Black Soccer Sides Suck

Although as I write this Ghana has just eliminated the USA and thus enters the last 8, but remember they only qualified for the last 16 by being awarded a penalty for a “handball” that never was – against Australia.

So the dreams of FIFA and the multi-cultis who are so desperate to see a nigger nation steal the Soccer World Cup, are thus kept alive for another game. But, can you imagine the uproar and the rioting that would occur if the blackies made the Final, or even the semis, and were then eliminated by having an “unfair” penalty awarded against them?

Is there a referee alive who is brave enough to award a crucial penalty against a black side on the verge of winning the WC? I seriously doubt it.

Anyway, if Ghana makes it through to the semis, I am predicting that the Africoon quota will be increased from 5 to 6 or even 7 teams at the next WC. Because by foul means or foul a black side MUST be made to win and thus eliminate another hurdle of the white racism and inequality that has always held them back!

Anyway, the best thing about this WC was the humiliating early exit of a “French” team whose majority black players apparently refused to sing the Marseillaise and then went on training strike over an alleged “racist” slight from their white trainer. The way things are going Englands similarly multi-cult side will also exit soon – and good riddance!

I fancy Uruguay as an outside bet – dammit I really meant to have a $100 punt on them at the outset when I probably could have got 100 to 1, but my computer connection was so poor and the Betfair site is so full of stuff that I couldn´t get the frigging bet on. Too late now, others have woken up to their chances.

Anyway, this is a very good article about the racial make-up of the competing teams – be sure to click on the link and read the always excellent comments of the Amren readers.

http://www.amren.com/mtnews/archives/2010/06/black_men_cant.php

Joe Kowalski, Alternative Right, June 19, 2010

Soccer—fútbol, Fußball, futebol, football—is the world’s most popular sport, and literally hundreds of millions of people are now watching the 2010 World Cup. {snip}

{snip}

Race is also on display on the pitch and for all the talk of diversity, multiculturalism, and a global community, most of the 32 teams in the field feature racially exclusive teams.

European and South American teams dominate world soccer and have won every single World Cup. But to make the event a truly global affair, there are quotas for each region so that everyone feels represented.

I watched each opening round game and noted the races of all 11 starters for each squad. All five sub-Saharan Africa squads (Nigeria, South Africa, Ivory Coast, Ghana and Cameroon) start all blacks. All three Asian teams (Japan, South Korea and North Korea) start all Asians. The one North African team (Algeria) starts all Arabs. The eastern European teams (Slovenia, Slovakia, and Serbia) start all whites.

Australia and New Zealand are not soccer powers but each qualified this year. Australia starts an all white team and New Zealand starts 10 whites and one aboriginal (probably a Maori).

Latin American teams are a mixed bag racially, much like the region itself. The races of some of the players are often hard to pinpoint. Are they mestizos or darker skinned whites of Portuguese or Spanish descent?

The three white nations of Latin America start mostly white sides. Argentina starts nine or 10 whites with one or maybe two mestizos. Uruguay starts nine whites with one clear mestizo and one clear Negro. Chile starts seven or eight whites with three or four mestizos.

Mexico and Paraguay have a starting 11 consisting of a mixture of whites and mestizos. Honduras starts eight mestizos and, surprising, three blacks.

Brazil starts four whites and seven players who are black or racially mixed.

The United States again made the tournament and has a decent shot of advancing to the next round of 16. Racially, the team starts seven whites and four blacks. Mestizos are now about 15 percent of the U.S. population, but there are only three Hispanics on the team and one of them—Carlos Bocanegra—is clearly a white Hispanic. The two mestizos are backups and there are no Asians or Middle Easterners on the U.S. squad. The U.S. is being overwhelmed with millions of soccer-mad immigrants every year. Why aren’t these people making the national team?

