Reed Middle School in North Hollywood, as the school faces layoffs and increased class sizes due to a law limiting funds for schools with a higher white student body.

If a school has too many white kids, it gets less funding from the taxpayer (most of whom are white, btw).

The Los Angeles Unified School District provides more funding for schools where the white population is below 30 percent.

But if a school has a very low white population, it gets more funding. Yet, we’re supposed to believe that white people are the privileged ones. In a country that is predominately white, was built by white people, and has mostly white taxpayers, it’s the racial minorities who get more financial support. How does this make sense?

In a letter to parents, the district noted the highly regarded middle school had been above the percentage for the past couple years.

The racial formula was a condition imposed by court decisions dealing with desegregation in the 1970s.

And yet when it suits them, they’ll always claim that race doesn’t matter, and that we’re all exactly the same, apart from the colour of our skin.

Parents, however, remain frustrated with what the cuts might mean for their children.

And really, why shouldn’t they be? Their children’s education will potentially suffer, just because of the colour of their skin. Meanwhile, the taxes they’re paying, will be redistributed to schools with a higher proportion of black and hispanic students instead. This is not fair, plain and simple.

“When your class sizes are getting larger and you’re taking resources away from students, I mean ss parents, you do want your kid to go out to college,” one parent, Rosemary Estrada, said.

In an attempt to lessen the budget cuts, the district changed the school’s spending formula to one based on the number of students.

“Thankfully we’re going to keep our librarian. We’re going to keep our nurse, but we may lose a few teachers, but not as many as we once thought,” said Sheila Edmiston, one student’s parent.

Several jobs will still be lost and class sizes could grow. For many parents, the race-based reason of “too many white students” has made the cuts more difficult to swallow.

Meanwhile, if you want to understand why schools with a higher proportion of black and hispanic students, typically fare much worse than those with a higher proportion of white students, here’s a good possibility as to why.

It has nothing to do with white privilege or systematic racism. It’s entirely because of problems within the minority communities themselves. The reason we aren’t seeing an equal outcome, isn’t because they aren’t being treated equally. It’s because they aren’t behaving equally. I’m not saying every single individual student of a minority background, behaves like those in the videos above, nor am I suggesting that every single white student is a perfect angel, who would never behave like this. However, for the most part, this sort of behaviour seems to occur mainly within the black and hispanic student populations.

When I read this article, it reminded me a lot of the situation that I discussed recently, regarding a literacy test for prospective teachers being scrapped, because too many blacks and hispanics couldn’t pass it. There is this insane obsession with achieving equality. The problem is, as the Aristotle quote at the beginning of this article says, you can’t make unequal things equal, at least not at the higher level. For example, lets say I have four apples, and you have two, and there are no other apples around. We can’t make it so that each of us can have an equal number of apples, and at the same time, allow me to keep my four. All we can do is take an apple from me, and give it to you, and make us equal that way. Therefore, rather than simply raising the person with less up, they drag the person with more down.

When the Soviet Union first came into existence, there had been a lot of poor peasants, and a few rich aristocrats. They couldn’t bring the peasants up to the level of wealth of the aristocrats, so what they did, was take away the wealth of the aristocrats, so everybody was equally poor. It’s the same kind of logic happening in the American education system now. They’ve tried for decades now to achieve equality in racial education standards, and they’ve gotten nowhere. With equal funding, they can’t seem to bring the black and hispanic students, up to the level of the white (and Asian) students, so their plan instead is to cripple the white students’ education, and drag them down to the level of the black and hispanic students. Then, when every racial group is equally uneducated, they’ll finally achieve “equality” and all live happily ever after.

i4gshdQ

Black Pigeon Speaks on the South African situation.

So yeah, a couple of days ago, I wrote a post in response to the current ongoing situation in South Africa. In that post, I made the prediction that if things keep going the way they’re going, that we would see a massive racial conflict there, and that South Africa would inevitably become a second Zimbabwe. Here we are two days later, and Black Pigeon Speaks has done a video on the topic. He goes into more detail than I did, but he ultimately comes to the same conclusions that I did.

Check it out.

