You haven't yet saved any bookmarks. To bookmark a post, just click .

If you like watching football, voted for Brexit and have concerns about multiculturalism and immigration- congratulations! You are a racist, and you are also a hypocrite for watching football, because some football players, it has emerged, are actually black. For some reason, now is the time for the mainstream media to remind the working class plebs who actually, fanatically, spiritually experience the Beautiful Game that no; this modicum of success of "your" national team is not about you. It's about immigration, open borders, and a desire to reduce Ethnic European people to little more than a bad memory.

"Twice I’ve heard: “Oh God, the Brexiters will love this.” Not the decent millions who for one reason or another saw a better life outside the EU but the fundamentalists – the Rees-Mogg tendency, the Faragistas – whose pursuit of a reactionary English nationalism has poisoned the national debate. They will claim this, was the lament. But they can’t.

Because there is nothing about that team, with its youth and vigour and diversity and modernity, that would give nationalists any succour. ~ Hugh Muir, The Guardian

Nationalism is again signaled to be racist. A Brexit fundamentalist is one who believes that Brexit should mean Brexit, as in- leaving the EU. As was voted on by millions of people. It is the meanest form of insult towards a growing sentiment in Britain that has in reality very little to do with football, or any other sport. In fact, one might suggest that football itself is a method of channelling identitarian feelings into something placid, with only mild-street violence and alcohol abuse as a side-effect.

What can they [nationalists] credibly say about a team born of the contemporary Britain they so despise, with its thoughtful, dignified manager, its melding of young men whose lineages originate far and wide – not least the Windrush generation grandchildren? What’s pleasing about the England campaign so far is that it is a project that looks ahead. How can it be claimed by reactionary Brexiters whose only navigation tool is the rear-view mirror?" ~ Hugh Muir, The Guardian

But what can one credibly say about a team borne out of a Britain for which many people do have justified concerns? Can we say that 23 multimillionaire footballers doing their job (and no doubt with considerable pride) is extrapolatable to a nation of 50 million people? I do not think so.


The idea that it is only the progressive, EU-loving sections of society that are forward-looking when for the past 70 years they have had an ideological stranglehold on Britain and Europe is another bad joke. The reality is that a true conservative mentality in the modern age- quite dissimilar from the British Conservative Party- by necessity must be aspirational, forward thinking, and even a little idealistic about our countries, and Western Civilization as a whole. The so-called reactionary English nationalism of Rees-Mogg and Farage is little more than the polite assertion that British people exist, and have existed for centuries; and will not be ignored for long.

Rather, Hugh Muir performs the typically leftist trick of speaking of a few exalted examples to then move on to therefore multiculturalism is good. It is a powerful technique, the dialectic companion to that common counterargument Not all X are like that. These few are like this, therefore all people like this, are like this. Those few are not like that, therefore you many not say, X are like that, as a group interest group, generally speaking. I wonder if this England team would be exalted to such heights of inclusiveness if they had gone out in the first round? I imagine that the borderless world engineers would merely highlight the other semi-finalists of this World Cup, as indeed they have done so, and claim that England lost because the white players wouldn't pass to the blacks, because of course, that's the real issue here.

The British right loves using immigrants as political scapegoats. And Brexit was no different. UKIP and others exploited people’s anger in the wake of the 2007/2008 capitalist crisis to argue that immigration was to blame – not the bankers. In fact, scapegoating was central to the right’s fearmongering campaign, which people compared to Nazi propaganda...

Immigration is right at the heart of each team in the World Cup semi-finals. Indeed, the Independent has hailed the game between Belgium and France as a “celebration of immigration”. Half of these teams’ players have African roots, and over 78% of the French squad come from immigrant families. ~ The Canary

A celebration, indeed. Remember comrades that diversity is your strength, and, lest we forget that what we are talking about is a game that, you know, could be fun, concerns about immigration are Nazi, and if you don't think that someone from Africa is more French than Charles de Gaulle, then you can't watch football any more. Interestingly though, it is fine for identity to be recognized and celebrated for these African-origin players, if you are non-white yourself.

As Khaled A. Beydoun wrote for the Undefeated, “a divided nation in search of an elusive optimism puts its hope in the hands of players named Mbappe, Dembele, Fakir, Rami, Umtiti, who wear French Bleu but also play for Africa, and the legions of African soccer fans who share their continental roots.”

So; it is 100% okay for the descendants of Africans to play for France, and retain their African identity (at least in the eyes of commentators). Could that be applied to the non-African players?


In a piece entitled "What do the World Cup semi-finalists all have in common? Immigration" The Guardian's deputy sport editor promptly chirps up with some monstrous black-pills.

