THE COMMENTS...
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-467787/I-love-mixed-race-baby--does-feel-alien.html
In which the self-confessed 'bottle blonde' (i.e. brunette) Lowri Turner reveals her horror at realising her mixed-race baby is not, in fact, white, and ends up inexplicably condemning all non-Scandinavians as dirty foreigners (whut). Consider delightful quotes like:
"The usual time something is labelled 'mixed' is when it's a packet of nuts and they've bulked out the luxury cashews with cheaper peanuts."
"Even admitting to having mixed feelings about her (said half-Indian baby) not being blonde and blue eyed, I feel disloyal and incredibly guilty."
She also manages to combine Asians and Africans into one great unwashed mass she labels "black" (?!?) and seems to spend more time worrying about whether her friends will think she's adopted a child (God forbid...?) than what her daughter will think when she becomes old enough to use a computer and finds her mother's paranoid racist rantings.
MY COMMENT:
"This article is not pushing racism at all but rather Nordicism, the Nazi doctrine that the most superior type of person is the blonde-haired, blue-eyed Teuton. Look at how many times this article stresses hair and eye colour. Even the comments assume "blonde, brown, black" 'races' ("blonde" was not, last time I checked, a race).
"Danish". "Scandinavian". This is the cold-adapted ideal to which Lowri Turner subscribes. And who could blame her? After all, Denmark and Norway are such global powers. What rot.
Anyone reading this have blue eyes in childhood and have them turn hazel later? The Daily Mail says you are "black", or maybe "Asian". To Mrs. Teutonic Turner, there isn't much difference, apparently.
A majority of native Britons have brown hair and eyes after the Celtic mould - any lighter coloration, particularly in childhood, suggests Anglo-Saxon admixture. If Turner is so proud of her supposed pure Germanic ancestry, perhaps she should go "home"."
REFUSED PUBLICATION
Evidently it's alright to tell "darkies" to "go back to where (they came) from", but not Germanics, despite the latter destroying civilization in the British Isles (and arguably all of Europe) and later starting two World Wars. Interesting.
---
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-476607/The-tantalising-design-flaws-bodged-bodies.html
In which the Daily Mail, that self-declared crusader for the rights of --air crew-- to wear gaudy (pseudo)-Christian paraphenalia and constant bemoaner of Britain's declining religiousity, tackles the human body from the perspective of "design". Let's compare the Daily Mail's treatment of this indepth and --controversial-- subject with that of a well-known conservative writer:
"For you formed my inmost being. You knit me together in my mother's womb. I will give thanks to you, for I am fearfully and wonderfully made." (yes, that's Psalm 139:13-14)
"Vulnerable to wear and tear, prone to break down and rendered helpless by microscopic organisms - the human body is in fact an inefficient evolutionary bodge-job. ... So here our team of experts looks at the body's main failings and suggests how they could be put right..." (the Mail, natch)
Superb. Well done that paper.
MY (SHORT BUT SWEET) COMMENT:
"So good of the Daily Mail to tell us the Bible is a lie and God is an inept bodger. Whatever would we do without your fabulous insight? I hope your arrogance sustains you in eternity; the Lord knows you'll have nothing else."
REFUSED PUBLICATION
Christians, it seems, are A-OK on --British Airways-- flights but not on the Daily Mail's website (especially if they don't agree with the editor).
---
"a world strip of humanity - inside the virtual reality websites where you can live out your wildest (and darkest) fantasies" (sic. from original page, lack of capitalisation and all)
In which that 'funky' (astonishingly sic.) master of all things cutting-edge and technological John Humphreys (ROFL) criticises users of the Internet as anything more than an online shop for "(reverting) to childhood ... (spending) extraordinary amounts of their time inhabiting an imaginary world. You might say we all do that on some level. A good book or even a good play on the radio (THE 'RADIO'? WHAT NEW-FANGLED WIZARDRY IS THIS - SRegan) will take you to places you have never been. But this is different." Shame he never explains how; a common failing amongst empty-headed reactionists who hypocritically want to cling to their own entertainment despite using arguments pioneered by --Cotton Mather-- .
The gist of the article seems to be that we should all just leave that big, scary place where this article is published alone and get all our news from the BBC (who, ironically, the Daily Mail --hates with a consuming flame-- ) and the tabloids. They'll do all your thinking for you, still just 35p, er, 45p, er, £1.60 since 1990, er, 80, er 1666. Ignore those evil blogs, we were --never at war with Eurasia-- . He does, however, let slip that perhaps he isn't the best person to be writing this article in the first place:
"I'm the sort who gets laughed at in the street as though I'm still wearing spats and a frock coat. Heaven preserve me, I do not have a Facebook or MySpace entry. I have no "friends" on the internet, though I'm told that more than half my colleagues at the BBC are registered with one of the social networking services."
...
Anyway...