I think this is a pretty important topic to pay attention to, because this is a preview of what will inevitably happen in all predominately white countries in the future. Based on what has happened in Haiti, Zimbabwe, and is currently happening in South Africa, here’s what will happen in Europe and North America before long:

  • White people build successful country from nothing.
  • Non-white people move to successful white country from their own unsuccessful country.
  • Non-white people become jealous of success that white people have in country built by their own ancestors.
  • Affirmative action is put in place to help non-white people achieve parity with whites.
  • Taxes are redistributed from tax payers (mainly white people) to do this.
  • White birth rate declines from financial strain, and non-white birth rates increases, along with non-white immigration.
  • Eventually, non-whites outnumber whites in formerly white majority countries.
  • Non-whites take over from the “privileged whites”.
  • Non-whites start persecuting white people (who they’ve been conditioned to think of as racist oppressors).
  • White people have their jobs, land, and wealth stolen from them.
  • Massacres against white people begin.
  • Economy collapses and infrastructure starts to decline due to incompetence.
  • Country becomes an economic shithole.

We’ve seen this happen in Haiti. We’ve seen it happen in Zimbabwe. We’re seeing it unfold in real time in South Africa. And we will see it in Europe and North America eventually, if things don’t change.

South Africa: “Lets confiscate land from white owners”.

Nothing really new here. Just more of your standard anti-white sentiment from South Africa. As usual, the human rights, do-gooder brigade in the West are silent about it.

From The Telegraph

President Jacob Zuma has called on parliament to change South Africa’s constitution to allow the expropriation of white owned land without compensation.

Hmm, I have a feeling that something like this has been tried somewhere else before. Oh right…

Robert-Mugabe.jpg

It sure worked out well when Mugabe did the same thing in Zimbabwe. Well except for the economic collapse, famines, and hyper-inflation that followed of course, in a country that had at one point been known as the breadbasket of Africa. Apart from all that, stealing land from the white people was a fantastic idea.

Mr Zuma, 74, who made the remarks in a speech yesterday/FRI morning, said he wanted to establish a “pre-colonial land audit of land use and occupation patterns” before changing the law.

“We need to accept the reality that those who are in parliament where laws are made, particularly the black parties, should unite because we need a two-thirds majority to effect changes in the constitution,” he said.

So a member of a racial majority in government, is trying to rally members of that racial demographic to come together in order to pass legislation that is discriminatory against members of a racial minority. If this sort of thing was happening in a white majority country, there would be global outrage, but seeing as in this case, the whites are the persecuted minority, nobody is talking about it. I know I keep going on about this point over and over, but I really feel that I need to do so in order to emphasise how serious it is. There is a global war going on against white people, in which it is perfectly acceptable to oppress and discriminate against us, and were other races aren’t being held to the same standards that we are. This sort of thing is normalised in countries like Zimbabwe and South Africa, where white people are the minority, and based on the racial hatred that is already being expressed against us as it is, it will become normalised in Europe and North America eventually, when we become minorities here too. It is inevitable, unless we learn from what’s happening in countries like South Africa, and take steps necessary to prevent the future we’re faced with.

55d4b773e0ef1fad7270d72004879bdda72d533cc9b241d37bb04580ad7bbcdf_1.jpg
Even in countries were white people are still the majority, there’s nothing being done to prevent our victimisation at the hands of other races. If it’s this bad now, can you imagine how bad it will be in a generation or so?

Mr Zuma, who has lurched from one scandal to another since being elected to office in 2009, has adopted a more populist tone since his ruling African National Congress (ANC) party suffered its worst election result last August since the end of apartheid in 1994.

It’s populist to call for discrimination against white people. Just really let that sink in.

The party lost the economic hub of Johannesburg, the capital Pretoria and the coastal city of Port Elizabeth to the moderate Democratic Alliance party, which already held the city of Cape Town.

The ANC is also under pressure from the radical Economic Freedom Fighters, led by Julius Malema.

Mr Malema has been travelling the country urging black South Africans to take back land from white invaders and “Dutch thugs”.

They’re under threat of losing votes against a radical, anti-white, hate preacher, who is gaining popularity because of his anti-white sentiment. The only way to combat the threat, is to beat him at his own game, by being even more anti-white than he is. Again, just let me make the point, could you imagine the reaction if in a European country, political candidates were trying to one-up each other by making anti-black or anti-Arab comments? There would be absolute murder over it.

