National sporting pride v. global talent, anti-racism and the free market

Posted by Guessedworker on Wednesday, 07 November 2007 00:48.

Five years ago Sepp Blatter, president of Fédération Internationale de Football Association (FIFA) ...

image

... 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 ...

image

... 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:-

FIFA president Sepp Blatter is working with the European Union on plans to reduce the number of overseas players dominating teams in leagues across Europe.  Speaking to reporters in the Malaysian capital, where he is attending a regional award ceremony, Blatter said it was time for a change in Europe.

“The European Union does not cover this issue in its constitution at the moment but sport will be mentioned for the first time when they change their laws in December,” Blatter said.  “There are a number of processes coming together to stop the overwhelming presence of non-national players in club leagues.”

Blatter added that FIFA would like to set a limit of five foreigners in any starting line-up with the other six berths comprising players eligible to be selected for the national team of the country where the league was based.

Regarding the former difficulty of the free movement of professional footballers, he now says:-

The European Union has implemented the free circulation of workers, but football players are not employees in the conventional sense of the term. You need 11 of them on the pitch, and it is not at all the same thing as being an employee in a given company.

Now, football fans are fairly evenly split on the issue.  A recent poll in Europe found a small majority in favour of a foreign (ie non EU) quota.  But if you are an Arsenal, Chelsea or Liverpool fan, the chances are you were in the “no” camp.  Its undisputed leader is Arsenal manager Arsene Wenger who made his views

spectacularly clear in March 2006.

West Ham boss Alan Pardew has hit out at Arsene Wenger for not fielding an English player in Arsenal’s Champions League win against Real Madrid.

“I saw a headline saying Arsenal are flying the flag for Britain,” he said.

“I kind of wondered where that British involvement actually was when I looked at their team.

“It’s important that top clubs don’t lose sight of the fact that it’s the English Premier League and English players should be involved.”

Pardew added: “Foreign players have been fantastic. We have learned from them and from foreign coaches.

“But, to some extent, we could lose the soul of British football - the English player.

Wenger attacked Pardew straight from the anti-racist left:-

“We are kicking racism out of football, and racism starts there.”

Of course, the issue is about the pressure for a success demanded by the foreign, billionaire club-owners far more than it is about racism and free-market politics.

Anyway, the technical playing issue is by no means clear-cut.  We do not know whether, for Europe’s international footballers, the advantage of playing with and against the best in the world outweighs the limited match opportunities they now have.  The most one can say, as an Englishman, is that a lack of strength in depth has dogged England in their pursuit of major honours.

Personally, I’d just like to see the Wengerian, racially-mixed hyper-sport taken down a peg or two, and the hypnotised football fan put in touch with values closer to his real interests.

Tags: Sport



Comments:


1

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Wed, 07 Nov 2007 02:56 | #

“Personally, I’d just like to see the Wengerian, racially-mixed hyper-sport taken down a peg or two”  (—from the log entry)

I agree but I’ll go much further:  in both pro sports and the Olympics I’d like to see English teams of all Englishmen, French teams of all Frenchmen, Dutch teams of all Dutchmen, German teams of all Germans.  We don’t see Negroes competing for Japan, China, or India; neither should we see them competing for France, Germany, or England (or the U.S. for that matter, but the U.S. is another story, a more complicated case, whose race-replacement problem calls for a different kind of solution from the mother continent’s — but a solution nonetheless).


2

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Wed, 07 Nov 2007 03:04 | #

“it was just the ticket for a progressive, anti-racist political leader ... in search of street cred.”  (—from the entry)

More like in search of synagogue cred, when one grasps which multimillionaires Labour’s funding chiefly comes from.  Blair was bought and paid for by the Jews.  So’s Brown, of course.  That’s a huge chunk of the reason the U.K. has open borders, race-replacement, hate-speech laws, and, coming soon to a U.K. neighborhood near you, total suppression and trashing of Christmas, a holiday the Jews have loathed and wanted to get rid of for two thousand years and have finally got within their grasp.


