Source: Bigstock

Back when I was a child, in a 99.99 percent white school in England, we used to call our Anglo-Saxon peers unfortunate enough to possess excessively curly or frizzy hair “wog-heads,” a “wog” being a now almost extinct racial term meaning anyone non-white whatsoever.

Today, however, we are increasingly commanded to view curly-wurly wog-heads of all races in a positive light. A campaign has just been launched in the U.K. by a niche single-issue campaign group called World Afro Day (WAD), calling on MPs to update the Equality Act 2010 (an oppressive piece of anti-white, anti-straight, anti-normal, DEI-type legislation) in order to make all stereotypically black hairstyles, primarily Afros, an official legally protected characteristic.

Actually, something called “race-based hair discrimination” in places like schools, offices, gold mines, submarines, and brothels is already banned under this same 2010 anti–Magna Carta. But never mind, pretending it somehow isn’t gives the boring WAD people and their MP allies something else to fill their days with endlessly complaining about in public.

Who Let the Wogs Out?

Over in America, you already have your own absurd Afro protection laws in shape of the CROWN (Creating a Respectful and Open World for Natural Hair) Act.

Introduced in California in 2019, the whole idea was devised and sponsored by the cosmetics and personal grooming giant Dove, in a move that was not at all in any way related to the fact that they nowadays have a whole range of potentially very profitable hair-care products aimed at black people.

In the years since, similar CROWN Acts, banning evil white employers and schools from inhumanely preventing their workers and students from looking like extras in a 1970s blaxploitation movie, have been introduced into a further 23 U.S. states, although not as yet on a nationwide federal level, despite Dove’s very best efforts. Gillette’s recent selfless campaign to get the Supreme Court to fully legalize throat-slitting for all in order to boost sales of its excellent and very sharp razor blades has been similarly unsuccessful, as has Lil-Lets’ crusade to likewise legalize stabbing.

Hair-Dos and Hair-Don’ts

According to one glowing write-up of the CROWN Acts, from the Extremely Pathetic Individuals at the EPI (Economic Policy Institute, a once-sensible body now reduced to typing nonsense about big hair), they are “a jewel for combating racial discrimination in the workplace and the classroom.” Someone should kick them in the CROWN jewels.

For the EPI, it seems that the true purpose of traditional school and workplace hair policies was not to maintain professional standards of smartness and normativity, or to prevent kids sat behind Sideshow Bob Jr. at the back of the classroom from being able to see the blackboard, but in order to “preserve white spaces” by keeping John Shaft and the Jackson Five perpetually locked outside in the cold away from the sickeningly short-back-and-sides Caucasians.

I appreciate that many non-whites’ hair is naturally somewhat frizzy, and they should not be compelled to go out and immediately and expensively straighten it all out in favor of classically Aryan Haircut Himmler sideswept undercuts, but it only balloons out into the rough size and appearance of a neck-mounted spherical sheep like the CROWN malcontents want it to be if they neglect to bother shearing it whatsoever for several consecutive weeks or months. I suppose, if I had never bothered to trim my own locks during boyhood, it would have trailed long down my back like that of my esteemed Viking forbears; does the fact that I, too, would have been prevented from doing so by the oppressive school rules also make me a legacy victim of sinister “hair racism”?

Allegedly, the only reason “natural [black] hairstyles like afros, braids, bantu knots and locs [i.e., dreadlocks]” have ever been banned is to give teachers and bosses another excuse to expel or fire unwanted fuzzy-wuzzies without having to openly admit to their true motivations. Firing someone for their mad hair is supposedly an excellent means of hiding the secret fact that you actually sacked them for their skin color, the EPI say, citing testimony from the NAACP. So why did the “racist” employer hire them in the first place, then? The EPI mysteriously do not explain.

Hair-Raising Schemes

And how are “braids, bantu knots and locs” natural hairstyles anyway? They don’t just magically grow like that of their own accord, any more than pigtails on a comedy Chinaman do; you specifically have to take the time and effort to style them that way. Do they think Elvis hip-swayed out from his mother’s womb complete with his famous quiff?

The World Afro Day website features an inadvertently amusing slideshow with various other “natural” black follicular follies, including one woman who has shaped her curiously 2-D hair to look like a negroid Pac-Man, and a freckly young lady whose head, if dunked in water at bath time, would strongly resemble a large semi-submerged sea mine. One of the “triggers” on this same cranial sea mine, and one alone, is dyed as bright orange as a Dutchman’s turd: Again, how is that “natural”?

I recall numerous white kids being suspended from my own old school for having equally artificial and forbidden show-off hairstyles like buzzcuts, tramlines, and green-hued Joker locks, which were likewise in contravention of the institution’s strict hair code. More victims of the racist Hair Hitlers who ran all the West’s institutions back in the bad old pre–CROWN Act days? No, my old teachers just didn’t want any unnecessary skull-based distractions in the classroom. Silly hairdos were banned for much the same reason top hats, astronaut helmets, and multicolored clown wigs were.