He told parliament this week that his party wanted to “unite black people in South Africa” to expropriate land without compensation.

“I want to unite the Aryan people of Germany to expropriate Jewish property without compensation.”

“People of South Africa, where you see a beautiful land, take it, it belongs to you,” he said. Although progress has been made in transferring property to black South Africans, land ownership is believed to be skewed in favour of whites more than 20 years after the end of apartheid.

Probably because the whites are descended from the people who actually built the country from the ground up, and have therefore inherited the rewards for their ancestor’s hard work and creativity. The blacks should just count themselves lucky that they get to live in such a country at all, rather than living in every other failed African state. As I’ve said before, I’ll say again. Every single country built by white people, whether it be in Europe, North America, Australia, New Zealand, Apartheid Era South Africa, or Rhodesia, has enjoyed living standards, far higher than any country built by black people. In fact, as precedent has shown in Zimbabwe, Haiti, modern South Africa, and in many black majority cities in the United States, such as Detroit, Baltimore, East St Louis, etc., not only are they incapable of building a civilisation on par with those built by white people, they are seemingly incapable of even maintaining one that was already pre-built.

The language might be harsh, but can you honestly dispute the point that this video makes?

 The Institute of Race Relations, an independent research body, said that providing a racial breakdown of South Africa’s rural landowners was “almost impossible”.
“In the first place the state owns some 22 per cent of the land in the country, including land in the former homelands, most of which is occupied by black subsistence farmers who have no title and seem unlikely to get it any time soon,” the group said.
“This leaves around 78 per cent of land in private hands, but the race of these private owners is not known.”
But sure, they’ll probably be able to find out who owns what land anyway, just from sending people out to the farms to investigate. All it will take is a bit of time and effort, and once they put it in, it will be inevitable.
Mr Zuma’s comments caused outrage among groups representing Afrikaans speaking farmers on Friday.
The Boer Afrikaner Volksraad, which claims to have 40,000 members, said its members would take land expropriation without compensation as “a declaration of war”.
“We are ready to fight back,” said Andries Breytenbach, the group’s chairman. “We need urgent mediation between us and the government. “If this starts, it will turn into a racial war which we want to prevent.”
A racial war? But I was under the impression that the more racial diversity there is in a society, the more peaceful it is. After all, diversity is supposedly the greatest strength, so the idea of a racial war happening, doesn’t make any sense. The only possible explanation is that those racist white people, who are a minority, and who have no institutional power in South Africa anymore, are benefiting from some form of “white privilege”, and are using this white privilege to oppress the black majority. It’s the only possible explanation, because whites are to blame for everything that goes wrong in the world, and non-whites are always poor, oppressed, victims of white supremacy. Once white people go extinct, there’ll be no more racial conflict, and all other races will hold hands and sing and dance in some happy, white-free Utopia.
9d170f1483bbbf3ff53b723d5f917068.jpg
Take away the evil, racist, white people, and the world can eventually be like this. 
Mr Zuma first mentioned the expropriation of land in his opening of Parliament speech last month, but Friday was the first time he called for a change in the law. In his February speech, he controversially called in the military to maintain “law and order” on the streets of Cape Town ahead of expected protests calling for him to step down.
And the rioting scum in America think Trump is a Fascist. They wouldn’t be able to get away with half the stuff they pull in America, over in South Africa. Although then again, they probably wouldn’t protest in South Africa anyway, because they would more than likely support Zuma’s anti-white policies.
It was the first time in South Africa’s history, including the heavily militarised apartheid era, that the president has ordered the military to provide security at parliament.
Probably because Apartheid Era South Africa was actually a well run country so this wasn’t necessary before. Current South Africa on the other hand is in the early stages of becoming Zimbabwe Part 2.
ebc2fb9f61cb4b0310a2a605ec1a51bc.jpg
12440407_1575131562803334_1337530620998722180_o.jpg
Life_expectancy_in_select_Southern_African_countries_1960-2012.svg.png
And if this plan does go ahead, then Zimbabwe part 2, is exactly what it will become. Much like the former Rhodesia was back in the day, farming is a big part of the South African economy, and just like in Rhodesia, most of the big important farmers are white. If these white farmers are forced off their land, and the land is handed to incompetent blacks (which is exactly what happened when Rhodesia became Zimbabwe), they’ll be incapable of running the farms properly, and will destroy their economy in the process. Yet I wouldn’t be surprised if they do it anyway. Anti-white ideology is so strong, that I can see it winning out against common sense, and even if a lot of people (the majority of whom, you can be sure will be black), have to either starve in man made famines, or suffer economic hardship,they will probably do it anyway, just so they can harm the white people.