3

Posted by Matra on Wed, 07 Nov 2007 06:00 | #

I’ve had this argument with friends and family who are football fans - most supporters of the big teams - for years. They say the quality of the football in the English league - or at least the top half of the Premiership - has got better since foreigners arrived in huge numbers and that’s what really matters. It’s true that the quality has improved but my argument is that if quality is what really matters then why bother with national leagues at all and just have a supra European or world league, that way the Cristiano Ronaldos of the league won’t have to waste time playing the likes of Wigan Athletic and can instead just play higher quality teams like Barca, Real Madrid, and Milan every week. I’m yet to meet anyone who will go along with that proposal even though it is the next logical step.

I’d also like to see “the Wengerian, racially-mixed hyper-sport taken down a peg or two” for other reasons too - most notably the vulgar commercialism that is now inseparable from it. It would be better if the English took more interest in international cricket and rugby with mostly white players representing their country and English fans on the same side, unlike the rootless mercenary game football has become.

At least the Glasgow Rangers team that will play Barcelona on Wednesday will be about half, or slightly more than half, Scottish. (Doubt there’ll be many Catalans playing for Barca).  Too bad their traveling fans will be monitored in case they sing some of their traditional songs  as Rangers FC are now committed to fighting sectarianism and so-called bigotry. (The team has gone so far from its roots it has adopted African-American Tina Turner’s ‘Simply The Best’ as an inoffensive non-sectarian team anthem!) To no avail I’ve argued with friends who only became Rangers fans due to our heritage, that since the team now rejects parts of that heritage why should we continue to pump money into the team’s coffers by buying their jerseys and other products?

There is one club football team that still puts principles above everything: Athletic Bilbao of Spain. They only choose Basque players even though they could afford to bring expensive foreign players to the team. Their ethnically Basque fans overwhelmingly support the policy even though it means the team hasn’t done well on the field.


4

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Wed, 07 Nov 2007 06:36 | #

“There is one club football team that still puts principles above everything: Athletic Bilbao of Spain. They only choose Basque players even though they could afford to bring expensive foreign players to the team. Their ethnically Basque fans overwhelmingly support the policy even though it means the team hasn’t done well on the field.”  (—Matra)

Regardless of how well they do, this is exactly what I would wish for every team:  that only blood-members of the nation be eligible to play.  If a team makes that the rule I’ll support it to the hilt.  I don’t care how they do on the field.  I care that they are a nation’s team, meaning members of that nation competing against other nations’ teams in fair-play sport and may the better team win.  I agree with Matra:  otherwise, why not scrap the charade of “local and national teams” altogether, and have a world league with mixed professional teams based on no nationality and lacking all ethnonational identity.  The Jews would love that of course; as for me, it’s not my cup of tea.  The same goes for the Olympics.


5

Posted by Desmond Jones on Wed, 07 Nov 2007 08:50 | #

Putting English football fans in touch with their “values closer to his real interests” is one thing, but improving England’s achievement levels is something entirely different. One will not follow from the other.

Case in point Germany.

The Germans are perennial competitors, on the international level, despite a foreign contingent roughly equal to England’s. The Germans were edged out by the Italians, in extra-time in 2006, had two of the top 15 goal scorers (Miroslav Klose led all with 5) and leads all nations with 12 top four finishes.

“The game that England plays has been bypassed by the rest of the world. It is largely dependent on physical fitness and on the bludgeon rather than the rapier. No hint of fine ball skills, no pretense at outwitting opponents with classic movements.

We knew this style 20 years ago as the long ball. Defenders, or Beckham, whack it high and long and hope that Peter Crouch, the skeletal 2-meter, or 6- foot-7, man with the reach of a basketball player attempts to get his head on it.”

It’s reminiscent of Canadian hockey misery of the 70s and 80s at the hands of the great Soviet dynasty. Fortunately, the USSR collapsed and Canadian hockey learned a great lesson. It is long past time for England to do the same.


6

Posted by how on Wed, 07 Nov 2007 09:16 | #

>>Wenger attacked Pardew straight from the anti-racist left:-

“We are kicking racism out of football, and racism starts there.”<<

I may be restating the obvious here but a commentator’s words regarding the frivolity of these kinds of discussions (ie talk of racial preservation a mere “game”) has again led me to the “how” questions. I think the “why” has reached a terminus, being Jewish EGI, a weakness (strength) in White temperament to allow the situation, the amassing and concentrating power in the (mostly Jewish) elites’ hands to form a one-government NWO, etc etc. All the talk of “why” eventually becomes frustrating and depressing. New evidence which fits and supports our (now well-validated) theory starts to become otiose with regards to its utility in advancing the cause. In any case, talk of “why” would only really be useful in trying to wake people up. This isn’t happening.