So far, most nations of the world have teams that racially represent their people. Black Africans, Asians, Arabs, and Eastern Europeans (God bless ’em) can support teams that reflect them 100 percent. Whites in Australia and New Zealand can still proudly support a team that looks like them.

Blacks are overrepresented on the Brazilian side, but most Latin American nations have squads that reflect their racial demographics. Americans are no doubt used to blacks being overrepresented on national sports teams, but the current squad has enough whites so that it is not viewed as alien—like the often all-black U.S. national basketball team.

We are constantly told that multiculturalism and diversity are unalloyed blessings. But of course, white nations are the only countries that are enjoying these blessings—and it is starting to show in the national squads of the Western European teams.

Italy has won four World Cups including the last one in 2006. They cling stubbornly to the view that Italians don’t need blacks to win World Cups and still start an all-white (and, with one exception, all-Italian) side. {snip}

Germany has won three World Cups and is always a threat to win it all. This year’s starting squad can be described—depending on your definition of white—as either all-white or as nine whites and two Turks. Like Italy, the Germans have stubbornly resisted starting supposedly superior black players.

France has shown no such resistance. Historically not a soccer power, they won their only World Cup in 1998 with four black starters and apparently attributed the victory to having more blacks. They have consistently fielded seven blacks starters since and this year is no exception as the four true Frenchmen who start for France stand out on the pitch. The French side represents Africa and not the traditional French nation. Happily, the side is beset with squabbling and will probably go home early this year.

Nigger penalty kick

England won their only World Cup in 1966 with an all-white side but is perhaps going the way of France. They started a bare majority of whites over blacks in their first round game. They may start 7 whites for the next game but the team is trending black. Perhaps if England is bounced from the tournament in the first round it will change things. The team disappointed in a first round draw versus the U.S.

Spain is the favorite to win the whole thing. Like the Italians, the Spanish are all white and have found great success lately. {snip}

Portugal also has an outside chance to win the whole tournament. Led by the great Cristiano Ronaldo, the squad starts 10 whites and one black.

The Greeks round out a solid Southern European contingent with an all-white side.

A few years ago, the Netherlands seemed on the verge of becoming another France. This year’s squad starts nine whites but has several black substitutes who will see playing time. {snip}

Denmark has 10 whites and one black who distinguished himself by accidentally hitting the ball into his own net and losing the first game for the Danes.

Switzerland starts two blacks and an Arab. But the team still retains an overall European identity and pulled a huge upset over Spain in the first round of games.

{snip}

Since only white nations let in millions of people of different races, they are the only countries to be effected by demographic change. Asians, Africans (both Arab and black) and mestizos can be sure their national soccer teams will always represent them. If Eastern Europe can hold the line on immigration, they can also be confident that their teams will always reflect them as well.

{snip}

Another lesson is that it is mainly blacks who are changing the face of the Western European soccer teams. There are many more Arabs and Middle Easterners in France and the Netherlands than blacks. Why are these significant minorities absent from the starting lineups? In England, there are many more Pakistanis, Indians, and Bangladeshis than blacks. Yet they are not represented on the national team. As noted, mestizos and Asians have yet to make an impact on the U.S. side.

A proper HBD response might be that blacks are better athletes than whites, and much better athletes than Arabs, Asians, and mestizos. But that is certainly not reflected in the World Cup results. All-black African sides are losers who have never come close to contending for the World Cup, though soccer is universally played throughout the Dark Continent. Some might say they need better training and coaching, but all black African teams are currently coached by whites. Even the Asian sides usually outplay the all-black nations. Though they enjoy home field advantage, the record of the all-black teams at this writing is a pathetic one win, four losses, and two draws. {snip}

On a more political note, I noted the typically fawning news coverage the media have given South Africa. They have not been too curious about the robberies of players and fans and the killings (one victim was Nelson Mandela’s great granddaughter, which kept him from the opening ceremonies) that have occurred around the event.