My thoughts on the Berkeley “protests”.

So I’m sure at this point that most people are aware of the recent rioting that occurred on the UC Berkeley campus. And I do want to make it quite clear that these were riots, not “peaceful protests”, no matter what narrative, delusional people suffering from severe cognitive dissonance might try and spin instead.

Smashing windows. Starting fires. Brutally beating and attempting to silence people, whose political opinions they don’t approve of. These are not peaceful protests.

It’s difficult for me to really find the words to explain how I’m feeling right now. I can barely even comprehend the reality of what is actually going on, that’s just how nonsensical everything is. Nevertheless, I’ll try my best.

So let’s begin with what exactly these people were so upset about. Breitbart writer, and professional internet troll, Milo Yiannopoulos was set to give a talk at the university (something which he has done in numerous universities already). Typically, he tends to talk about topics that are not welcomed by the so called “liberals”: his opposition to feminism, his opposition to Muslim immigration to the West, his opposition to political correctness, his support for Donald Trump, etc. These opinions have resulted in many people (naive left leaning college students in particular), thinking that he’s some kind of Neo-Nazi, white supremacist. There’s just three major flaws with this assessment.

  1. Milo is gay (and a very flamboyant one at that).
  2. He has a Jewish grandmother (not enough to be a full Jew, but enough for actual Neo-Nazis, like those on the Daily Stormer to reject him.
  3. He has a particular affinity for sleeping with black men, and never shuts up about it.
Milo-in-drag-600x344.jpg
Here is the Neo-Nazi movement in 2017. A gay, partially Jewish man, who dresses in drag, and is always talking about how much he loves black cock.

The whole narrative makes absolutely no sense whatsoever, except when you realise that a lot of the people who are protesting against him, don’t even know who he is, and have never actually listened to anything that he has said. They’re going on second hand information, and are protesting against a racist, sexist (and even hilariously enough, homophobic) caricature that has been built up for them to oppose, without ever having researched him themselves.

“This man is a bigot”, says the guy who wants to shut down the speech of someone he knows nothing about. I don’t think that word means what you think it does…

bigot.png
Yeah… who is the real bigot here?

In fact, Milo isn’t a bigot at all. Crude, maybe. Controversial, definitely. Bigoted? Absolutely not. He tends to just make his speeches citing whatever facts or statistics he feels are necessary to back up his claims, and when he’s done, takes questions from the audience and if necessary, will debate them openly, without the need to try and silence and censor them. Just look at this video for example.

The idiot student accuses him of being a white supremacist and of course, Milo brings up the same points I mentioned already: his love of black men’s penises, the fact that actual white supremacists like those of the Daily Stormer, hate him, etc. Eventually, the student, realising that he hadn’t really thought things through (and visibly annoyed and dumbfounded at this point) settles with the lame argument of “You’re a white supremacists because you support Trump”. Yep, this is the kind of circular argument they’ll use.

Q: “Why am I a white supremacist?”

A: “Because you support Trump.”

Q: “But why does supporting Trump make me a white supremacist?”

A: “Because only white supremacists support Trump.”

Q: “But how can you be sure they’re white supremacists?”

A: “Because they support Trump.”

Q: “But why does supporting Trump make them white supremacists?”

A: “Because only white supremacists support Trump.”

