Our football coaches were not Marxists imposing integration with blacks.
Perhaps because I was never immersed in Marxist/Leftist literature, but rather was repulsed by radicals, their advocacy of non-Whites in particular, repulsed enough to be averse to embracing even their better critiques, I never saw “equality” as an issue one way or another.
But even though it may have had something to do with not circulating among Marxists or immersing in their literature, I never really heard many “leftists” or anybody, for that matter, talking about wanting “equality.”
It has been rightists who have been overusing opposition of this term, adopting this paradigm and its blueprint for disaster - setting matters into false comparison and necessary conflict/dominance-subordination, whereas our concern for separatism is to be negotiated* in qualitative terms of differences that make a difference (qualitative non-sameness, paradigmatic incommensurability as opposed to inequality).
*“Negotiation” more in the sense of ‘negotiating an obstacle’ than in trying to reason with people, though we will do that too where our interests are yet to be violated.
Coming back to “the point of the day”, objectivism and its most pointed corollary of turning issues into quantitative comparisons - equality/inequality - is what our football coaches were going by - not cultural Marxism - when they considered it unthinkable that blacks should be kept off the football team and eventually, that the cheerleaders should not cheer them on…and couple with them:
Interracial marriage proposal flaunted at 2012 Super Bowl half-time
Runaway objectivism, its “rational” blindness flouting “equality,” is a load of race mixing poison that our right wing brings to the equation. This part of the blame derives of our ranks, not from Jews.
Eight years ago the Italian team were an exemplary squad of specific native European nationals. Each victory of theirs could be a matter of legitimate pride in integrity by contrast to shame the swarthy objectivism on display by Europe’s non-representative teams. Tournament victories culminated in the Italian’s poetic World Cup Final revenge over a perverted France squad of mercenary Africans.
...for the 2014 Italian squad each victory is a loss of integrity.
And a comment in that regard from Counter-Currents:
Question: “What part of Italy is he from?” +FD
Answer: He is from the North of Italy, no doubt - it is clear by his blond hair.
Competition’s authentic value as opposed to its having been the most overvalued, misinterpreted biological fact of European Peoples’ interests (thank you Mr. and Ms. Dumb Bastard, Right-Winger).
This will not be a rigorous piece, rather it is meant to shed some light on a few important considerations by moving them through the terministic screens of a personal history. The issues taken into consideration are the over-valuation of competition - which corresponds closely with boiling everything down to equality/inequality being the problem, that is, the stupid right-wing position of being against “egalitarianism” - to the detriment of other methodological concerns in evaluation of qualitative identity.
Objectivism results in a susceptibility in Europeans to having their enemies shift close genetic identity into objectivist individualism and liberalism, leading to their adopting an array of absurdly affected, non-European identities. While there can be many such diversionary sub-identities, such as student/teacher of a particular non-European study at university, universalism, eastern mysticism, religion, of course, even foreign cuisine, any full treatment of diversionary identity must address sub-identities in music and sports – these will be a predominant theme here as I am familiar with them as identities, strongly held, yet come to recognize where they were more or less diversionary from European identity, quasi identities and competitions to be set aside in favor of more authentic identity.
It should not be too hard to provide facts and numbers as to the impact of these competitions and identities on European people, nor that these can significantly diminish our resource of European identity. Nevertheless, while youth in particular may be susceptible to such diversionary competition and identity, these activities also model means of identity, social participation and evaluation in determination of authenticity which do not necessarily entail violent conflict, immediately lethal, zero sum results – which we should be particularly concerned to keep to a minimum within European genus and species.
A few weeks ago Luis Suarez, a Uruguayan footballer currently overpaid by Liverpool Football Club, thoughtfully provided anti-white activists everywhere with a golden opportunity to jump up and down about “racism”. He said the word “black” in his own language to Patrice Evra, an African footballer currently over-paid by Manchester United. Evra is known for playing the race card from time to time, and he duly obliged.
The result for Suarez, perhaps inevitable given the Football Association’s keen desire to demonstrate its anti-racist credentials to the world, was an 8-game suspension and £40,000 fine.
This was not expected for so slight an incursion of orthodox speech requirements. There is dissent, particularly from the direction of Liverpool.