In the public sphere any sort of discussion will be stopped immediately by that word, “racist”. Yes, I know elementary stuff for this blog but it is almost completely unresolved here or otherwise. While we know the term to be of little rational function excepting its fantastic slandering power, those who give public opinions must still address it as if it were a real issue. Example A above: “we are kicking racism out of football” etc. This does not even address why the head of FIFA wants quotas on extra-EU players - it doesn’t have to. His response will immediately forced on the backfoot, trying to slip the libel (which automatically makes his position defensive rather than offensive): “no it’s not racist, it’s this [more palatable phrasing of the opinion]”.

“No it’s not - it’s racist, bigoted hateful garbage, the likes of which I thought in this day and age we were finally rid of, but sadly no we still have the Sepp Blatters of the world spewing their outdated views. That’s why we must continue to fight racism, in all its ugly forms. The fact that he occupies a position of power over what I thought was a WORLD sport is dangerous and should be questioned.”

[my fictious quote - though any useful idiot could have written it. Interestingly, it was actually quite fun to write something so effortlessly which seemingly has such moral insight. My first year of university was full of these gems and I was rewarded handsomely for it with good marks.]

The spectacular success of the word “racist” / anti-racist position is almost in its complete irrationality. Men, accustomed to rational thought, are perplexed, stunned, and can’t reply to such, well, “spew” - to use the word of choice for the anti-racist crusaders (projection is an amazing thing). Such anger, such indignation, yet with such an empty core is hard to connect with.

In my view the term “racist” is the fuel and oxygen for the beating heart of the anti-white position. The fact that it is so easily refuted rationally should not relegate its discussion to the likes of stormfront and and newspaper commentaries, where time and time again the first principles of its fallaciousness are brought up afresh, only to fall upon brick walls of ignorance. It is the most simple, yet most potent weapon in the arsenal. It is capable of use in a multitude of situations. From the highest ivery towers to the lowest, crude discussions, an allegation of racism will throw a massive spanner in the machinery of argument, derailing it or halting movement all together in a twisted heap of cognitive dissonance. The sheer evil of racism and thus the White race justifies the (unopposed!!) genocidal solutions proposed by “Dr” Noel Ignatiev. That arguably saner academics also use the word as if it had some scientific validity speaks volumes for its power.

Those in the public sphere may well be excused for submitting to the fear that
the threat of such a libel presents. In my opinion (and look out, here comes another solution to all our problems, as if previous ones have had any effect) what is needed if anything is going to happen is to remove the efficacy of “racism” among relatively close co-ethnic associates. While close friends typically know each other’s political stances; and the drawn out justifications which take place over countless beers and often heated conversations are typically no longer needed, the spectre of “RACIST!” still looms, terrible and awesome, betweem all but the dearest of acquaintances (I find at least). This must be destroyed before talk of associations promoting White EGI (*in purpose* - it would never nominally seek this aim openly at this stage) can even be contemplated.

Yet, even if we can agree that this is what is needed. HOW is this to happen?

HOW is the term to be debunked such that its use would be ridiculed rather than feared? Should the complete lack of logic in the anti-racist arguments to become common knowledge? Should the term be repeated again and again in some anti-establishment pop song to remove its meaning as a word?

The greatest minds among us should not be bending their strength on the advanced and subtle nuances of the great global conspiracies of our time, the great qeustions of “why” our societies are being demographically mutated - true and important though discovering these are. They should be devising ways to break down on a masses-scale the use of the term racism. Those of you who have discussed the matter with the “sleeping amongst us” in forums may have some idea of what the quickest and most efficient way is to remove the heavy liberal blindfold that obscures most. This is part of it. How did we get to the stage we are now, we who may wish to call themselves we alongside myself, where we don’t care about the term “racist” - we don’t care if someone (on the internet at least - not publicly) calls us racist - we know the term is useless in matters of intellectual debate and carries precisely *no* weight when hurled as the impotent missile we know it to be. How did we get here? What message/information did we receive? How can this be compressed and delivered in a pre-packaged, processed, delicious form for the sheeple?