And this circular argument repeats until you lose patience, give up, and they declare victory in their own mind. The point of posting the video above is to illustrate that these people haven’t really thought about the logic behind their belief systems, and when they actually attempt to do so, they’re quite simply incapable of winning the debate based on the merit of their arguments. So this is why they use violence and intimidation instead to try and shut talks like these down. Why engage in a fair and reasoned debate with your ideological opponents, when you know that you’ll lose? Shutting people down is their go to tactic instead because they know it’s the only one that has any chance of working.

So anyway, lets get back to the main point of this post, rather than continuing to get sidetracked talking about Milo. The riots seem to be pretty big news right now, but the reality is, these Antifa/Anarchist/Marxist scum are nothing new. They’ve been doing this sort of thing in both America and Europe for decades now. Even here in Ireland, where we’ve been relatively sheltered from what’s been happening in the rest of the world, we still occasionally see their thuggish behaviour occurring.

How dare he start a political party to represent the interests of the Irish people… in Ireland?

Their standard tactic is to dress in black, and to cover their faces using scarves and hoods, or masks, and to to attack people in groups of 5-10 against one. They do this while claiming to be “anti-fascists”, who are just trying to prevent fascism from gaining strength. The problem is, that their definition of “Fascism” seems to be “anyone who has political opinions that we don’t approve of” and more often than not, the victims of their violence are just normal people, no different than you or I, who are simply supporting policies that they feel are best for themselves and their loved ones.

Meanwhile, when these “Anti-fascists” encounter actual fascists…

…they turn into a bunch of spineless cowards, who are about ready to wet themselves, even despite holding a significant numerical advantage.

The thing that bothers me the most about these Antifa scum is that the majority of them are a part of my own generation. It saddens me to see that so many of my generational peers are this angry  and consumed with such powerful hatred, and are so brainwashed, that they’re lashing out violently at people who don’t even deserve it. I hate to beat a dead horse, but I really cannot help but think of Orwell’s 1984, when I look at the current situation. In the novel, we have a “Ministry of Love” which inflicts pain on people, we have a “Ministry of Truth”, which lies to the people, and we have contradictory slogans such as “War is Peace”, “Freedom is Slavery”, and “Ignorance is Strength”. In the real world right now, we have violent “protesters” yelling slogans like “Love Trumps Hate”, while they brutally beat people, a lying mainstream media which is decrying the spread of truth (or “Fake News” as they call it), and we hear the often repeated motto of “Diversity is our greatest strength”, when it’s clear to see that diversity by it’s very definition, leads to division, and a divided people is anything but strong. How can diversity possibly be a strength, when in times past, when there was unity rather than diversity, we weren’t seeing social cohesion collapse like this?

I really feel as if we’re looking at history repeating itself. We’re all at least somewhat familiar with the rise of Fascism in Europe in the 1920s and 30s, but what is often neglected from the information we hear, is the circumstances that led up to it. In Germany for example, there were a lot of problems with Communists using violence against political opponents, and even attempting to overthrow the government, such as in 1918, and in 1923. Obviously, the German people, having heard about what the Communists in the Soviet Union had done to people (such as the Red Terror and the Holodomor), didn’t want something similar to happen to them, and in turn, became more extreme in their resistance to a potential Communist takeover. And of course, who were the strongest and most outspoken anti-Communists in Germany at the time, and were seen as the best option for a frightened and fed up people to turn to, to protect them from Communist violence?

large.jpg
Yep.

I don’t think these so called “Antifa” have any idea of what they’re doing. Their use of violence and intimidation against ordinary people (whom they refer to as Nazis), isn’t going to win them any support. They aren’t offering people a vision of a world that anyone would want to live in. What they’re offering, is the same kind of nightmarish dystopia that the German people, ironically enough, tried to avoid, by supporting the Nazis.  This kind of behaviour isn’t going to convince them that they were wrong to vote for Trump, or that they’re wrong to listen to Milo’s speeches or whatever else they’re supposedly wrong about. It’s just going to cause them to double-down in their beliefs, and lead to greater division.

We’ve heard a lot of hysterical rumblings about the possibility of a second American civil war. That possibility becomes more and more realistic in my mind, when I see things like this happening. In fact, I’m not sure they aren’t already in one at this point, that’s how bad it’s getting.

Four black thugs kidnap and torture a white guy.

