British police investigate racist ‘tweet attack’ comments on England duo Reply

LONDON — British police launched an investigation on Monday after two England internationals were subject to abuse on social networking site Twitter.

Ashley Young and Ashley Cole were targeted after missing penalties in England’s Euro 2012 quarter-final loss to Italy on Sunday.

A Metropolitan Police spokesman said: “We are aware of alleged racist comments on Twitter following last night’s England game and have launched an investigation.

“The allegation was made to MPS on 25 June by a member of the public relating to comments on a Twitter account supposedly based in London.

“No arrests at this early stage.

The Football Association branded the Twitter attacks as “appalling and unacceptable”.


Muslim woman barred from school parents’ event for wearing veil Reply

A Muslim woman walks in east London (Reuters/Stefan Wermuth)

A British Muslim woman was asked to leave a school’s parents’ night in Manchester for wearing the veil. The college cited “safety” and “security” reasons.

Maroon Rafique was stopped from entering Manchester College by security staff, who told her that for the security of teachers and pupils, there was a ban on any kind of face covering.


Eric the Withholder Reply

Holder gets a Goading @ TakiMag.


by Jim Goad

The House Oversight Committee voted last week to begin Contempt of Congress proceedings against porpoise-faced Attorney General Eric Holder. Although the vote was a reaction to Holder’s stonewalling in the Fast and Furious gun-walking scandal, America’s wormy, mustachioed AG has shown flagrant contempt for the popular will during his entire tenure. With ghastly consistency, he has enforced laws that appeal to his radical progressive agenda and ignored the ones he doesn’t like.

Only two weeks after being sworn in as Attorney General, Holder called America a “nation of cowards” regarding racial matters. Way to get started on the good foot and charm the socks off the heartland, fella! The only cowards I see are the spineless geeks terrified of being called “racist” and the yella-bellies who are morbidly afraid of honestly examining other explanations for disparities in crime and income besides ye olde bugaboo of “racism.”

Although the story has largely been suppressed by the leftist media’s barking megaphones, Holder’s racial double standards were made evident in his refusal to prosecute the New Black Panthers in Philadelphia for voter intimidation during the 2008 presidential election. Department of Justice attorney J. Christian Adams had claimed, “I was told by voting section management that cases are not going to be brought against black defendants on [behalf] of white victims.”


Joe The Plumber Stands By Gun Control Remarks, Claims Media Unfairly Spun Holocaust Angle Reply

From HuffPo.

Not seeing how what he said was “offensive”. Any sensible totalitarian disarms their citizenry/”undesirables” to make it easier to oppress and prey on them.

Talk to the JPFO—they’ll fill you in!

Shame he felt the need to backpedal  for being right.


By Paige Lavender

Samuel Wurzelbacher, better known as Joe the Plumber, stood by controversial remarks he made blaming gun control for the Armenian Genocide and the Holocaust.

“All I said was gun control was implemented, and then governments proceeded to violate human rights,” Wurzelbacher said, according to the Toledo Blade. “Nowhere did I mention the Holocaust or was I even talking about it.”

Wurzelbacher sparked controversy when he posted a web video Monday featuring the following remarks:

“In 1911, Turkey established gun control. From 1915 to 1917, 1.5 million Armenians, unable to defend themselves, were exterminated. In 1939, Germany established gun control. From 1939 to 1945, six million Jews and seven million others unable to defend themselves were exterminated. I love America.”

Wurzelbacher was quickly criticized by the National Jewish Democratic Council, a pro-Democratic group, whose President and CEO David Harris said the congressional candidate’s comparison was “beyond the pale” and called on Wurzelbacher to “apologize and remove this offensive video immediately.”

While Wurzelbacher didn’t respond to that criticism, he did tell one Twitter user who hit Wurzelbacher’s “ignorance” that he was “obviously not watching my video.”

Punished for supporting the EDL? Reply

From Spiked. Interview with the PC Stasi’s latest victim.


By Patrick Hayes

‘You hear the things the social workers say, and you just bang your head against a brick wall and think, “Am I actually hearing this? Is this real?”’

