Algerian football fans in Paris, Marseille, Lyon and other cities celebrated their soccer team’s Africa Cup of Nations win by rioting, looting stores and wielding chainsaws in a night of chaos.
Algerians poured out onto the streets following their team’s victory over Ivory Coast last night.
The fans shouted “Allahu Akbar!,”“Nique la France” (Fuck France) and “on va baiser des keufs” (We are going to fuck the cops) as they attacked store fronts.
“Tensions started boiling by around 11pm with at least one Molotov cocktail thrown at police lines. Riot forces responded with tear gas and rubber bullets to stop the crowd from vandalizing cars and looting shops,” reports RT.
As we previously reported, during last year’s World Cup, a woman and her partner were viciously beaten in Paris by a group of Algerian men the sin of shouting “Vive la France!”
French cities were also besieged by anarchists and migrants after the World Cup final, with shops being looted, vehicles set alight and buildings torched.
America’s ‘progressive’ lunatic fringe is in a heated contest with itself to see who can make the most outrageous claims of victim-hood and oppression. Such a deranged pastime can only lead to national ruin.
In the latest episode of stupid Liberal stunts, we pay a visit to the Starbucks in Tempe, Arizona, where a disgruntled individual reportedly felt uneasy about a heavy police presence inside the coffee shop. Was this anxious person a criminal, perchance, annoyed that his plans for daylight robbery were dashed by Tempe’s finest? Nope. Perhaps he was an escapee from the local penitentiary who’d just had the misfortune of being in the wrong place at the wrong time? Wrong again.
According to the Tempe Officers Association, six members of the local police force were standing together “having a cup of coffee before their long 4th of July shift” when they were approached by a barista, who informed the officers that an ordinary customer “did not feel safe” because of their presence.
The barista then requested – with the sweetest smile money can buy, no doubt – that the cops “move out of the customer’s line of sight or leave.” The compliant officers, probably too stunned to formulate a better response, obeyed the request and hastily beat a retreat out the door.
This brief exchange proves the all-American maxim, which says ‘the customer is always right,’ has been taken to a whole new level of madness. Worse, it demonstrates how easily offended Americans – indoctrinated as they are on a regular basis with political correctness and social justice ideology – have become over the most trivial matters.
What should have occurred – and in fact would have occurred about a decade earlier – is that the Starbucks employee, taken aback by such a strange complaint (on the Fourth of July, no less!) would have consulted with his or her manager on the matter. Then, in all likelihood, the manager would have calmly explained to the distressed customer that the police officers were regular patrons and had every right to be inside the shop, too. Far more likely, however, is that nobody would have thought to express discomfort about police officers inside of a coffee shop just a few short years ago. But these are brave new days in the United States.
It should come as no surprise that the Starbucks employee was only too happy to indulge the complaining customer. The barista, however, should not be judged too harshly. After all, playing the victim card has become institutionalized to such a degree in the US that even city councils and corporations appear helpless before its powerful influence.
Just this month, for example, former NFL quarterback Colin Kaepernick complained to Nike, the sports shoe maker, that “he and others” found their latest line of footwear, which carried the Betsy Ross-era flag of a younger United States, “offensive.” Why? Because the 13-star flag, representing the colonies that fought successfully against British rule, made its inaugural appearance when slavery was still part of the young nation’s experience.
How did the Fortune 500 company respond to the complaint by Kaepernick, whose claim to fame to date has been to ‘take a knee’ during the opening national anthem before NFL games to protest police brutality? Nike responded much like the Starbucks barista did when confronted by the “annoyed” customer: it immediately acquiesced to the request, pulling the line of trainers from production, even though the claim that the flag is associated with ‘white supremacist’ groups is a gross exaggeration: it even featured prominently at Barack Obama’s 2013 presidential inauguration.
Meanwhile, in yet another blow this month to diehard American traditions and institutions, very non-politically correct MAD magazine fell heavier into the dust than a bronze Civil War-era statue. The 67-year old satire publication, which encouraged several generations of Americans to take a cynical, distrustful attitude towards politics, as well as other features of modern society, was destined to fall in these very unfunny times. After all, with every fiber in the liberal body acting as antennae to hunt down the slightest offense, even ironic ones, the death and demise of a magazine that preyed on moronic behavior with scathing wit never stood a chance.