Or is this even the way? The faux-morality of modern life has been battered into White’s heads by mass media and consumer society. How can one ease the sheeple out of this so that it may fade and be forgotten, rather than be shattered all around them, without the mass media. What tools are at our disposal and how can they be used?

I don’t know! All I know is that we have all but exhausted the “why” question of our eventual slip out of human history. What we need to know is “how” we are going to fix it. My meagre contribution: the “deconstruction” (a post-modern tool, why not use it against them?) of the word “racism”. Remove it of all meaning bar the truth of its conception: to bash whites until they are dead. Again - I know - how? Well, the only “how” I can give you is to make it a topic of debate here. How are meanings of words changed? How did “deconstruction” and post-modernism work and how can these be used in our situation?

Small suggestions… If we don’t start addressing practical solutions then, indeed, as was said, “we are just playing games”.


7

Posted by Alex on Wed, 07 Nov 2007 17:34 | #

Great post How.    Best to tell someone using that term in accusation that it’s simply not a term or concept you use or accept.    Yes, the other person might well be shocked.  That’s okay.    Instead perhaps use something like ‘abuse between peoples’ which no healthy minded person advocates.    Those using the ‘r’ term are much less interested in putting a stop to abuses than they are about breaking down identity of people(s). 

For the terms racist and racism are being used by Marxists (rad/libs, multic-cultists, etc) specifically as part of the deconstructing (aka destroying) process of European peoples.  Trotsky is the person who first used the word “racism” in the 1920’s.  Being that European peoples have been homogenous for thousands of years it is entirely natural that would be a big part of our identity as peoples. In an effort to destroy that massive part of our identity as Europeans the entirely legitimate term race has been married to negativity with the words racist and racism and as has been stated been specifically aimed at our peoples to enhance its destructive effect…a verbal smart bomb if you will. The gold ring for the folks who promote the newly invented words is when Whites themselves use the terms in conversation or even to describe themselves. 

Most people among the European ancestried general public see the two terms as referring to abuse between races (particularly Europeans see it this way). Those who promote the terms (ie multi-cultists, rad-libs, reds, non-Europeans, etc) see it as meaning any expression by Europeans of their unique identity, bad or good. Even the simple acknowledgment that European peoples exist is slapped with the label.  Those we deal with have pronounced that only Europeans can be racist or engage in racism.

It’d be the same difference if an individual who hated another person came up with the nifty terms selfist and selfism to describe the target of their hatred. The individual who hated the other would pronounce that only that other person could be selfist and engage in selfism, no one else could. The two terms would initially and at least publically be proclaimed by that individual to only mean abusive behaviour towards other people by that person they hated. As all persons, despite the best efforts, sometimes engage in abusive behaviour towards others, the two terms exclusive meaning towards only the one is illigitimate on its face. In time the terms’ meanings would be expanded by the individual who hated the other to mean any expression by that person whatsoever having to do with their unique identity, bad or good. The person being harangued with the two terms would eventually not even be able to utter their own name or express anything about themselves as the entirely legitimate word self had been cleverly married to negativity. But again, only the one person could be said to be selfist and engage in selfism. All other individuals could engage in exactly the same behaviour as proscribed towards the targetted one and express their unique selves freely and without restraint.

What is described here as hypothetically having being done towards an individual and involving the entirely legitimate term self has been done towards a group using the entirely legitimate term race. Europeans being the said group. For this reason I strongly urge those wishing to preserve European peoples not to use nor accept the terms racist and racism.    It is in the same manner that in games of chance the use of loaded dice and marked cards are not tolerated.