Toni McLeod is an eight-month pregnant 25-year-old mother-of-three based in Durham in the north-east of England. Her three existing children – one daughter and two sons – are currently in care and she can only see them under supervision. She now fears that her imminent fourth child will be taken away from her by Durham County Council’s social workers as soon as she gives birth. Why? Because, she believes, of her political beliefs, or, to be more specific, her association with the right-wing English Defence League (EDL). A report by a Durham social worker seen by spiked seems to corroborate McLeod’s claims. It states: ‘Toni needs to break away from the inappropriate friendships she has through the EDL… in order that she can model and display appropriate positive relationships to the baby as he/she develops.’

McLeod agreed to talk to spiked about her predicament. She first hit the headlines over the weekend when the Sunday Express reported on her plight. The Express said: ‘Social workers fear [her] child would become radicalised with EDL views and want it put up for adoption immediately.’ She confirms the Express story is pretty much true, although she did notice some minor mistakes. ‘I have never owned a pitbull’, she says. Her case has also been raised by Lib Dem MP John Hemming in the House of Commons.

She tells me that the day she was reported to social workers for being an EDL supporter, her life started to unravel. A social worker visited her home and was not exactly sympathetic. ‘I may as well have been Satan reincarnated’, says McLeod. She says she has never made any secret of her support for the EDL. ‘I’m honest enough that if you ask me an honest question, I’ll give you an honest answer. So [the social worker] asked me and I said “yeah, I am involved with the English Defence League”. I haven’t been since 2010, but previous to then I was.’

Although social workers now apparently accept that McLeod no longer supports the EDL, she says they still aren’t happy. Apparently they fear she might still have ‘the ethos of the EDL beliefs’. The Express said social workers are also worried about McLeod’s ‘previous alcohol and drug misuse, her ‘“aggressive behaviour” and her alleged “mental health issues”’. But McLeod insists that it is her support for the anti-Islamic EDL which has caused her to lose her kids, and the social worker document seen by spiked certainly suggests that it was at least a factor.

One of the things that bothers her most is that the decision to take her future child into care is based less on what McLeod has actually done than on what she might do in the future: ‘There doesn’t need to be any actual proof of anything. It can all be based on possible risk in the future… Like in my case, it’s the likelihood of emotional abuse through radicalisation. The baby’s not even born!’


Swedish party wants sit-down urination Reply

More insanity from Brave New World’s leading nation. It’s hard to believe these people are the descendants  of the Vikings.

SORMLAND, Sweden, June 11 (UPI) — Left Party members of a Swedish county council said they want to encourage men using the council’s toilets to sit during urination.

The Left Party in Sormland said it wants the Sormland County Council to pass a motion requiring toilets reserved for stand-up urination to be labeled, Swedish news agency TT reported Monday.

The party said sit-down urination is more hygienic and reduces the risk of bathroom users having to negotiate their way around puddles en route to the toilet.


Let Them Drink Coke Reply

By Paul Gottfried

New York Mayor Bloomberg has recommended that a 16-ounce limit be placed on the size of soft drinks sold at city restaurants, movie theaters, stadiums, and arenas. This seemed necessary because of an epidemic of obesity in his municipality, where over 50% of the residents are now judged to be overweight. I’m not sure what “overweight” means for NYC officials, but I’ve noticed lots of fatsos waddling around on their streets.

Over the last thirty years Americans have been increasing their food intake by almost 300 calories daily. Limiting soft-drink consumption would ostensibly help combat this public danger in the same way that earlier measures such as posting calorie counts on restaurant menus and prohibiting trans fats in restaurant food aimed to trim New Yorkers’ waistlines. Apparently, these earlier measures hadn’t done the trick, so Bloomberg is now pulling out the big guns against soda pop. Deputy Mayor Howard Wolfson has confidently assured us that “People will come to see this very much in the interest of public health.”

“Where were these journalists when it came to criticizing much bigger infringements on individual liberties?”