We constantly hear in the media about how there is still a very big problem with racism in America. We hear about how all white people benefit from some vague form of “white privilege” that somehow grants them all these undeserved and unspecified benefits that other races (particularly blacks) don’t also benefit from. Then, we also constantly hear that 150 years post slavery, and 50 years post civil rights movement, that white people are still oppressing black people. No evidence for this accusation is ever needed. It’s just repeated over and over again until stupid white people are guilted into believing it must be true. We must be the racist oppressors that the media keeps saying we are. We must be the ones who as a racial demographic, are committing the most violent crime overall, and the most interracial violence must be white on black. Sure, it looks as if blacks commit more crime, but we can’t believe what we’re seeing, because the media disagrees, and they wouldn’t possibly lie to us so blatantly, right? Well actually… they would.

3qkPR4.jpg

Meanwhile, those of us in the world of reality understand that the exact opposite is true. The reality is that most violent crime in the United States is committed by young black men, and this is even despite the fact that blacks make up about one fifth of the population percentage as whites.

violent-crime-stats.jpg
Shaun King (real first name, “Jeffery”) is a white guy who pretends to be black by the way.  If he can’t even tell the truth about what race he is, why should we trust anything else he says?

This is what has been happening the entire time. The vast majority of interracial crime in the United States for the past few decades has been black on white, but the media has always made a habit of deliberately trying to cover this uncomfortable truth up and minimising any coverage of these crimes, while at the same time, taking the rare stories were the opposite happens (white on black violence) and making them international sensations that get attention for months, even years after happening. For a long time, these lies have worked, and the majority have believed them. However, I really can’t see any way that they can lie about this one. It’s just too blatant that even the the big lie technique can’t cover it up.

Unfortunately, the original video is now gone, due to YouTube’s policy on graphic content, but let me summarise what happened. Four idiotic black thugs, kidnapped a young white man with special needs, tied him up, taped his mouth, and uploaded a livestream to Facebook (like I said, they’re idiots), footage of themselves beating him, cutting him with a knife, and forcing him to drink toilet water, all while yelling “Fuck Donald Trump” and various slurs against white people. In other words, the attack was racially motivated, and therefore fits the definition of a “hate crime” under American laws. Certainly, if the opposite had happened (ie. four white thugs doing the same thing to a black guy), the media would be up in arms about it.

Here are two videos which give some interesting insights into the original video and the hypocrisy of the whole situation.

This is the sort of thing that led to the Trump victory. Make no mistake about it, even though most people are asleep, there are still quite a lot of people who on some level, are worried about the future. They understand that we white people are the most despised race on the planet, and that as our numbers go down, and the numbers of other races goes up in our countries, the more persecution we will face. People can see this and are frightened, because they know that we’re on the way to minority status in our own countries, and that we will be treated far worse as a minority ourselves, than we treat minorities now. We can look at attacks like this one and see a preview of the future facing us. Mark my words, we are being targeted for genocide, and if they can act like this now, when we greatly outnumber them, can you even begin to imagine how bad it will get, when they eventually outnumber us? We only need to look at what happened in Haiti in 1804, Zimbabwe since Mugabe came to power, or South Africa post Apartheid, to see our future.

Revolutia-din-Haiti.jpg

Male feminist whines about how sexist Mario is.

Social justice has no end in sight. There’ll never be a point were its advocates will feel that enough is enough. They’ll always find some new “problem” to have a hissy fit over. You can just tell at this point that we’ve long gotten past the point of actual real problems, when they’re starting to complain about stupid shit like this.

From The Sun

VIDEO game critics have claimed the family-friendly Super Mario video games series is unsuitable for children because it’s SEXIST.

Mario, a video game series that has been enjoyed by millions of children, girls and boys alike, over the past three decades, the majority of whom have grown up to be perfectly normal, well-adjusted adults, is suddenly unsuitable for children, because some dickhead on the internet says so.

The Japanese games firm Nintendo recently released an iPhone game called Super Mario Run which is the first smartphone title to feature its much-loved character.

But feminists have rounded upon the game, with one writer suggesting it was time Mario was rescued BY his love interest Princess Peach, rather than going on missions to save her.

That has already happened. The game is called Super Princess Peach, and it came out about ten years ago.

