So, the Huffington Post got bamboozled.
The HuffPo deleted the piece and in its place issued a statement stating that they will "bolster and strengthen their blogging procedures" and that "bloggers will have to verify themselves." The original piece is, however, archived here. They also add that, "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."The Huffington Post has published a meandering attempt to shift the blame away from itself for posting a hoax blog by a fictional social justice warrior which called for white men to be stripped of the right to vote.The article, headlined “Could It be Time to Deny White Men the Franchise?”, went viral last week for its claim that banning white men from voting for 20 years would be a good way to advance progressive politics.
A remarkable statement, especially in light of the fact that South Africa has recently seen a spike in violence against white farm workers, amid calls for violence against its white citizenry from both ruling ANC politicians and leftist opposition groups. A concerning precedent, and one that should be studied by those who would claim that anti-white racism is impossible or would do no harm. While Genocide Watch does not yet think that anti-white genocide is occurring there, they are concerned that "early warnings of genocide are still deep in South African society, though genocide has not begun."
Reasonable people should see the handwriting on the wall in South Africa. It is set to become another Zimbabwe, and would get the hell out of dodge if they can. So much for the idea that denying whites the franchise would be a good idea from any standpoint.
It is well and good that the Huffington Post intends on tightening its quality controls. Funny this was not their original response, however. The HuffPo had originally boasted about the traffic that the piece had generated, and were quite taken in by the feminist and progressive credentials of "Shelley Garland" who described herself as an "activist working on ways to smash the patriarchy."
Am I to guess that burglaries and torturings occurring on white owned farms in South Africa would qualify? First, they defended the Garland piece and the "logic" underlying it - "pretty standard feminist theory." Following enormous reader backlash, which was doubtlessly dismissed with form letter responses of the "whiney white dudes mad that everything isn't about THEM" and "Bigotry! Fascism! Racism!" sort, they finally relented and took the piece down.
Their replacement was a denial of being able to confirm the existence of Garland. Once Garland's true identity as Marius Roodt (another hero for the 4chan crowd, as if they needed more) was known, his employers then accepted his resignation (I let you draw your own conclusions) and the Huffington Post has since published his apology (I let you draw your own conclusions again).
It's hard to tell which apology is less sincere, Roodt's or the Huffington Post's itself. Roodt was fairly upfront about his intentions:
A further indictment on the Huffington Post is the fact that its editor, Verashni Pillay, then took it upon herself to defend the total garbage that I had written. Although Ms Pillay claims that her website does not necessarily agree with what I said, it is unlikely that she would publish a piece with the same sentiments but aimed at a different race group written by someone ostensibly from the other side of the political spectrum.
Succinctly put.It is highly doubtful that she would publish a piece saying perhaps apartheid wasn’t that bad, or defending Donald Trump’s ban on people of certain nationalities entering the United States, and rightly so. Pieces defending apartheid or the ‘Muslim ban’ would be hurtful claptrap. What we have seen is the South African equivalent of the Sokal Affair, where something will be published, even if it’s ‘liberally salted with nonsense if (a) it sounded good and (b) it flattered the editors’ ideological preconceptions’. My article does not meet criteria a, but it certainly meets criteria b.
So with that in mind, I'm offering my assistance to the Huffington Post, in the form of a prepared statement and implied internal policy changes, that they may wish to adopt if they wish to get to the real root of the problem revealed by Roodt's deception and humiliation of the Post. It would read something like this:
The Huffington Post would like to take the necessary time and space to apologize to its readers. Especially, though not exclusively, its white male readers. Shelley Garland's piece on White Men and the Vote was offensive and discriminatory. In allowing it to be posted under the Huffington Post banner, we have enabled the expression of these vile and offensive views. Made all the more vile and offensive by the fact that we would never permit such things to be said of non-whites and non-males in our publication, and rightly so.
We simply cannot call ourselves a liberal publication while permitting to be expressed beneath our banner advocacy of the removal of the franchise, that most fundamental of all democratic rights, from any segment of the population on the basis of race or gender. It is unacceptable.
In failing to analyse and fact check the piece, and in failing to analyse and conduct a proper background check on on the piece's contributor, who turned out to be an alias, we have failed in our duties of journalistic integrity. Marius Roodt is entirely correct in stating that we allowed this to happen because the piece flattered the senior editor's ideological preconceptions.
Placing adherence to ideology and political partisanship above journalistic integrity and basic human decency and morality is the very definition of propaganda, not news. Senior editor Verashni Pillay received considerable negative feedback regarding this piece. We are disappointed, though not at all surprised by the nature of her response, which was to publish a piece laden with ideological sloganeering dismissing reader feedback. Given how crucial independent and critical thinking is in the role of a senior editor, and how dogmatic adherence to ideology undermines these qualities, this is unacceptable. Verashni Pillay will no longer be associated with the Huffington Post.
The Huffington Post would like to exonerate Marius Roodt of any allegation of wrongdoing. His actions, motivated as they were by an honest desire to speak truth to what we must now honestly admit to being an ideologically ossified status quo in the journalistic profession, do not undermine or disrespect that profession but rather holds it in the utmost highest regard.
It is our excessive devotion to ideology, partisanship and identity politics rather than Roodt's actions, that have undermined the Huffington Post's image in the public eye, and it is our responsibility as an organization to repair that image.Don't hold your breath.
It also bears mentioning that the Huffington Post, despite its ostensibly progressive slant, is refusing to bargain with the union representing its staffers over salaries. Besides celebrity feminism, the Huffington Post has garnered a reputation for "sh!ting on its writers." Go figure.
Looks to me like its boycott time. Archive.is for everything from the Huffington Post from here on out.