There is no reason to think that Bloomberg’s law will have much effect on the average New Yorker’s girth. At least for now, consumers will be allowed to purchase as many sugary drinks as their money and appetite will permit. Although it may cost more to buy these additional high-calorie drinks, New Yorkers will not be prevented from doing so.

I’m probably sugar-averse, a natural condition that has allowed me to reach my present age without the diabetes that afflicts other family members. If all the Pepsis and other foul-tasting drinks in stores and restaurants disappeared overnight, it wouldn’t bother me.


Bill C-304: Hate Speech Clause’s Repeal Gives White Supremacists Rare Moment Of Glee Reply

From HuffPo Canada.

Bill C304 Hate Speech Canada

Two-thirds—two-fucking-thirds—of this spin-piece’s audience voted in favour of censorship: tie-dye totalitarians!


A Conservative private members’ bill that repeals part of Canada’s hate speech laws has passed the House of Commons with scant media attention, and even less commentary. But it’s being cheered by many Canadian conservatives as a victory for freedom of speech. And it’s being cheered most vocally by another group: White supremacists.

Bill C-304, introduced by Conservative backbencher Brian Storseth, repeals Section 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act, which bans hate speech transmitted over the Internet or by telephone. It passed third reading in the House of Commons on Thursday and is now headed to the Senate.

This is a huge victory for freedom in Canada,” a poster calling him or herself “CanadaFirst” posted on the website of StormFront, a notorious white supremacist group. “However, we still have other unjust Zionist ‘hate’ laws that need to go.”

“Way to go, Harper. I know we can’t get everything we want, but I stand a little taller today as a Canuck,” wrote “OneMan.”

The new law doesn’t make hate speech legal on the web or by phone — hate speech remains illegal under the Criminal Code. But by removing it from the Canadian Human Rights Act, it takes away the authority of the country’s human rights commissions to investigate online hate speech and request that violating websites be taken down.


Dial 911 for Mommy 1

By Gavin McInnes

After leaving dinner with my in-laws here in Brooklyn on Monday, I saw two men standing on the curb looking very righteous. One was Asian and the other was white, which in this area usually signifies they’re yuppie gentrifiers. Sitting on the sidewalk next to them was a Hispanic-looking twenty-something who kept bending and unbending his knees. As I passed this scene with my wife’s dad, a cop car pulled up and the two yuppies proudly motioned where they should park. The whole scene was so irritating, I insisted we leave.

A block later, a gigantic fire truck rushed past us toward the scene with sirens blaring, then another cop car, then an FDNY supervisor truck, and finally an ambulance. I’m guessing the bill for the call was about $10,000. The ambulance alone could cost as high as half that.

I later found out what happened. Apparently, the Hispanic sideswiped the car on his bike. He went rolling over the hood Dukes of Hazzard-style but got up and was fine. The driver got out of his car to make sure he was OK. Both were about to get on with their lives when a group of concerned citizens swept in and took control. They prevented both parties from leaving and insisted everyone wait for the cops. (One of them even held the driver’s arm and said, “You’re staying right here, dude.”) Our two cop-calling heroes turned a minor wipeout—the kind you had 1,000 times when you were a kid—and turned it into a huge tax-bill sundae with a potential lawsuit cherry on top. This is the new New York.

I’m not saying I miss the days when being a New Yorker meant being mugged at least once and the cops were more concerned with getting laid than with catching rapists, but the pendulum has swung in the other direction so fast, it’s giving us whiplash. We call the authorities to handle not only all of our problems but everyone else’s, too. We are “turning citizens into clients of the state.” We’re enabling the “childlike dependence” Milton Friedman warned of thirty years ago. Philadelphia Mayor Frank Rizzo once said a conservative is a liberal who got mugged the night before. A modern New Yorker has become a police-hating hippie who leaps into the cops’ arms the millisecond he detects conflict.

“We call the authorities to handle not only all of our problems but everyone else’s, too.”