Earlier in July, the wise city fathers of Charlottesville, Virginia, said they will no longer celebrate Thomas Jefferson’s birthday as an official city holiday, opting instead for a day devoted to the emancipation of African-American slaves. Jefferson was both a slave-holding president as well as a Founding Father who wrote the original draft of the Declaration of Independence.
America’s homegrown Taliban, which consider themselves to be ‘progressive,’ are actively destroying statues, publications, flags, symbols and even intellectual debate on college campuses. This unprecedented phenomenon has spawned a dangerous mindset in Americans that supports the idea that any person who feels uncomfortable with some aspect of society – even if it happened hundreds of years ago – should be coddled like a child and given exactly what they want.
America takes great pride in being a nation of vast cultural diversity – possibly the most diverse collection of people ever assembled under one roof. Yet, at the same time, it has declared open season on tolerance and difference of opinion. Even history itself has been declared an enemy. This is an impossible and even dangerous venture. Today, no idea, no historic artifact, no symbol that attracts uncomfortable associations for some minority group of people is deemed permissible. What is quickly happening, therefore, is that a large segment of the US population has declared war on American history, which is filled – as is the history of every nation – with stories of triumph mixed with tragedy.
However, to think that by destroying historical statues and forbidding the expression of certain words and emblems will somehow correct past wrongs is a very dangerous misconception. In fact, what this ‘killing of history’ will ultimately do is guarantee that the American people will be doomed to repeat terrible chapters of their violent past.
It’s time to stop coddling the complainers and leave the historical markers alone. If we’re going to continue to be a nation of many different colors and creeds, then we need to bravely and honestly accept our history, warts and all. It is really the only way forward.
A 17-year-old Scottish student claims he was told to leave his class after saying there are only “two genders” – a statement which earned him a reprimand from the teacher, whose reaction he secretly recorded on camera.
The three-minute-long video shows the teacher at the Aberdeenshire secondary school explaining that he was asked to leave the class because his opinion on genders is “not very inclusive” and out of line with “national school authority policy.”
The student then turns that argument on the 56-year-old teacher, telling him it’s also “not very inclusive” to prevent him from airing his own personal views on the subject. When the teen says that claims of more than two genders are “not scientific whatsoever,” the teacher tells him “not every policy is scientific.”
As the debate heats up, the teacher tells the boy he was “clearly given an opportunity not to pursue” his point, but did so anyway. “Could you please keep that opinion to your own house? Not in this school,” the teacher asks.
The verbal spat continues, with the student accusing the staff member of wasting 30 minutes of his time. The teacher then advises him to “make an official complaint.”
“I was simply saying there are two genders – male and female. Anything else is a personal identification,” the boy continues.
Media reports said the teen had been disciplined for sharing the video online without consent, but not for its content.
In a statement, a spokesperson for the Aberdeenshire Council told the Scottish Daily Mail that the video didn’t give the full context of the discussion. The council’s aim, he said, is to “foster good relations between those who have protected characteristics and those who don’t” and to support an “inclusive environment for all.”
The general secretary of the Scottish Secondary Teachers’ Association, Seamus Searson, also supported the teacher, saying he didn’t know the full details of the case, but that it sounded like “a youngster looking for trouble.”
Conservative pundit Kyle Kashuv will not join fellow Parkland shooting survivor and gun control advocate David Hogg at Harvard, saying that school pulled his acceptance over racial slurs he made in private messages when he was 16.
Having been set to attend Harvard in 2020 after taking a year off school, Kashuv announced in a series of tweets on Monday that the Ivy League institute had decided to rescind his acceptance “over texts and comments made nearly two years ago, months prior to the shooting.”
Kashuv was one of the students at Marjorie Stoneman Douglas High in Parkland, Florida, during the February 2018 attack that left 17 students and staff killed and another 17 injured. While Hogg and several other seniors became celebrity gun control activists, Kashuv made public his pro-gun views, including the right to arm school staff.
He worked for the high-school outreach wing of the pro-Trump organization Turning Point USA, and even met with the president himself. In May, however, someone dug up a private chat from 2016 in which Kashuv repeatedly used a racial slur referring to African-American.