8

Posted by Alex on Wed, 07 Nov 2007 17:40 | #

Some additional thoughts…

For those peoples who have mixed more in their history it is often times (and quite sensibly so) that things other than their race will be a more important parts of their identity. It might be anything from their religious beliefs (ie Islam) to the style of their monuments they build, etc. If one wished to attack (or severely harm) any group they could use the same methedology as has been done with the Europeans and race. Just pick a word that is synomonous with a big part of the targetted groups identity and initially and primarily equate it with the imperfections (no one is perfect) of the said group. In time expand the definition of the new term to mean any expression whatsoever of that groups identity. Lets say you want to attack and destroy the Moslems, peoples whose religion defines their identity. You might be tempted to marry negativity with the invented terms Islamicist and Islamicism..that would be too obvious though, particularly if you were hoping the Islamics would adopt the new terms themselves to help in their own destruction. You could (and for arguments sake, lets say they are newly invented words for the purpose) come up rather with the terms spiritist and spiritualism to initially describe the negative attributes of a person who adheres to Islam and to the belief of Islam itself respectively. The word “spirit”, having to do with the unseen as Islam does, would be the surrogate synonym for Islam for the purpose of the attack. You’d first concentrate on the marrying the two terms to the negative attributes of Islam and it’s beleivers…there’s plenty to work with. You’d also (quietly at first, and more loudly later) let it be known that only Islamics could be spiritist or engage in spiritualism. You would attack relentlessly upon the errors of the Islamics always being sure to use these terms. As time went on you’d expand the definition of the newly invented words to be interchangeable with the bad and good attributes of Islam…bearing in mind very few things are entirely bad. Your ultimate success in this attack would be when the Islamics started using the terms you invented to describe themselves, hastening and assisting in their own destruction.


9

Posted by Retew on Wed, 07 Nov 2007 20:04 | #

I agree that there should at least be limits on the number of foreign players eligible to play for a Premiership side. However, since GW mentions Spain as another low achiever in international competitions, I should state my very definite opinion that they were robbed blind in the 2002 World Cup. NO WAY did South Korea beat them fair and square. I have no interest to declare here.

Here’s a write up on the match anyway;

http://football.guardian.co.uk/worldcup2002/countries/story/0,,743451,00.html

Blame the referee (Egyptian) if you want.


10

Posted by Desmond Jones on Wed, 07 Nov 2007 20:13 | #

I am a racist.  There are differences between groups and it’s important my groups uniqueness survives.  Why deny it?


11

Posted by Matra on Wed, 07 Nov 2007 23:17 | #

It’s reminiscent of Canadian hockey misery of the 70s and 80s at the hands of the great Soviet dynasty.

There were only three tournaments in the 90s involving the top USSR and Canadian teams: 1991 - won by USSR beating Canada in the final; 1984 - Canada won knocking the USSR out in the semi-final; and 1987 also won by Canada against the USSR. There was no Soviet dominance unless you count poxy tournaments in which the Red Army team played against B and C teams from the rest of the non-Soviet bloc countries.

“The game that England plays has been bypassed by the rest of the world. It is largely dependent on physical fitness and on the bludgeon rather than the rapier. No hint of fine ball skills, no pretense at outwitting opponents with classic movements.

We knew this style 20 years ago as the long ball. Defenders, or Beckham, whack it high and long and hope that Peter Crouch, the skeletal 2-meter, or 6- foot-7, man with the reach of a basketball player attempts to get his head on it.”

The British home nations (England, Scotland, N Ireland, and Wales) along with the Rep of Ireland play football without much style or imagination. Ditto their rugby teams at the recent World Cup.  It seems to me Quebec has produced more skillful hockey players per capita than English Canada. The latter however produce tougher players and fewer prima donnas. Notice any commonalities here?

I should state my very definite opinion that they were robbed blind in the 2002 World Cup. NO WAY did South Korea beat them fair and square.

Spain was also robbed against England in extra time at Wembley in Euro 96 quarter-final. Still, they’ve underachieved as a national team. Perhaps that is due to the ethnic divisions within Spain?


12

Posted by Desmond Jones on Thu, 08 Nov 2007 00:40 | #

There were only three tournaments in the 90s involving the top USSR and Canadian teams:...

You mean the eighties of course. smile

In 1972, the Canucks barely squeaked out a victory against a Soviet team that, according to all the Canadian pundits, had no business playing on the same ice surface. 1973, a WHA team including Hull and Howe, lost to the USSR handily. 1979, an NHL all-star team was trounced in a three game exhibition series, by the great Soviets. 1981, Canada was outclassed 8-1 by an indomitable Soviet squad. In 1984, the Soviets are the first team to go 5-0 in tournament play, scoring 22 and allowing only seven. Canada barely made it to the semis, and then by some misbegotten miracle eek out a 3-2 overtime win. 1987, the Canucks proved the better team. Overall the Soviets had a much better win percentage. All games, except the 72/73 series were played in North America on the small ice surface. Of course none of this includes the Soviet dominance in Olympic play on the big ice.