"[The Government] can think again about the power of sport to create moments when a diverse society finds common cause."

Ah yes, what we need at a time when the government has betrayed the nation over Brexit, the racist rape-wave and gang-crime spilling out of our inner-cities, and race relations are at an all time low because nobody can talk about race relations without going to jail, what we truly need is the government to fabricate our own I'd like to buy the world a coke moment through showing the maligned whites that black people play football too. What a revelation that will be. Rather, Aarons betrays himself. He knows that a "diverse society" is an oxymoronic misnomer as much as I do. Otherwise he would not leap on an England team -which is certainly not terrible, world beaters neither- which has played above expectations in order to advance his open borders agenda.

Need I remind you that Aarons is a deputy sports editor drilling his admittedly willing sports-page readers with globalist talking points? If it is truly the case that we must create moments when a diverse society finds common cause then doesn't that indicate that, naturally, we do not find much common cause otherwise? If we must be mandated or tricked into performing Two Minutes Love For Raheem Stirling then it is tyranny, and clear evidence that the UK hierarchy knows well the problems of this diversified, Anglophobic system.

England’s victory was delivered by a diverse, dynamic team. They and their manager can help reshape the country’s identity.~ David Olusoga

What is the ideal level of diversity of the national football teams at the World cup? Should there be quotas? What is the desired amount of diversity?

"Of Gareth Southgate’s squad, only Raheem Sterling was born outside England – yet 47.8% are the children of migrants. That makes it the most ethnically diverse squad to represent England at a World Cup – a fact not lost on their manager.

“In England we have spent a bit of time being a bit lost as to what our modern identity is,” he said after the victory over Panama. “Of course, first and foremost I will be judged on football results. But we have a chance to affect other things that are even bigger.” ~ The Guardian

At least the coach is on board the SocJus Bus, yet again he also recognizes that the ID Question is the one that hangs in the air; unable to be addressed directly beyond a forced smile and to say, sure, we don't know what we are but we definitely aren't going back to a time where people, oh, didn't behead off-duty soldiers in the street. Indeed, we cannot go backwards, but it is the forward direction of European societies that must be spoken of, and honestly. I am stymied in this quest to find open conversation by USA Today.

However, the whole “stick to sports” nonsense simply doesn’t fly when it comes to the World Cup. If not for the mass movement of humanity around the world, soccer’s favorite tournament would look drastically different and this week’s semifinals would be virtually unrecognizable.Soccer and immigration are fully intertwined, with no greater example needed than the make-up of the four teams battling it out for the sport’s finest prize.

Indeed, if we are to take the England football team as an idealized societal demographic picture, we must surely accelerate towards making English people not just a minority in their representative sports-icons and also in real demographic terms. Why should England be more than 52.2% white, when the England football team is not? See, diversity works! It wins on penalties against Columbia! The problem is, though diversity is held up to be a universal good -and let there be no doubt, this football team is significantly better than the England team of 1982- we are not told as to how much is enough. If white people are more than just tax-farmable slaves to Diversity Macht Frei then their identity and culture too, must be recognized as having an intrinsic value; just as we all -left and right- recognize the identity and cultures of non-Whites. Can we celebrate that the back-up striker is Ghanaian in heritage, while, at the same time, hail the giant Yorkshire centre-back's white and meaty forehead which thumps headers past frustrated Swedish goalkeepers like Sir Francis Drake's finest cannon? Or, is it just for the Ghanaians in Britain to celebrate Danny Welbeck's heritage?


That ethnicity is the fundamental part of national identity is not in dispute by sensible people; as triggering as that might be to hear for leftists, when those words are applied to Ethnic Europeans as well. Multiculturalism as a concept has been utterly discredited by evidence, time itself, and the lived experience of millions. It is now a question to the of how do the Globalist elite want European people's to engage in the diversification of their homelands? Clearly through the ballot box triumphs of Savini, Orban, the ascent of Trump and the Brexit vote the Europeans want -at the very least- a seat at the diversity table. You can make your own mind up as to whether the forces of Globalism have any intention of allowing that; Much easier it is to cry "Nazis!".

As Julius Roy-Davis wrote in his piece Is Nationalism Good?:

This is a good clue to what is really going on, a clue to the reason the forces of the Left so stridently and consistently oppose nationalism when done by White people, and try to associate it with their canonical arch-evil, Nazism.

Indeed, leftists are very pro-identitarian for every group other than Whites. As I have pointed out before, this is integral to their coalition-building strategy: leftists are the anti-White coalition, so mobilizing minority resentments of Whites and weaponizing White guilt are two sides of the same coin.

It certainly appears that in this Globalist's Game, nothing is sacred- not even the game that is beautiful.


The Editor

by The Editor