Although he was 16 at the time and the comments were made in private, Kashuv took responsibility in a public apology on Twitter, saying his remarks had been “idiotic,” “callous and inflammatory.”
Harvard seemingly agreed with his assessment, but didn’t feel like his apology was quite enough. After reviewing the apology letter, the school replied saying he would no longer be welcome to attend, citing concerns over his “maturity and moral character.”
Despite seeking guidance from the Office of Diversity and Inclusion, and requesting a face to face meeting regarding the incident, Harvard had already made its decision. In his tweets, Kashuv pointed out the irony of university’s apparent message that in contemporary society, certain “mistakes brand you as irredeemable,”especially considering the school’s own “checkered past.”
“If Harvard is suggesting that growth isn’t possible and that our past defines our future, then Harvard is an inherently racist institution. But I don’t believe that,” Kashuv added.
Harvard has yet to issue any public response to his comments.
Despite the blow, Kashuv has gotten some support from conservative media personality Ben Shapiro, who argued that uncovering things people said when they were teenagers and holding it against them creates an “insane and cruel”standard, and sets a dangerous precedent.
One has to wonder what implications the decision will have for future applicants– or even those already attending the prestigious institution. Around the same time Kashuv’s comments were unearthed in May, the Harvard Lampoon ran an image of Holocaust victim Anne Frank in a bikini which was widely panned as anti-Semitic and even condemned by the New England regional director of the Anti-Defamation League.
It seems that, at least for the time being, their apology was enough.
What is going on with the unending Brexit drama, the aftershocks of Donald Trump’s election and the “yellow vests” protests in France?
What drives the growing estrangement of southern and eastern Europe from the European Union establishment? What fuels the anti-EU themes of recent European elections and the stunning recent Australian re-election of conservatives?
Put simply, the middle classes are revolting against Western managerial elites. The latter group includes professional politicians, entrenched bureaucrats, condescending academics, corporate phonies and propagandistic journalists.
What are the popular gripes against them?
One, illegal immigration and open borders have led to chaos. Lax immigration policies have taxed social services and fueled multicultural identity politics, often to the benefit of boutique leftist political agendas.
Two, globalization enriched the cosmopolitan elites who found worldwide markets for their various services. New global markets and commerce meant Western nations outsourced, offshored and ignored their own industries and manufacturing (or anything dependent on muscular labor that could be replaced by cheaper workers abroad).
Three, unelected bureaucrats multiplied and vastly increased their power over private citizens. The targeted middle classes lacked the resources to fight back against the royal armies of tenured regulators, planners, auditors, inspectors and adjusters who could not be fired and were never accountable.
Enlarge ImageA Yellow Vest Pro-Brexit Protestor seen with an EU flag modified with a Swastika during a rally at Trafalgar Square.Getty Images
Four, the new global media reached billions and indoctrinated rather than reported.
Five, academia, rather than focusing on education, became politicized as a shrill agent of cultural transformation — while charging more for less learning.
Six, utopian social planning increased housing, energy, and transportation costs.
One common gripe framed all these diverse issues: The wealthy had the means and influence not to be bothered by higher taxes and fees, or to avoid them altogether. Not so much the middle classes, who lacked the clout of the virtue-signaling rich and the romance of the distant poor.
In other words, elites never suffered the firsthand consequences of their own ideological fiats.
Green policies were aimed at raising fees on, and restricting the use of, carbon-based fuels. But proposed green belt-tightening among the hoi polloi was not matched by cutbacks in their second and third homes, overseas vacations, luxury cars, private jets and high-tech appurtenances.
In education, government directives and academic hectoring about admissions quotas and ideological indoctrination likewise targeted the middle classes but not the elite. The micromanagers of Western public schools and universities often preferred private academies and rigorous traditional training for their own children.
Elites relied on old-boy networks to get their own kids into colleges. Diversity administrators multiplied at universities while indebted students borrowed more money to pay for them.
In matters of immigration, the story was much the same. Western elites encouraged the migration of indigent, unskilled and often poorly educated foreign nationals who would ensure that government social programs — and the power of the elites themselves — grew.
The champions of open borders made sure that such influxes did not materially affect their own neighborhoods, schools and privileged way of life.