Super_Princess_Peach.jpg
Would you look at that. Mario is tied up, and the Princess has to rescue him for a change.

The game sold relatively poorly in comparison to the regular Mario series by the way, which is probably why they haven’t made another. Point is, at least they tried to do something like this, and a full decade before this dickhead started whining on the internet about it.

Chris Suellentrop, a top games reviewers at the New York Times, said the recent iPhone Super Mario Game was “inappropriate for children”.

It’s just incredible how arrogant this comes off. 30 years worth of children have been playing this series without being negatively impacted by it, but apparently it’s inappropriate for children because this guy says so.

“In an era where we can watch Frozen or Moana…this is not okay,” he said on his podcast, Shall We Play, according to Heat Street.

“Different options are not OK. Because the Princesses in Frozen and Moana are strong characters who aren’t in need of being rescued, no Princess can ever be portrayed like that again.”

I guess going by the same logic, we can’t allow children to watch any of the older Disney animated films like Snow White, Sleeping Beauty, or Cinderella, because they have outdated portrayals of princesses, which will somehow mess up young girls today, even though they didn’t mess up young girls from previous generations.

Sleeping-Beauty.jpg
“OMG, WHY DID DISNEY HATE LITTLE GIRLS SO MUCH?”

“People give Nintendo a pass because they’re family-friendly, you know what? This is not family-friendly.”

How is it not family friendly? What exactly isn’t family friendly about a man going to great lengths to save the woman he loves from danger? Are we just going to deny the basic biological drives of our species, in order to promote ideological nonsense? In harsher time periods, while our species was still evolving, women tended to choose a strong man, who could protect them from danger, and provide for them, as a mate. In the same way, men have a natural, biological drive to protect women because it is through women, that we are able to pass on our own genes.

In our current social environment, this kind of dynamic is less of a necessity because of the way civilisation is set up. In the modern world, in which we aren’t at war with nature and rival tribes for resources, women are quite capable of providing for themselves, and they don’t need a strong man to protect them, because we have law and order to do that instead. However, absolutely nothing about our biology has changed, as civilisation has developed quicker than our biological evolution.

As a result, despite how much our lifestyles may have changed in the last few thousand years, ultimately, we still have the same animal instincts now that our stone age ancestors had when women instinctively sought out strong men to protect and provide for them, and men had a biological drive to want to protect from harm, the women who would potentially bear their offspring. Therefore, I would contend that because our biological instincts haven’t changed, that most males will naturally identify with the male power fantasy of rescuing a princess, and most females will identify with the fantasy of being rescued and protected by a brave hero, rather than being the hero themselves. I’m not saying every single person will conform to these gender stereotypes, and for those who don’t, their preferences are perfectly valid as well, but a lot of people will identify with the gender stereotypes, so having games that cater to these perfectly natural fantasies is hardly “inappropriate for children”.

I regard these things as being inappropriate for children. Therefore, they’re inappropriate for children, because I’m the authority on these things, because I say so”.

“How dare they have fictional video game woman bake a cake for the man she loves? This sends such a horrible message to young girls somehow, even the ones who just happen to enjoy baking.”

Most Mario games involve saving Princess Peach, who has inevitably been kidnapped by the plumber’s arch enemy, Bowser.

Ina Fried, a respected technology journalist, said these old-school storylines do not reflect the modern world.

“It’s *current year*, therefore everything has to change. We won’t give any reasons why this is suddenly necessary, other than the fact that we now think the old way is outdated because of the current year.”

e93006920e685c1543d8b1ee34280ce31e43fd40.jpg
“We can’t allow certain types of stories to be told anymore because we consider them outdated now. Only stories that we personally approve of can be told now.”

In an article for Re/Code, she wrote: “It has been 30 years since Mario first rescued the princess back in 1985. Since that time, more than 50 women have gone into space, more than two dozen have been elected to the U.S. Senate and several hundred have climbed Mount Everest.

Wait, you mean these women managed to accomplish all those incredible things, despite such a “sexist” video game series existing? Wow, that almost makes me think that capable women are capable no matter what, and the existence of a video game series that utilises an “outdated” story, is not going to stop them from achieving. I’d also bet that statistically speaking, with how popular the Mario series is, that at least a few of these highly accomplished women have played at least one Mario game in their lifetime and yet all that “sexism” didn’t harm them in any way.