In the West Village last week, spa worker Meng Dong scooped a parking space from celebrity jeweler Dawnelle Joie Yager. Miss Dawnelle was so mad at the tenacious turd she allegedly punched him in the chest and bonked him with her umbrella. PO-LEEEECE! Shortly after, the supermodel-looking debutante was charged with third-degree assault, attempted assault, and harassment. “The police thought it was so funny,” Yager is quoted as saying, “That they pulled up the Seinfeld episode [“The Parking Space”] on YouTube.”


VDARE, Lew Rockwell, and the Race-Obsessed Paleo Problem Reply

An oldy-but-goody from Dylan Waco at the Left Conservative.


Fresh off the heels of my post about the generational gap within the paleo movement on matters of race, comes the latest race obsessed nonsense from the folks at VDare. This time the issue is the alleged sellout of paleolibertarianism, by and the Murray Rothbard inspired, free market fundamentalists associated with the Austrian School of economics. While I am not a partisan of the Rothbardians, it does strike me that they are the saner of the two groupings, and they certainly have their priorities in order. They also understand tactical alliances, something that flies right over the head of the VDare crowd all to often.

Generally speaking I am a fan of the VDare website, particularly its focused work on immigration. While I don’t consider myself a restrictionist, I do think immigration is one of the major problems facing the nation, and lefties who pretend that the tide of illegals sweeping onto our shores is not an issue worthy of thought ought to quit pretending they care about things like the environment, urban sprawl, fair wages, or the autocratic status of the third world hellholes these folks are fleeing from. That said, VDare’s obsession with what it calls the “National Question”, is for the most part ideologically driven nonsense, and postings like the one offered up by “Arthur Pendleton” (most likely a pseudonym) do nothing to advance the cause of decentralized government, personal liberty, or community empowerment.


The “F” Word Reply

By Paul Gottfried

Although the adjective “fascist,” as George Orwell pointed out during and right after World War II, was a slur applied to “those we don’t like,” the indiscriminate use of the “F” word seems more common now than it was in 1945.

Political correctness drives this revival, although the association of fascism with absolute evil was already common by the late 1960s. That’s when the new “F” word became the ultimate insult in New Left grunting (replacing the other “F” word, which was elevated to the socially chic). Then along came the Holocaust industry to equate fascism with Nazism and Auschwitz.

Fascism was a time- and space-related movement which arose in Europe between the two World Wars and which was heavily shaped by World War I’s effects. Fascism resulted from the mobilization of mass armies, the creation of command economies, and the problem of reintegrating veterans into war-torn societies. Fascists were also reacting against the revolutionary left, particularly anarchists and communists. Communists in Germany, Finland, Austria, and Hungary were then being supplied by the newly created Soviet Union. The paramilitary formations that opposed the left stressed national identity—and in the Austrian and Spanish cases, Catholic corporate structures—as opposed to communist internationalism and socialist atheism.

“Fascism has a definite historical meaning. It is not an expletive to describe everything that someone dislikes.”

Contrary to an idea popular among American libertarians, fascists were not really leftists and once in power were not particularly socialistic. In fascist Italy, they supported some welfare-state measures, particularly after the Depression, and what they introduced, such as subsidies to industries and farmers, paralleled the New Deal in the US.

Fascism belonged to the right but was not conservative in any traditional sense. It took over the revolutionary rhetoric of the leftist internationalists and socialists, but fascist “national revolutions” changed the social structure only minimally. In Latin countries and in Austria, the fascists borrowed heavily from the Catholic Church and took over at least the labeling of neo-medieval corporate and guild organizations.


The Almighty, Impotent State Or, the Crisis of Authority 1

This article by Sigmund Knag and published by the Independent Institute goes a long way towards helping us understand the internal dynamics of modern states.  It can be read in full here. I have long argued that it is not sufficient for anarchists and other anti-statists to simply attack “the state” as a universal abstraction without any kind of context. Rather, while the state as generally conceived of is an enemy, it is also necessary to understand the particular workings and wider social functions of specific manifestations of the state. Given that most of us live in Western-style “liberal democratic” states, it is strategically and philosophically necessary to analyze and criticize the particular representations of the state under the rule of which we find ourselves. (This question also helps us to better understand the limitations of the Left’s obsession with “fascism” or the Right’s obsession with “socialism” as both of those are largely irrelevant to our own political situation).  This article by Knag is very helpful towards the development of such a critique. The ideas in this merit much discussion. Here’s a relevant  quote (hat tip to David Heleniak):