MY COMMENT:
"Here, communitarian, BBC monopolist and government shill John Humphrys plays the down-to-earth "good old boy" in a cynical effort to scare Daily Mail reading hate-junkies away from one of the few remaining bastions of free speech. I found the following passage especially hilarious:
"I was puzzled ... because I could not understand how perfectly intelligent people with apparently busy lives could spend even ten minutes engaging in such childish pursuits".
This article was directly preceded by a two-page spread challenging readers to "match the celebs". Lies and hypocrisy have never looked better.
P.S. Before you print an article accusing those who do not share your nightmarish "adult" lifestyle of being childish, try to pick up some basic grammatical skills. The title of this article should read "A world stripped of humanity...""
REFUSED PUBLICATION
OK, so I called their entire demographic "hate junkies". Sue me.
---
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=547008&in_page_id=1770 (seems to be dead)
In which, if memory serves me correctly, the Mail complained of a rising tide of violent video games, lamented how "we made our own entertainment when we was kids" and criticised as irresponsible a scientific study showing no harmful side-effects.
MY COMMENT:
"It's interesting that every time a college shooting occurs, the mere ownership of a videogame title (even by the blameless victim, as happened in the Manhunt controversy) is considered evidence enough to call for the banning of an entire artform.
Yet robbings, gang violence, and yes, even murder regularly occur at football games with a clear, unambiguous link to the sporting event, and it's brushed under the carpet and praised as "the beautiful game". Last time I checked, "video game hooligan" has not yet entered the common vocabulary.
The reason for this double standard is obvious - football is played and enjoyed by extroverts, video games by introverts. Extroverts go on to become politicans, issue campaigners. And they hate introverts. Make no mistake, this is just part of a silent campaign of demonisation and hate against the minority that holds civilisation together. We will not be fooled."
REFUSED PUBLICATION
Too over-the-top?
---
In which Charlotte Gill and Ian Drury (who they? - internationally famous ed) present positively ever more draconian means of disarming the population whilst simultaneously banging on the drums in support of a proposition to bring back --National Service-- , a truly vile intitution which was thankfully banned in 1960, but along with 'the birch' (i.e., hitting younger people to teach them they shouldn't hit younger people) is one of the all-time favourite candidates for 21st century renaissance by the British "right-wing" (read - big government fascists, encompassing all three major parties). Until 31st December 1960 every able-bodied young man in the United Kingdom between the ages of 17 and 21 was expected to serve 18 months in the armed services and remain on the reserve list for four years.
If you objected to this, you would have to face a military tribunal under military law, which would decide whether they threw you into prison, forced you to perform a specific civilian job, or assigned you to the 'Non-Combatant Corps' (read: labour camp). It's listed as "peacetime conscription" in all major encyclopedias, but for some reason the aforementioned fascist morons seem to remember it as some kind of social improvement programme. Now, the "National Service" being proposed here IS non-military, and is in fact more akin to community service (I leave it to the reader to decide whether subjecting the entire population of the UK to the most common punishment for drug abuse and petty theft is the sort of idea that might spring from a sensible mind). However, you wouldn't get that from reading the comments on this article. Consider the following from "Mark" and "Chris Puddy" respectively:
"Two years of compulsory forced labour (GAH?) away from home and under military style discipline would solve the problem. But that would never because of their 'Human Rights' and the fact that the yobs are of voting age in many cases..."
"Proper military national service leaning (sic.) discipline and seeing the consequences of violence in places like Afghanistan (GAH?!!) will soon sort them out. It is the lack of discipline and the inability of being able to punish or reprimand these people that is letting them run amok without boundaries that is causing the problem. They need boundaries."
It seems even the Mail's most crazed fans don't actually read the articles. Anyway...
MY COMMENT:
"Anyone who supports national service in this day and age under this government is out of their minds. For those calling for 'military discipline,' I have a question for you: do you propose to send just teenagers caught carrying knives on national service, or all jobless young men and women (in the current economic climate that's a lot of people). If the former, you advocate sending thuggish would-be-criminals on an tax-funded course in totalitarian control and killing people. If the latter, you are in effect supporting a stealth draft.
Did National Service work back in the 1960s? If 'standards fell' after the end of National Service, that means it had a negative impact, as the highest percentage of the adult population ever would have experienced NS at that point. Speaking as a pacifist who believes this government has always had totalitarian leanings, the prospect of a new National Service is truly terrifying."
REFUSED PUBLICATION
Logical, well-reasoned, rejected.
So, to sum up, the Daily Mail wants everyone to have blond hair and blue eyes, thinks they can "improve" on the human body, wants to control the media and all avenues of communication, wants to ban any unapproved entertainment, views introverts with suspicion, and wants to reintroduce conscription. Please don't buy their paper. Instead, check out --Mailwatch-- , --Enemies of Reason-- , --Septic Isle-- and --Blogging The Mail-- , which will further illustrate why this sort of repulsive nonsense has to be resisted at every turn. Also see --Photoshop Disasters-- for their --regular coverage-- of the Mail - next time the mainstream media argues online citizen journalism will never equal the --high-quality-- , --professional-- --journalism-- of the national newspaper, just laugh in their faces.