Several commentators have referred to the “the rainbow nation” of South Africa without wondering why the national team is all black. This is especially ironic as the ANC has mandated quotas for the sport of rugby to ensure some black representation in this white-dominated sport.

A COON-FUSINGLY COON-TRADICTORY COON-UNDRUM

On the SAS blog someone wrote a story about a Transkei school that is much in demand by the local better-off blacks for its top academic results, as most of its teaching staff is white.

This reminded me of what Gedahlia Braun said in “Racism, Guilt, and Self-Deceit” – now an e-book available from AfricanCrisis. He claimed that ordinary blacks fear black rule because they know from their own experience that, even under apartheid, whenever some blacks got power – eg, as police – they become corrupt and arrogant, tyrants and bullies. He said you can test his theory by asking your domestic/gardener if they would prefer white teachers for their kids, white doctors, etc. And after they have answered “yes” to white everything, you then ask them “so why do you vote for a black government?”

After reading this I did the test on a black employee and, sure enough, she agreed on all points until, when it came to my suggestion that she should vote DA, she simply said “I won’t vote next time..!” So the idea of actually voting for a white party was a bridge too far – probably because she would have been in dread fear of discovery via the tokolosh in the polling booth.

So, due to rampant Kaffirmative Ekshun, Kaffirmative Procuration, EmployMUNT Equity, and BEE (Black EnrichMUNT by Extortion) we now have a new breed of blacks who have suddenly accumulated wealth beyond their wildest dreams and totally disproportionate to their skills or ability, or rather lack of. After white liberals (a fast disappearing species) these Kaffirmatised blacks are the biggest threat to SA whites, because they owe everything to the ANC and they know it, and they have the most to lose from a white resurgence.

These black (fake) diamonds resent whites remaining in SA because we are a daily reminder of their own inferiority and they are well aware that one of us, not them, should be driving their luxury car to their overpaid unearned executive position where they depend totally on subordinate whites to do all the real work.

Even when his victims are oblivious to his identity, a criminal feels very uncomfortable in their presence lest he be discovered. And they know that if they do not get rid of us, then one day the country will revert to its founders and rightful masters. But can the self-deluded liberal Mandelatopians see this coming?

Despite all of this, I am willing to wager good money on the following speculation…..

At least 90% of the black so-called “elite”, the black so-called “diamonds” prefer….

Their teachers to be white
Their doctors to be white
Their dentists to be white
Their surgeons to be white
Their computer technicians to be white
Their lawyers to be white
Their private detectives to be white
Their accountants to be white
Their airplane pilots to be white
Their helicopter pilots to be white
Their bankers and money-managers to be white
Their stock-brokers to be white
Their architects to be white
Their engineers to be white
Their most important employees to be white

From this list one thing stands out clearly –

wherever BRAINS and FINANCIAL TRUST, are crucially important….

BLACKS ALMOST INVARIABLY PREFER WHITES..!

WITH ONE GLARING EXCEPTION…..

for some reason they prefer a BLACK GOVERNMUNT..!

Are they admitting that a black government has no need of either BRAINS or TRUST..?

Am I the only one to have noticed this coontradiction?

Requiem for Rhodesia

Carlos W. Porter (b 1947)

In re-reading this brilliant essay one should be reminded that the author was only 26 years old at the time and had not been brought up in Africa. Considering that, it is truly remarkable that he could have been so unfashionably "illiberal" and so insightful into the African psyche.

As the essay is so long and not everyone has the time or inclination to read it all, I have selected some of his most perceptive remarks.....notice how horribly relevant to the awful situation that white South Africans find themselves in today.

Truly, this is a case of deja vu all over again..! (sic)

For those who want to read it all, here is the link again: http://www.cwporter.com/rhodesia.html

In Africa, European-owned farms, homes, and businesses are tolerated only
until the Africans can stand the chaos created by their confiscation. The owners
are given 24 hours to leave the country with two suitcases and a few dollars; or
they are given cash and expelled, but are prohibited by “exchange control
regulations” from taking the cash with them; or they are paid off with
government bonds which do not mature for 25 years and can be repudiated by any
succeeding government; or they are terrorized by thugs and are told by the
police, “If you don’t like it, why don’t you get out of the country!”