Vile! The Power of Taboo Reply

By Andy Nowicki

Vile!Vile: anagram is an energy

In chronicling the ongoing anti-White, anti-male, anti-heteronormative ideological full-court-press of our judicial, media, and governmental overlords, it is all-too easy to find oneself flogged into a perpetual state of spluttering outrage, or thrust towards a inveterate inclination to indulge in gloomy-doomy prognosticatications.

Such reactions are, in a way, understandable. After all, the campaign afoot to criminalize and/or stigmatize the most innocent, healthy, and normal of human impulses– such as the preference for one’s own culture, heritage, or traditions– is indeed an outrageous, obnoxious, and nefarious assault on decency. That said, however, one should take care not avoid the snare of becoming an angry, snarling– but ultimately impotent–curmudgeon, compulsively soaking up the latest ridiculousness, blared luridly from various right-wing scandal sheet tabloids, which record all of these malefactions and atrocities with grinning, almost obscene relish.


Robert Mugabe asked to be UN ‘leader for tourism’ Reply

Zimbabwean President Robert Mugabe at National Heroes Acre in Harare

From the Guardian.

In other news, Gary Glitter has been appointed chairman of UNICEF


by David Smith

With a line-up that includes Drew Barrymore, David Beckham, Orlando Bloom, and Ricky Martin, the UN’s choice of ambassadors has been known to cause raised eyebrows or the odd smirk.

Seldom, however, has there been such anger, or questioning of the organisation’s credibility, as that greeting the appointment of a new international envoy for tourism: Robert Mugabe.


An Open Letter to the So-Called Left Reply

By C. Derick Varn

An Open Letter To Much of the So-Called Left:

I am a man of the left. Make no mistake about it, I am a man of the fair left even. I have vaguely liberal social sensibilities, and a hard left politics. I have, however, noticed much notice in my life: one) a tendency to try confuse polemics and derailing tactics with arguments. In “anti-racist” battles I have noticed a strategic essentializing of the minority group to preserve self-identity move to a strategic essentializing of the majority. Take for example this bit from People of color organize:


“The hijab has liberated me from society’s expectations of women” Reply

From the Guardian. Such views always remind me of this cartoon…

I’m sure the Jacobin paternalists on the Continent would love to tell Nadiya how “oppressed” she is…


by Nadiya Takolia

When you think of the hijab, you probably don’t think “political”. Or “independent”. Or “empowered”. Feminist? Certainly not – feminism is far better known for burnt bras and slut-walks than headscarves.

There is much misunderstanding about how women relate to their hijab. Some, of course, choose the headcover for religious reasons, others for culture or even fashion.

But in a society where a woman’s value seems focused on her sexual charms, some wear it explicitly as a feminist statement asserting an alternative mode of female empowerment. Politics, not religion, is the motivator here. I am one of these women.

Wearing the hijab was not something I deliberately set out to do. It was something I unexpectedly stumbled upon as a twentysomething undergraduate, reading feminist literature and researching stories of women’s lives in the sex industry. From perfume and clothes ads to children’s dolls and X Factor finals, you don’t need to go far to see that the woman/sex combination is everywhere.

It makes many of us feel like a pawn in society’s beauty game – ensuring that gloss in my hair, the glow in my face and trying to attain that (non-existent) perfect figure.

Subconsciously, I tried to avoid these demands – wearing a hat to fix a bad-hair day, sunglasses and specs to disguise a lack of makeup, baggy clothes to disguise my figure. It was an endless and tiresome effort to please everyone else.

Sure the hijab was not the only way to express my feelings and frustrations; but knowing that our interpretation of liberal culture embraces, if not encourages, uncovering, I decided to reject what society expected me to do, and cover up.