The Telegraph has run a reader poll today. The current vote total stands at 13,278 of whom 48.72% declare the FA’s verdict “completely wrong” and a further 18.65% “too harsh”.
That’s a good enough sample size to suggest that such sentiment must extend well beyond the “right-wing” Telegraph readers.
Meanwhile, the paper’s editors were forced to close the Suarez-related comment threads as the anti-anti-racist commentary flowed. They completely disappeared the thread to one new article with just a dozen comments posted, suggesting a certain desperation. We are at a point where anti-racism holds sway as never before across the Establishment. But it is also now losing its intimidatory power over the white masses.
The dissonance ought to grow quite naturally. But, unfortunately, another footballer - the England captain, no less - has transgressed against orthodoxy much more spectacularly than Suarez. That will certainly set back the prospects for undermining anti-racism in England. It is difficult, though, to see how the English public - not a stranger to contempt for authority - can be held in check by anti-racism forever.
The MultiCult played itself in the opening Group C game of World Cup 2010 this evening. The result was a one-all draw, which was suitably egalitarian, I thought. Both teams were equally unconvincing, too, which is only fair when you think about it.
Apparently twenty-three million people in the MultiCult in England thought it was worthwhile experiencing this equality in real time. But I don’t know, somehow the build up to the whole event just hasn’t grabbed me. I can’t think why, because quite a few people have tried very hard to enthuse me.
“Umbro’s stirring anthem for a multicultural England” gushed the headline of Kanishk Tharoor’s piece in yesterday’s Guardian, praising an anti-English ad by a sportswear and equipment manufacturer. At every level, British bien pensant journalism, and not just British journalism, has been in overdrive for the last month, at least.
Some of the commentary is beyond parody:
Truly, World Cup 2010 is proving a sink-hole of journalistic integrity. And as with the magical Mandela, so with the South African Bantu in general - people, we are told, so brim-full with salt-of-the-earth goodness, and so overwhelmingly excited to be “hosting” this event, yes excited, I tell you, in that simple green, gold and black doggy way that liberal journalists naturally expect of Africans, and thoroughly approve of, well, it goes without saying that we are required to “celebrate” with them (the Bantus, that is) … feel good for them … hope with them that their long wait (15,000 years, but who’s counting) for “change” (white man’s stuff) and “justice” (white man’s stuff) is somehow all over now. It isn’t but we have to believe, you see.
This, apparently, involves smiling along with all the happy Bantu teeth crowding in on the camera lens, as bright in the African sun as light-bulbs in the Blitz. We should also try without any success whatsoever to emulate that embarrassingly unselfconscious, drop-of-a-hat bump ‘n grind thing that Africans do whenever someone clobbers a piece of stretched animal skin twice. And, of course, we must admire the clobbering. Such rhythm. It’s in the blood , you know. Not that I meant to imply in any way that they are, you know, less cerebral than anyone else.
No, it’s all trade-mark, feel-good MultiCult stuff. Those happy, happy Bantus, hey? How did we ever feel so exquisitely guilty without them?
However, there is one minor downside. The more the liberal media shove all this journalistic excrement down our throats, the more weary of it some of us become. Well, not me obviously, because I was sick to death of it years ago. But in general and on average, as a rule, people who aren’t Bantus and aren’t liberal hypocrites just can’t stick with the picturesque, lovable thing long enough, not when the reality all around them is so, er, different and, for not a few, so tragic.
So any moment I am expecting rainbow overload and thought-direction burn-out. I am expecting absolutely nothing in the way of “change” and “justice”. All that has gone to the ANC elite. I am expecting that the MultiCult will not win the game. It will lose everywhere on the pitch, because it is built on lies.
Oh yes, and both Argentina and Spain, one of whom will undoubtedly emerge in one month from now as the real winner of World Cup 2010, are white sides.
In what must be the most one-sided single-goal victory I have ever seen - certainly at international level - Spain ended its 24-year wait for a major football trophy this evening by defeating Germany in the final of Euro 2008.
But you don’t come to MR to read the sports news. However, for other matters of interest ...
It is a decade now since football became the sport of choice for chic liberal politicos. What drew them to it, of course, was its emergence as a big-money glamour-game full of multicultural heroes for the masses. Political opportunism meets social engineering in boots.