Yet the EPI disagree, and assert that, in America’s wonderful new CROWN court regime, “no one should be forced to leave parts of themselves behind when they show up to work or school.” Try telling that to amputees and lepers.

Just Combing for Offense

As with so many other dire contemporary social evils, from AIDS to BLM to Taylor Swift, this idiotic hair-brained attitude has now drifted inevitably upon the epistemological Jetstream across the Atlantic toward Great Britain, hence the recent U.K.-based World Afro Day campaign mentioned above. This month, WAD established some kind of “drop-in clinic” in parliament, spearheaded by one Paulette Hamilton, who proudly described herself as “Birmingham’s first black MP.” I believe her predecessor was the city’s final white one.

WAD scribbled out an open letter to British MPs, “FIX THE LAW, NOT OUR HAIR,” demanding they amend the 2010 Equalities Act to say something it already says anyway. Calling hair discrimination “a pernicious form of oppression which dates back to the slave trade,” like everything else bad now suddenly does, “when African heads were routinely shaved,” WAD wanted it ending, TODAY! What’s more, they had the hairy black public on their side: WAD triumphantly asserted that “95 percent of people with afro hair want the UK law updated to specifically prohibit afro hair discrimination,” something about as surprising as hearing that “95 percent of rapists want the UK law updated to specifically prohibit arrest for committing rape.”

To add credibility to their campaign, WAD tried to organize a “100 Voice, 100 Words campaign” in which 100 prominent and well-respected non-white figures would sum up in a single paragraph precisely why it was suddenly absolutely essential for them to be able to walk around with heads like big round lollipops covered in wool. Unfortunately, Thomas Sowell and the Reverend Calvin Robinson told them to fuck off, so the best they could manage was former Spice Girl Mel B, who explained heartrendingly that “My hair has always been a personal statement—all my life.” Yes, that’s the whole problem in a nutshell here, really, isn’t it?

Although often told to cut it by whitey, this arrogant zig-a-zig-arsehole explained how she refused as “it was my hair and I wasn’t going to change it—for anyone.” I bet she would have done if Kim Jong-Un had told her to do so. It was wrong to tell black kids with messy hair to shorten it, said pube-brain Mel, as it represented “their identity and their culture.” I was going to suggest that anyone who genuinely considers a haircut to represent the concept of “culture” must have severely limited cultural horizons themselves, but then I remembered that Mel B was of course one of the Spice Girls.

School of Hard Locks

As usual, all this is to be pumped direct into the conveniently hollow coconuts of schoolkids, with WAD having a special webpage for schools, where they advise children be taught that “Afro hair is the most unique racial characteristic of African people.” Not their black skin? They should also be reliably informed that “Hair is a human right’s issue,” an “issue” evidently far more important than that they learn how to use apostrophes properly.

WAD generously offer to appoint chosen students as “Afro Ambassadors” from their schools to…somewhere, it’s not really clear. Wakanda, maybe? Or possibly even the U.N., where, alarmingly, WAD’s founder was once invited “to represent children with afro hair,” albeit hopefully not on the panel of the actual full Security Council.

They also offer to allow schools to participate in an annual livestreamed “Big Hair Assembly”—which, I notice, is sponsored by Superdrug. U.S. readers may be unaware that this is not a euphemism for fentanyl, but a large U.K. pharmacist-type chain that, just like Dove, sells various personal grooming products, nowadays including things like special Afro combs, etc.

I recall an old BBC Reeves and Mortimer comedy sketch in which a geography teacher educated his class by stroking around a nearby black man’s Afro and repeatedly chanting the words “The world is round! The world is round!” How long before WAD themselves begin offering this same service for real? Although, to be fair, Candace Owens might actually benefit from said demonstration.

Hair-Trigger Sensibilities

Another colossal figure lending his Very Important Voice to WAD’s campaign is Patrick Hutchinson, a black man who apparently “made a move that would change the course of history” back in 2020, when he slung a drunken white man over his shoulder to prevent him getting beaten up at a BLM rally. That’s it. That’s why he’s supposedly “famous.”

On WAD’s website, Patrick explains how, when they go to school, rather than obeying universal school haircut policies like everybody else has to, amazing black students should feel “free to be their authentic selves,” thereby helping them to “build strong self esteem.” As if it isn’t strong enough already these days.

Feeling free to “be your authentic self” is no good, if your “authentic self” happens to be that of an arrogant, self-entitled, socially destructive, identitarian, BLM-loving moron. Schools and workplaces have dress and hair codes for good reason: to enforce the normative common standards of conduct necessary to glue wider society together as a capably functioning unit.

Otherwise, we just end up with dismal cases like that of the Quentin Crisp-like English worse-than-naked civil servant whom it was recently alleged by embarrassed colleagues regularly turned up to work wearing transgender fetish gear because that equally well reflected his “authentic self”: that of a ridiculous, self-obsessed solipsist with no consideration whatsoever for the social well-being or comfort of other people around him. It’s a wonder he didn’t turn up sporting an Afro too.

Back in the days when people still respected their elders, they always used to say that white hair was a sign of dignity. It still is, just in a rather different way.