We (the Western nations) must help to kill the white Rhodesians (or S.Africans)
so as to butter up the blacks into allowing us to help exploit their property,
or the enormous mineral resources which the blacks were never aware of.

“The trouble is, a lot of the Europeans just got greedy”, said a woman in
Salisbury who ran from Zambia. “A lot of them just thought, oh, well, it won’t
happen to me. I knew someone who had a business in Zambia. He stayed. They
waited ten years. Then sure enough, when he had built it up into an established
business, they ‘Africanized’ it.

The terrorists are not freedom fighters. The purpose of terrorism is to discourage civilian cooperation with an established government. What is not safe is to be an unarmed African in a terrorist-infested zone. Such a person is likely to see his chief beaten to death, his wife and daughters raped, his sons kidnapped, his ears, lips and nose cut off . Since he fears being cut to pieces with a rusty bayonet more than he fears hanging or imprisonment at the hands of the authorities, the whites cannot win in a contest of terror and do not try.

Liberated" of her lips by Mugabe's "freedom fighters" (with full approval of your government)

Is failing to outnumber the blacks really a worse crime than murdering them all?
Or is it simply that the Rhodesians are white? Are we fighting a race war
against ourselves? Do we despise ourselves that much? Or is it simply that
we only care about money? “Oh God, let my neighbours be slaughtered one by
one, let my children live under Communism, but let me have my boat, my car,
my TV, my sauna bath, my swimming pool, my plane, but oh God, please don’t
make me think about tomorrow.”

Perhaps you have noticed that countries in which Africans hold all the land must
subsist largely off foreign aid. The Frelimo government of Mozambique
confiscated the homes and farms of a quarter million Portuguese, and then asked
the Rhodesians to feed their starving population! As soon as they got their
hands on a couple of trainloads of Rhodesian maize, they declared war on
Rhodesia! They were instantly given a healthy dose of foreign aid “assistance”
by Britain, whose socialist Prime Minister at that time owned five houses.

What would happen to the standard of living of American and the world if all the
best land were divided up into 1 acre parcels to be farmed by people who use no
machinery, who plant by poking holes in the ground with a stick, who use no
contour ploughing or erosion control, no artificial fertilizer, who quit work
for several years every time they get a good harvest, who use no crop rotation,
who erode and exhaust the land and then move?

The South African government spent 77 million Rand (100 million dollars) on farm
machinery for the Zulus. The next year everything was rusting and going back to
bush. And the Africans said, “We had a good harvest last year, why the hell
should we work this year?”

Rhodesia (SA) is criticized for spending more money on the education of white
children than black. What do you expect? The whites are outnumbered every year
simply by the number of black babies born. Either the whites must adopt an
African standard of culture and educate no one, or they must spend more of their
money on themselves. Half of the blacks in Rhodesia are less than fifteen years
old; yet the percentage of population in school is almost as high in Rhodesia as
it is in Britain.

If the blacks are not capable of educating themselves, what makes them capable
of running the country?

American and British policy towards Rhodesia is to support “majority rule”, even it that means minorities must be killed. Since this is in direct contradiction to the policies followed in their own countries, where minorities are worshipped, it simply means that if blacks are in the minority, they must be given privileges. If they are not in the minority, they must be given more privileges.

Perhaps those journalists to whom 10,000 miles’ distance has given a superior
understanding will explain what gives the African his right to wreck everything. Perhaps those who sell their homes at a loss rather than share a single American city with the blacks will explain whether they would prefer to farm in Zambia.

To say that one hopes for a peaceful solution to Rhodesia’s (or S.Africa's) racial problems while agitating for majority rule, is simply to utter a hypocritical threat. Rhodesia’s racial problems are created by foreign politicians. If they do not get what they want for nothing, they will resort to war.