But Euro 2008 did not treat the MultiCult kindly. The four semi-finalists were conspicuously white-majority teams - all white in the case of Germany and Russia, while Turkey and Spain fielded one black player apiece each time I saw them. It’s a world away from the heady days of les Blues, when politicians all over Europe were convincing themselves that the (on-field) exploits of non-white footballers would teach the recalcitrant natives to love diversity.
Long may it remain so.
A couple of side issues ...
I found the genuflection to anti-racism before each match, with the team captains reading-out preachy little statements to the crowd about how hard we must all work to “kick racism out”, utterly, excruciatingly embarrassing. It was surely politically clumsy, though, and must have done far more harm than good to the elites’ Sacred Cause. Even football fans - in some cases, especially football fans - are capable of finding this nonsense manipulative and sinister.
Last point ... as an Englishman forced by the fathomless mediocrity of our very multicultural national team to watch the competition as a neutral, I was cheered to see a few commenters actually grateful that they did not have to witness of all those frightful, beery and jingoistic expressions of national passion by shirtless benefit claimants from Scunthorpe. Apparently, the rest of Europe’s peoples voice their jingoism in ways far more picturesque and acceptable to liberal sensibilities. Which is proof, if ever proof were needed, that self-hatred is the most curious kind of racism.
Five years ago Sepp Blatter, president of Fédération Internationale de Football Association (FIFA) ...
... proposed limiting the number of foreign players at the top level of club football in Europe.
No, he wasn’t trying to finesse his way into the Madrid starting line-up. He was, in his patrician way, concerned that Europe’s national teams did not have a sufficient pool of top-flight talent from which to draw. Clubs had no incentive to gamble on identifying and nurturing home-grown talent when Africa and South America can and do produce the finished article in ample quantity and at low cost. The result has been that some clubs such as Chelsea and Arsenal regularly field sides with only one or two players eligible to play for England - and it’s the same all across the European game, particularly in Spain. England and Spain, it’s well understood, are serial low-achievers in the two big international competitions.
Blatter lost the argument. He was out of step with the cool, cool image of the beautiful, anti-national game. So cosmopolitan, so wildly popular with the white working-class male, it was just the ticket for a progressive, anti-racist political leader ...
... in search of street cred.
Besides, EU employment law was clear. Blatter could not legally limit the clubs to a quota of non-EU players.
But that was then, and this is now. Blatter claims to have won over the EU to his position:-
Regarding the former difficulty of the free movement of professional footballers, he now says:-
Details of the murder of former England medium-fast bowler and Pakistani cricket coach Bob Woolmer, in his hotel room in Jamaica on 18th March, continue to appear in the international press. Since there are no reports at this stage of money or valuables missing from Woolmer’s possessions, the killer or killers seem unlikely to have come from Jamaica’s hyper-active criminal class. The speculation, therefore, is firmly centred on two possibilities:-
1) Woolmer was murdered because he was about to blow the lid on the insanely profitable phenomen of match-fixing in the game, possibly in a book he was working on.
Not many people think it is the second possibility. But if it is the first, it will have profound ramifications for the future of the international game.
Until 1977, when the late Kerry Packer launched his circus with lucrative contracts to the cream of international talent, cricketers were the poorest of sporting professionals. The county player is still not rich. But international players earn several time average salary. The wealthiest of them are Indians, and on top of the heap is Sachin Tendulkar who clears 5 million US dollars a year, almost all from endorsements.
This, though, pales into insignificance beside the billion dollars per game it is thought possible for bookies to make by illegal betting in India. While the rewards are so high it could not be expected that players’ hands would remain clean. When found, corruption has been vigorously prosecuted. But it has almost certainly been more widespread than the ICC wants to admit. Murder, however, changes everything. It is far beyond any illegalities of the past, and marks a deeply sinister turn for a once gentlemanly pastime. Is cricket ready to be taken down some South Asian moral sewer?
At the end of this affair, the ICC will likely have to ban Pakistan from internationals for a period of years. It is not beyond the realms of possibility that India, where the nidus exists, will pay a heavy price too. The bookies, no doubt, will survive no matter what.