Elites masked their hypocrisy by virtue-signaling their disdain for the supposedly xenophobic, racist or nativist middle classes. Yet the non-elite have experienced firsthand the impact on social programs, schools and safety from sudden, massive and often illegal immigration from Latin America, the Middle East, Africa and Asia into their communities.
As for trade, few still believe in “free” trade when it remains so unfair. Why didn’t elites extend to China their same tough-love lectures about global warming or about breaking the rules of trade, copyrights and patents?
The middle classes became nauseated by elites’ constant trashing of their culture, history and traditions, including the tearing down of statues, the Trotskyizing of past heroes, the renaming of public buildings and streets and, for some, the tired and empty whining about “white privilege.”
If Western nations were really so bad, and so flawed at their founding, why were millions of non-Westerners risking their lives to reach Western soil?
How was it that elites themselves had made so much money, had gained so much influence and had enjoyed such material bounty and leisure from such a supposedly toxic system — benefits that they were unwilling to give up despite their tired moralizing about selfishness and privilege?
In the next few years, expect more grass-roots demands for the restoration of the value of citizenship. There will be fewer middle-class apologies for patriotism and nationalism. The non-elite will become angrier about illegal immigration, demanding a return to the idea of measured, meritocratic, diverse and legal immigration.
Because elites have no answers to popular furor, the anger directed at them will only increase until they give up — or finally succeed in their grand agenda of a nondemocratic, all-powerful Orwellian state.
He then states, “This is for Afghanistan” before smashing the bottle over the head of a white German man, who then screams out in pain as he lay bleeding on the street.
According to the German government’s own statistics, violent crime in Germany rose by 10 per cent between 2015 and 2016, when the country began accepting large numbers of migrants, many of them young men. More than 90 per cent of the rise was attributable to young male “refugees”.
“Young male refugees in Germany got the blame…. for most of a two-year increase in violent crime,” reported Reuters.
We anticipate this story receiving widespread media coverage to the same extent that a similar attack on a migrant would receive.
Or maybe not.
There is a war on free speech. Without your support, my voice will be silenced.
Please sign up for the free newsletter here. Donate to me on SubscribeStar here.
Support my sponsor – Turbo Force – a supercharged boost of clean energy without the comedown.
HBO’s hit new series based on the Chernobyl tragedy has divided opinion online, but the oddest reaction yet has come from a budding UK actor wondering why the show’s creators had not chosen more people of color for the cast.
While the docudrama has come under criticism for various historical inaccuracies, until now, the lack of racial diversity among the actors was not one of those criticisms — for the simple reason that 1980s Ukraine was not exactly a thriving hub of modern-day multiculturalism.
That should have been no reason to leave black and brown actors out though, according to actress Karla Marie Sweet, who tweeted that there are “so many great actors of colour” in the UK who“would’ve been amazing” in the series. Sweet felt “disappointed” to see“yet another hit show with a massive cast” that “makes it looks like PoC don’t exist.”
Just to clear up any confusion, the show“makes it look” like that to reflect the reality of the time and place — and the producers seem to have been at least trying to create an authentic vibe.
Needless to say, Sweet’s tweet didn’t exactly go down well on Twitter, where she was promptly told to “learn history.”
“You didn’t see PoC because they’re not there!”
One user said perhaps the actors were chosen for the same reason that Martin Luther King should probably not be played by a white person — because he was black.
Another said he was taking a screenshot of the thread because “nobody will believe” something so stupid could have been posted.
To be fair, Sweet did at least acknowledge the lack of people of color in the USSR in another tweet, but suggested that since the actors spoke with British accents (it was a British production), the creators should have just thrown accuracy completely out the window and hired a more diverse-looking cast. Emotions like fear, panic and sadness can be“communicated just as effectively” by people of color, she added, missing the point entirely.
Having actors of another race would “break immersion” for the viewers, another user tried to explain — but ultimately, Sweet didn’t seem open to criticism, later tweeting about the reactions she had received from “racist Twitter.”
me: can i just make a light suggestion that perhaps something could be a little more inclusive –
A new survey at attitudes towards migration across Europe has found more than half of Swedes say they do not want to see the country take in more refugees, making it one of the most migration-sceptic nations.
Around 8,000 people in Germany, Poland, Spain, Hungary, Italy, Belgium, France and Sweden were asked a series of questions in the survey, including “Do you agree with the statement: ‘My country should not receive more refugees from conflict areas.’?” to which 51 per cent of the Swedish respondents said they agreed, Spanish newspaper El Paisreports.