Fat, Broke and Single? Reply

By Gavin McInnes

Like the French language, the liberal brain works in reverse. Where we say “the red book,” the French say “le livre rouge.” They start with a blank book and work backwards to fill it in with rouge. Liberals start with, “All men are created equal” and walk backwards from there without looking. If everyone isn’t succeeding equally, it can’t be because they made some bad decisions or have unequal abilities. It’s because we didn’t do enough.

If America is fat, it must be because nobody told them food is fattening. If women earn less than men, it must be because of sexism. If gays aren’t getting married, it must be because homophobes are cockblocking them. If the top ten mathematicians of all time are white males, it must be because nonwhite mathematicians with vaginas suffered discrimination.

These babies want to make us all as equal as the day we were born, even if it kills us.

“Like the French language, the liberal brain works in reverse.”

The Vegetarian Personality 7

By Jim Goad

I have trouble accepting the idea that Hitler was a vegetarian. He just didn’t seem that pushy.

Apparently others feel the same way. When I started typing “pushy vegetarians” on Google, it auto-filled the rest after “pushy v—.”

Of all the annoying identity movements under the giant rancid rainbow, what is it that causes militant vegetarians to be the most obnoxious? What is it about the Vegetarian Personality that makes me wish someone would cannibalize them? What is it about being lectured by vegans that makes me want to drive straight to Wendy’s and order a Classic Triple?

Is there a chemical in bean sprouts that causes self-righteousness, or perhaps an enzyme in beef that minimizes sanctimony? If you are what you eat, radical vegetarians must be eating something very unpleasant. They bare their tempeh-nibbling fangs to reveal the rabid hostility that always seems to be a hallmark of those who feel compelled to make a grand public display of their “compassion.” But hilariously, a recent study suggests that “exposure to organic foods” leads people to be less altruistic.


Another Surveillance Law: One More Step towards the Big Brother State 1

By Sean Gabb

At the beginning of April 2012, the BBC and a couple of newspapers reported that the British Government was considering a new surveillance law. This would allow it to monitor the telephone calls, text messages, e-mails and website visits of everyone in the United Kingdom. There was a flurry of debate about civil rights and the need to protect us all against terrorists. There was a side argument between those who said the law was required by the European Union, and those who said it would be in breach of European Union law. Since then, the various debates have gone quiet. Possibly, the Ministers have decided to drop the matter. More likely, the initial leak was to soften us up for something less ambitious to be announced in the Queen’s Speech. The Ministers will say they have “listened” to our concerns – and will use the lesser measure they had in mind all the time as a precedent for moving to the full measure in later stages. This being so, whether greater or lesser, another step will have been taken to a Big Brother police state.


“We’re White, We’re Male, and We Suck!” Reply

By Jim Goad

American culture reached Peak Beta last week as three privileged white-male pundits wrote essays declaring that privileged white males suck.

Lifelong morbidly obese bitchy lesbian Roger Ebert apparently dismantled the presumably elaborate series of pulleys and harnesses that enable him to orally service his adiposely domineering, melanin-drenched wife in order to run that half-a-mouth of his about how “Women Are Better Than Men.” Amazingly, Ebert became privy to this startling epiphany while watching a movie about how women are better than men. Ebert, who was apparently born without male hormones, decried “testosterone.” He intimated that men, at least the brawny ones, are as obsolete as farm animals and that women will be better suited to take command of “our emerging world economy”:

Women are nicer than men. And the sooner more of them take positions of power, the better our chances as a species.

Mr. Ebert has obviously never heard of Aileen Wuornos or Elizabeth Báthory.

Ebert’s verbal genuflection before the Giant Invisible Goddess Vulva is nothing new. Nor was it as cringeworthy as other recent spectacles of public male self-neutering such as the unconsciously hysterical, vagina-dessiccating “Dear Woman” video compiled by a group of ex-men offering “a collective apology on behalf of their gender.” It wasn’t as abjectly self-deballing as the recent trend of progressive boy hamsters holding “I Am a Feminist Because…” placards in what appear to be last-ditch attempts to get laid. It is merely the latest example in a decades-long tradition of men taking pride in taking shame in being men.