The greatest, most skilled players, in the Canadian game, before the European presence, were from English Canada. No one from Quebec matched Howe, Hull or Orr to name but three. Ditto the English. If you watch old footage of Sir Stanley Matthews, it was clear that the English showed great on the ball skills. They definitely played a more patient, probative game then as opposed to now. The demise of the skilled game in Canada came with expansion. A dump and chase game was more suited to the lesser talents employed to fill expanded ranks. The English definitely can compete, but like the Canadians they must change their game, and emphasize ball skills from the very beginning of development.


13

Posted by Matra on Thu, 08 Nov 2007 01:36 | #

1981, Canada was outclassed 8-1 by an indomitable Soviet squad

Earlier in the tournament Canada and the USSR tied in the round robin.

I don’t know about the 70s, but from the mid-80s the Canadians got the better of the Soviets.

The greatest, most skilled players, in the Canadian game, before the European presence, were from English Canada. No one from Quebec matched Howe, Hull or Orr to name but three.

I’m going by the mid-80s onward but especially in the last dozen years or so. Dump and chasers are overwhelmingly English-Canadian.

Ditto the English. If you watch old footage of Sir Stanley Matthews, it was clear that the English showed great on the ball skills.

He may have been the exception. Off the top of my head the only other British player in that class was George Best.

I don’t know why the English game is so static. Even little Holland with approximately a quarter of the population of the UK has consistently produced more innovative teams - even if they’ve come to rely too much on blacks from their ex-colonies - than the British. They made the WC finals in 1974 and 1978 and probably should have won both. They also won the 1988 European championships. England’s boys have only ever made one final and that was before many of the posters here, myself included, were even born.

Incidentally, the US baseball team got slapped around at the first World Baseball Classic not even making the semi-final stage. Small European countries can now beat US basketball teams made up of mostly all black NBAers.

Anglo-Saxons invented almost all the modern world’s great sports but you wouldn’t know it to observe them in international competition.


14

Posted by Desmond Jones on Thu, 08 Nov 2007 05:31 | #

Yes, the glory days of the Dutch and the great Johann Cruyff.

Stuff of legend.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BMZmJ464Nss


15

Posted by Salopian on Sun, 11 Nov 2007 17:48 | #

As I often point out on football fan forums, Arsenal haven’t fielded a white, British first teamer since Ray Parlour left at the end of the 03/04 season.

Football is a bit of Saturday afternoon escapism. I know England is full of immigrants, do I need to £30+ for the right to watch them earn more money for 90minutes work than I can earn in 3 years?

Arsenal have long had a big black fanbase, even so 90% of those in the stands must be white and English. Why are these people so stupid to pay £500plus for season tickets, for an organisation that the likes of them has *zero* chance of representing, regardless of talent.

The guilty secret of football is that its *broad* appeal as our national game is becoming rather small. The big crowds at the stadiums are formed of the same season ticket holders turning up every week. The old-fashioned, casual “ten-times-a-season” man who went to the match on a whim, depending on what else he might be doing that day is gone. I know many people in this category (myself included) who barely follow the results these days.


16

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Fri, 23 Nov 2007 03:28 | #

Here’s “national talent” of a different kind than soccer:  Look at this little six-year-old English angel I just ran across on YouTubelisten to this little miracle’s singing voice!  Six years old!



Post a comment:


Name: (required)

Email: (required but not displayed)

URL: (optional)

Note: You should copy your comment to the clipboard or paste it somewhere before submitting it, so that it will not be lost if the session times out.

Remember me


Next entry: Thought experiment
Previous entry: The Real Reason Ron Paul Supporters Hate the Old Media So Much

image of the day

Existential Issues

DNA Nations

Categories

Contributors

Each author's name links to a list of all articles posted by the writer.

Links

Endorsement not implied.