While both Poland and Italy were tied with 53 per cent saying they agreed with the statement, the Swedish number exceeded that of Hungary, a nation noted for its strong anti-mass migration stance and policies, at 49 per cent.
More than one-third, 35 percent of the respondents across all of the countries surveyed, said that immigration was the most important issue facing the European Union today but only 14 percent said that the European Union had managed to handle the migrant crisis in 2015 and 2016 in a competent manner.
By contrast, 41 percent of Germans say they would welcome more refugees despite being the largest recipient of migrants during the height of the migrant crisis, and the challenges of rising crime, increased spending and lack of both cultural and economic integration.
For Sweden, migration has been a core issue in elections since the height of the migrant crisis in 2015, with the issue dominating the 2018 national elections, according to similar surveys taken last year.
Several reports in Sweden have highlighted the issues surrounding mass migration, including an unpublished report earlier this year that proved that the costs for an increase in migration promised by the Swedish government earlier this year would be far higherthan the initial stated estimates.
Another report, from Swedish broadcaster SVT, revealed the extent of migrant rape rates, claiming over a period of five years, migrants made up 58 percent of those convicted for rapes. The number jumped to 85 percent when accounting to violent rapes in which the victim did not know the perpetrator beforehand.
A publicly-funded educational show for children 4-8 about an anthropomorphic aardvark took a turn for the even weirder, when it decided to teach kids the importance of accepting adult male-male inter-species love relationships.
Come on, if there was one thing kids’ TV programming was desperately crying out for, it was a gay cartoon rat getting married, teaching us all a timely lesson about “diversity.”
So, that’s exactly what the season premiere of the Public Broadcasting Service’s (PBS) “Arthur” cartoon delivered. The episode featured a surprise wedding between the titular aardvark’s humanoid rat teacher and his male partner who appears to also be an aardvark…as CNN put it, “leaving us all in happy tears.”
While many people seemed unsurprised that Mr. Ratburn, a ‘man’ whose principal interests include eating cake and bird-watching, turned out to be a homosexual, there were, nonetheless, heavy celebrations across social media post-nuptials.
Indeed, social justice warriors everywhere were hardly able to contain their glee over the inter-species, same-sex pairing up. If nothing else, the episode confirmed that even kids just barely out of toddlerhood can no longer avoid being pummelled with lessons about identity politics.
Arthur has been on the air for a whopping 22 SEASONS, making it the longest running children’s cartoon on television. So, perhaps we can chalk its success up to being so very in tune with the zeitgeist — and its willingness to take on responsibilities that might otherwise be left to parents. Like lessons about gay marriage, for example.
Should decisions of when and how to teach children about adult relationships really be made by television producers trying to impart their personal values onto everyone else’s kids? Regardless of whether the relationship is heterosexual or same-sex, marriage is hardly a topic many people would expect to be cropping up in a cartoon for four-year-olds.
What’s next? Are busy parents going to have to start vetting the shows their toddlers are watching and pick ‘liberal’ or ‘conservative’ ones depending on their own political persuasions? Can a parent not sit their child in front of a television show without wondering what wisdom and life lessons the friendly animated characters are going to be imparting next?
Of course, there’s no grave danger in a child learning about marriage and the basics of sexuality (some people are gay, some are straight, etc.), but are these topics really age-appropriate for the under-fives?
It’s not the first time that PBS has dealt with same-sex relationships in a supposedly child-friendly manner, either. The publicly-funded network ran an episode in 2005 which ambitiously featured two lesbian couples. Although, it appears on that occasion, “Arthur” was a bit ahead of its time and it was forced to pull the episode following parental complaints.
In a statement to People magazine, the network commented on the importance of accurately representing “the diversity of communities across the nation,” as well as the “wide array of adults in the lives of children who look to PBS KIDS every day.”
Social media reaction varied from extreme excitement that wedding bells were finally ringing for Mr. Ratburn to concern that PBS had taken their efforts to promote diversity and educate young kids a tad too far. Some were even downright angry that the channel had decided to“burden” children with thoughts of sexuality and adult relationships, homosexual or otherwise.
Tom's Blog 