The peaceful solution is/was to leave Rhodesia (SA) alone.

Would you abandon your home, your business, your savings, risk the lives of your family, to beg charity in foreign countries you have never seen, in climates you have never experienced, in middle age -- if you could escape? And for what? So that Africans can vote?

In the weeks following UDI, military take-overs and revolutions were taking place in Africa at the rate of one a week. Every single one of these dictatorships was recognized by the world within a week.

Look at the slaughters, look at the tortures, look at the ignorance. It is not enough to treat the Africans better than they have ever treated each other? No. It is not enough to treat the Africans as well as you can. No. In Rhodesia (SA) the rule is not “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.” In Rhodesia (SA) the rule must be: “Allow others to do unto you things you w ould never dream of doing to them, just as long as they are black.”

Everything the Africans have has been given to them by the whites. It is to satisfy the ignorant envy of people too incompetent to supply themselves with the most basic of modern conveniences that Rhodesia (and SA) must be destroyed.

It is to erase the last reminders of the black mans technical and inventive inferiority that the whites must be killed with our help.

“Few of their houses are equipped with electricity…” says Time. One would think the blacks invented electricity, since it is theirs by right regardless of cost, possibility, or birth rates. The whites must be killed to allow the politicians to pretend that they did invent it.

To defy the world for independence with a handful of professional soldiers would at one time have been called “courageous”. Today that is a privilege reserved “For Non-Whites Only”.

Overweight "exploited" Africans line up to vote for majority rule, 1979, followed, in many cases, by emigration to Britain or flight to South Africa.The "majority" today would probably emigrate anywhere they could, now that they have their "rule". (Only 15 years later S.Africa went the same suicidal route to "democracy")

Britain, which only recently modified a law theoretically permitting any citizen of a Commonwealth Country (that is, about half the world) to enter Britain as a permanent resident regardless of money, skills, diseases, or knowledge of English, will take black Rhodesians, but not the white.

(White Rhodesians and South Africans) know that as long as white authority is maintained, they are safe; but the day it crumbles, their homes will be attacked, their wives will be raped, their children will be butchered. This is no fantasy; it has happened in a dozen UN member states. It is dismissed as fantasy by people who live in fantasies of their own.

Posted by Bantu Education as a public service to white people.

THE HOLY GRAIL OF BLACK ENTITLEMUNT

Doodler, commenting on Irish Savant blog, said

“I know several black professionals, but when one gets to know them well, you begin to understand the chasm between us. For a rapid understanding, get one drunk - their true colours become readily apparent”.

Unlike many white South Africans who have to suffer the predations of the faeces species daily in their lives and workplaces, my face-to-face encounters with these parasitical creatures are happily rare, mostly car guards, building wekkas, the occasional over-promoted minor bureaucrat, and the like, or should I say, the dislike! And although it is good and advisable to try to keep it that way, I do have one big regret.

Purely for scientific purposes, and the furthering of my own "Bantu Education", I would dearly love to meet some of these fabulous (but almost certainly fake) black diamonds we keep hearing about, and discover what (stolen) mechanism makes them tick. But I have little contact with any AA-infested wekker-place nor any BEE dis-industry.

However this following story of a chance recent encounter confirms 100% what Doodler said above.

At a new CT wine bar we met a pleasant Dutch couple (30-ish) and a very well-groomed, smartly-dressed, very affable, black gentleman, a lawyer of some sort (at least in its own estimation), and a connoisseur of fine wines. Eureka! Maybe I had at last sighted that mythical African beast, a sophisticated black gentleman!

On being invited to join their table the smooth-talking SBG displayed his sophistication by launching into a discussion of fine red (nevertheless whitey, if you get my drift) wines. It soon became apparent that the woman, a tall busty blonde, had been er, making amends for apartheid by engaging in bestiality, er, close inter-personal activities with the SBG.