This all goes back to the point I made in my article about the campaign to convince parents to buy their sons a Barbie doll. I don’t believe for a second that there is actually any real problem here at all, but what is happening, is a bunch of insecure adults are projecting their own insecurities and failures onto children, and are finding a scapegoat to blame for these insecurities and failures, rather than taking responsibility instead.

maxresdefault.jpg
“It’s not fair. I was well on my way to studying law at Harvard, curing the HIV virus, and becoming President. However, when I was 8 years old, I played a Super Mario game, and the sexism traumatised me so much, that I gave up on all my dreams, started living on benefits, gained about 500 pounds, and am not motivated to clean up the mess around me. None of this is my fault. It’s all Nintendo’s fault for being so sexist.

I mean come on, lets really be honest with ourselves here. How many people (and this question is for both men and women) played Mario games in their youth and started thinking that women were worth less than men because of it? Obviously, I can only cite anecdotal evidence which in the grand scheme of things, means nothing, but I will say that I certainly wasn’t thinking about gender stereotypes when I played these games. I just enjoyed them for what they were, and I’ve known plenty of female gamers who played the series, enjoyed it, and are now perfectly normal, well-adjusted young women, who haven’t been negatively affected in any way from doing so. They didn’t feel insecure as females playing a game in which the male hero has to rescue the princess. They just had fun playing the game and didn’t think any deeper than that.

“More importantly, the next generation of girls and boys are learning gender norms from, among other things, games like Super Mario Run. Personally, I think it is about time for a game where Peach rescues Mario.”

super_princess_peach
Just in case you missed it the first time.

^See the problem here. These idiots don’t even have any understanding of what they’re even complaining about. They just take a quick, superficial glance at things, think they’re suddenly well informed on the topic, and start complaining and demanding changes to things they aren’t really interested in. It’s absolutely ridiculous. Meanwhile, while this uninformed moron is complaining about the Mario series and acting as if it’s the be-all, and end-all of the video game industry, he’s ignoring the existence of the many strong female video game characters that already exist, some of whom have existed almost as long as the “sexist” Princess Peach character.

21c0f1785c39f8a622018b7bb503116b.jpg
Samus Aran, first seen in “Metroid”, 1986.
tyris-flare.jpg
Tyris Flare, first seen in “Golden Axe”, 1989.
41bec5c77983aa64fb0ae004849ee75f.jpg
Blaze Fielding, first seen in “Streets of Rage”, 1991.
3333014-sonya_blade_by_immanuelcunt-d6lcaro.jpg
Sonya Blade, first seen in “Mortal Kombat”, 1993
rise-of-the-tomb-raider4-1200x750.jpg
Lara Croft, first seen in “Tomb Raider”, 1996.
jill.png
Jill Valentine, first seen in “Resident Evil”, 1996.
Alex-article_image.jpg
Alexandra Roivas, first seen in “Eternal Darkness”, 2002.
bayonetta21280jpg-800626_1280w.jpg
Bayonetta, first seen in “Bayonetta”, 2009.

And all the above are just a small example, specifically limited to strong playable female characters. There are plenty of other strong female characters in games, both playable and those in a supporting role, as well as games which allow the player to create a blank avatar from scratch of either gender.

The point I’m trying to close on, is this. The Mario series has existed for decades and has been popular with generations of children (including girls) the entire time. Women who have grown up in a post-Mario world have still managed to accomplish amazing things, despite its apparent “sexism”. Acting as if Mario’s traditional “hero rescues a princess” storyline, is somehow damaging little girls, without presenting any supporting evidence to back up this claim, is completely idiotic and intellectually dishonest. However, if you still feel that Mario is not suitable for girls because Princess Peach is a bad role model, then that’s your choice, and there are plenty of alternative games out there with strong female characters to play instead. Not every game needs to have a badass female protagonist though. There is plenty of room in the gaming industry for different options, and Mario just fills one of many. You don’t like it, then don’t play it. It’s really that simple.