Immigration

Islamist Threat

Anti-white Media Networks

Audio/Video

Crime

Economics

Education

General

Historical Re-Evaluation

Controlled Opposition

Nationalist Political Parties

Science

Europeans in Africa

Of Note

Comments

Thorn commented in entry 'Moscow's Bataclan' on Thu, 28 Mar 2024 14:36. (View)

Guessedworker commented in entry 'Moscow's Bataclan' on Thu, 28 Mar 2024 12:50. (View)

Thorn commented in entry 'Moscow's Bataclan' on Thu, 28 Mar 2024 10:26. (View)

Al Ross commented in entry 'Moscow's Bataclan' on Thu, 28 Mar 2024 05:37. (View)

Thorn commented in entry 'Moscow's Bataclan' on Tue, 26 Mar 2024 15:07. (View)

Thorn commented in entry 'Moscow's Bataclan' on Tue, 26 Mar 2024 11:00. (View)

Al Ross commented in entry 'Moscow's Bataclan' on Tue, 26 Mar 2024 05:02. (View)

Thorn commented in entry 'Moscow's Bataclan' on Mon, 25 Mar 2024 11:39. (View)

Al Ross commented in entry 'Out of foundation and into the mind-body problem, part four' on Mon, 25 Mar 2024 09:56. (View)

Al Ross commented in entry 'Moscow's Bataclan' on Mon, 25 Mar 2024 07:51. (View)

Al Ross commented in entry 'Moscow's Bataclan' on Mon, 25 Mar 2024 07:46. (View)

Al Ross commented in entry 'Moscow's Bataclan' on Mon, 25 Mar 2024 07:41. (View)

Thorn commented in entry 'Moscow's Bataclan' on Sun, 24 Mar 2024 12:25. (View)

Guessedworker commented in entry 'Moscow's Bataclan' on Sun, 24 Mar 2024 00:42. (View)

Thorn commented in entry 'Moscow's Bataclan' on Sat, 23 Mar 2024 22:01. (View)

Thorn commented in entry 'Moscow's Bataclan' on Sat, 23 Mar 2024 21:20. (View)

Guessedworker commented in entry 'Moscow's Bataclan' on Sat, 23 Mar 2024 20:51. (View)

Guessedworker commented in entry 'Moscow's Bataclan' on Sat, 23 Mar 2024 20:45. (View)

Thorn commented in entry 'Moscow's Bataclan' on Sat, 23 Mar 2024 17:26. (View)

Manc commented in entry 'Moscow's Bataclan' on Sat, 23 Mar 2024 15:56. (View)

Thorn commented in entry 'Moscow's Bataclan' on Sat, 23 Mar 2024 14:55. (View)

Guessedworker commented in entry 'Moscow's Bataclan' on Sat, 23 Mar 2024 14:07. (View)

Thorn commented in entry 'Moscow's Bataclan' on Sat, 23 Mar 2024 13:12. (View)

Thorn commented in entry 'Moscow's Bataclan' on Sat, 23 Mar 2024 12:51. (View)

Thorn commented in entry 'Out of foundation and into the mind-body problem, part four' on Sat, 23 Mar 2024 12:38. (View)

Guessedworker commented in entry 'Moscow's Bataclan' on Sat, 23 Mar 2024 10:01. (View)

Al Ross commented in entry 'Out of foundation and into the mind-body problem, part four' on Sat, 23 Mar 2024 05:13. (View)

Thorn commented in entry 'Out of foundation and into the mind-body problem, part four' on Fri, 22 Mar 2024 23:51. (View)

Thorn commented in entry 'Out of foundation and into the mind-body problem, part four' on Thu, 21 Mar 2024 11:14. (View)

Al Ross commented in entry 'Out of foundation and into the mind-body problem, part four' on Thu, 21 Mar 2024 05:14. (View)

Thorn commented in entry 'Out of foundation and into the mind-body problem, part four' on Tue, 19 Mar 2024 11:42. (View)

Al Ross commented in entry 'Out of foundation and into the mind-body problem, part four' on Tue, 19 Mar 2024 11:01. (View)

Thorn commented in entry 'Out of foundation and into the mind-body problem, part four' on Tue, 19 Mar 2024 10:41. (View)

Al Ross commented in entry 'Out of foundation and into the mind-body problem, part four' on Tue, 19 Mar 2024 10:21. (View)

Al Ross commented in entry 'Out of foundation and into the mind-body problem, part four' on Tue, 19 Mar 2024 09:50. (View)

affection-tone