The now-infamous blog post on The Huffington Post South Africa calling for the disenfranchisement of white males appears to have been written by a white male, in an attempt to expose the state of journalism, according to an exclusive report by The Renegade Report.
News of the controversial article titled “Could It Be Time To Deny White Men The Franchise?” by one “Shelley Garland” quickly spread across the world, with such figures such as provocateur Milo Yiannopoulos, InfoWars’ Paul Joseph Watson, and liberal Dave Rubin taking note and expressing their disapproval. Even Fox News ran a report on the article. The article has since been taken down.
HuffPost SA’s Editor in Chief, Verashni Pillay, expressed her support for article, writing “there was nothing in the article that should have shocked or surprised anybody…” She continued, ” Those who have held undue power granted to them by patriarchy must lose it for us to be truly equal. This seems blindingly obvious to us.” Pillay’s defense of the article has also been taken down since it was revealed that “Shelley Garland” was not a real person.
According to information obtained by The Renegade Report, it turns out that “Shelley Garland” was a pseudonym used by a white male – who identified himself as “Nick Shannow” – who wrote the article.
Shannow indicated to the Report‘s Roman Cabanac and Jonathan Witt that he believed “one could write any kind of collectivist tripe, as long as the target was white men,” and set about testing his theory by submitting the infamous article. He turned out to be correct. “This is an indictment on South African journalism in general, and the Huffington Post in particular[,]” wrote Shannow.
“Although [Verashni 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[,]” noted Shannow aptly.
In January 2016 we wrote the following:
“It has become increasingly common to see editors, who are supposed to maintain a rational standard and ensure all publicised views are logically-informed, liberally allow the commentariat to say what they want, adhering to no sense of reason. While we believe, strongly, that people should be able to say whatever pleases them, we do not think it is responsible nor ethical for editors to entertain and host such fallacious diatribes.”
It would appear that this has remained true, especially for clearly-ideological publications such as The Huffington Post which hide behind the facade of responsible journalism.
HuffPost SA should join the Rational Standard in being open and honest about its political-philosophical biases, lest humiliations such as “Garlandgate” continue.
Mo Haarhoff
And there I was, supposing Pillay had written it herself. That some of the grammar was incorrect (‘will’ instead of ‘would’ a couple of times) is also just another indication that there’s no sub-editor or a proof reader.
Harald Sitta
“proof-reading’ is a colonialist concept!
Harald Sitta
“Blindingly obvious’ indeed!
Nasdaq7777
It is a brilliant article by that blogger!
Jim Sleazy
I just realised after reading this that if the author had written that black people should not be allowed to vote because they vote for theives. The article would have been labelled racist and counter revolutionary even though it would have been completely true. Fact is there should be a list of requirements to vote like paying tax and having a matric average over 55%. But then the ruling party wouldn’t have any votes.
garg
The bittersweet irony is that they even contravened proper press standards when they replied and pulled the whole thing.
You’re supposed to be transparent about edits.