With the help of SBG’s sophisticated chat, we were all getting along so well that the Dutchman suggested we go to a nearby favourite bistro of his. Turned out the prices were somewhat more sophisticated than we were accustomed to but, never mind, our SBG had taken charge of the wine ordering department, and as the usual restaurant convention is that the person in charge of the wine is the one presented the bill, I thought all was fine.

We were enjoying our new friends and I, especially, was more than a little fascinated with the SBG. As he discoursed along in his amiable fashion, it crossed my mind that maybe our SBG was the ideal of the Holy Grail of liberal equalitarian fantasy.

Here was maybe a genuine black diamond - a cultured and civilized being from the noble but downtrodden race that had been so grievously traumatized by (in the measured words of Noble Prize Bishoprick Tutu) “The Unspeakable Horrors of Apartheid”, damningly indicted by the Orgasm of Useless Nations as “a Crime against Humanity” (sic) and, with nary a hint of histrionic hyperbole, a “Holocaust comparable with THE Holocaust” (words to that effect), by the incontestable authority of the faultlessly virtuous and saintly Lord Madiba, blessings be upon thee.

Unaware of my musings our SBG continued to display his leadership qualities, sophistication and, a hopefully fat wallet, by ordering 3 more expensive bottles of wine, on top of the 2 or 3 already consumed. But inevitably whitey’s stuff did its devilish work on the SBG - the fragile mask of sophistication dropped like a stone and the pent-up rage against whitey’s achievMUNTS erupted in a torrent of infantile resentMUNT pouring like vomit from the suited monkey.

Not wishing to assist the SBG in, what had by now become, his feverish quest for the “Holy Grail of Kaffir entitleMUNT” (the cherished 100% discount!!!), I somehow resisted the enormous temptation to chime in. All to no avail, as the arrival of the sophisticated bill was the cue for our (not-so) SBG to go shake hands with his best friend. Not having brought enough cash I paid the bill by card and the Dutchies gave me their cash.

When our now rather unsophisticated BG came tottering back, and I asked for his share, the wine fancier exclaimed “Eish Man, eh no marney..!”

Long story short, Blondie paid the missing share a couple of days later – almost certainly her money not the SBG´s who, she informed us, "she´d dropped". Sadly, we never saw our Dutch friends again, I suspect because I attempted to give them an unwelcome crash course in Bantu Education (ie, educating whitey about the Bantu).

A Mindless Mantra

The mindless regurgitation of the equalitarian mantra that blacks are inherently as capable as whites is puzzling when the evidence to the contrary is so enormously overwhelming. So one has to ask why, in public if not in private, virtually 100% of white people pay lip service to this absurdity?

Of course we all know the answer to this seemingly incomprehensible paradox. It is the FEAR of being labelled a racist, a fear as dread as that of being labelled a heretic in an earlier period when truth was also no defence against the dogma of religious correctness.

With the benefit of hindsight, we know how invidious that fear was both for science and society. And we rightly consider that period to have been an era of darkness and tyranny in which countless "heretics" suffered cruelly at the hands of the inquisitors whose mission then (now) was to "root out heresy (racism) in all its forms, wherever and whenever it appears".

"Racism" - a new "deadly sin" concocted by the neo-marxist left barely 80 years ago - is "heresy" re-made for new uses, a tool with which to intimidate, suppress, and ultimately liquidate those who dissent from the prevailing political orthodoxy - "the innate equality of all mankind".

So on the side of darkness and ignorance are "racists" who question or deny the holy scriptures of the god of equality.

Against them are the forces of light and goodness, so-called "liberals" who heartily promote freedom of expression provided they endorse what is being expressed. The holy warriors for the cause are the "anti-racists" latter-day inquisitors - self-righteous thugs on their mission to "root out racism in all its forms wherever and whenever it appears".

"It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon his not understanding it."