The Petty Successes of Multiculturalism

I very much enjoyed Tobias Langdon’s thoughts on “The Leftist War on Identity, Nationality and Biology.” Of particular interest were Langdon’s comments on Emma Raducanu, a mixed-race (Chinese-Romanian) tennis player who won the US Open and who has been lauded and celebrated, in Britain and elsewhere, as the best of British multiculturalism, if not the best of a new, superior kind of mixed-race human. Tobias rightly pointed out that the basic problem is that Raducanu isn’t British, and “it’s precisely because she isn’t British that lots of other people who aren’t British either have been eager to pretend that she is British and to celebrate her victory.” In the following essay, I want to adopt a slightly different approach to the celebration of Raducanu, exploring not only the hypocrisy and blindspots of multiculturalists, which are only too well known, but also the tensions within liberalism on this very subject. One of the most sober and sensible comments on the Raducanu episode, for example, was made by multiculturalist Sunder Katwala, of British Future, a “thinktank that promotes debate about immigration and integration.” Katwala “warned people with liberal views on immigration against using her as a “gotcha” argument,” and stressed that cases like Raducanu are “exceptional stories.” I’d argue that they are also, in the final analysis, petty successes trotted out in carefully styled propaganda to mask a multitude of multicultural sins.

Bread and Circuses

As explored in a fascinating book by Patrick Brantlinger, the phrase ‘Bread and Circuses’ has long been associated with theories that have treated mass culture as either a symptom or a cause of social decadence. It’s also true, however, that ‘Bread and Circuses’ is perhaps the finest phrase for encapsulating the marketed appeal of multiculturalism. What better way to describe the fixation on cuisine and sports that sum up in toto the alleged “contributions” of ethnic diversity to European society? Exotic food and sporting spectacles are societal luxuries whose importance is directly correlated to the development of what Spengler called “the world-city,” in which men live in nothing but an “artificial footing.”[1] And the celebrations accompanying Emma Raducanu, insofar as they moved beyond her victory in a tennis match and suggested broader social importance, are nothing if not artificial. It’s perfectly clear that Raducanu’s win at the US Open will have no impact on the lives of average Britons, except perhaps to further brainwash them into believing that this tennis player, by some form of socio-political alchemy, embodies all that they should aspire to. Meridian Magazine, for example, argues that:

[Raducanu’s] victory and meteoric rise into superstardom cannot, or rather should not, be viewed in isolation, as a sole, personal success but as a symbolic victory for British diversity in the face of the xenophobia that remains rooted in shadowy sections of British society. In fact, Raducanu’s victory may help transform British society for the better, in a way far beyond the control of her racket. Raducanu is emblematic of a global citizen.

Although Tobias Langdon has rightly pointed out that much of the celebration around Raducanu has come from ethnic minorities, it’s also very clear that many younger Whites, groomed from birth to be “global citizens” and now coming of age, are some of the most active and prominent purveyors of this garbage. The Meridian Magazine piece, for example, was written by a young English female college student, who further displays her thorough indoctrination by suggesting that

given both the cultural richness of Raducanu’s roots and her expertise on the court, we are fortunate to hail her victory as a British one. Not unlike 2021’s esteemed England football squad, which also champions British diversity with just three players from the squad (Pickford, Shaw, and Stones) having exclusively English roots, Raducanu’s case is serving as a reminder that our diversity and multiculturalism is what strengthens us. It allows us to take centre stage—or court—and draw upon a multitude of experiences that ultimately place us, both as individuals and as a society, in an advantageous position. And this, therefore, is a beacon of positivity against the darkness of xenophobia. [emphasis added]


This is a very short paragraph that manages to include a wealth of puzzling contradictions. The first sentence suggests that a nation should be proud of winners it merely adopts. Raducanu arrived in Britain aged two, which is very young and confirms a British contribution to her training [we also know, however, that Raducanu received training at the sports academy in Shenyang, her mother’s home town], but claiming her success as a British one is not fundamentally different in a biological sense from the Arab oil states and their practice of hiring what have been termed “sports mercenaries.” Kenyan runners and Bulgarian weightlifters, for example, have been granted citizenship in countries like Qatar to compete internationally in pursuit of medals and international victories that would otherwise elude these nations. While portrayed as cynical and crass, these Arab states are arguably more authentic in protecting their citizenship laws, given that these laws are incredibly rigid and are based on the concern “that foreigners might have an adverse influence on [the region’s] dynastic political system and conservative culture based on deep-rooted tribal values that are already considered under threat.” These states are happy to hand a passport to a handful of elite athletes, and for a specific purpose, but not to masses of “enriching” migrants. In other words, the oil states are happy to exploit the multicultural nationality game insofar as it relates to sports alone. They are not foolish enough to believe that a victory on a sports field will enrich their society or culture.

The West, on the other hand, celebrates its sporting mercenaries while indulging the idea that sports victories or exotic recipes are genuine reflections of a functioning and enriched society. This jarring contradiction is best exemplified in reactions to Nigel Farage’s offer of congratulations to Raducanu. Farage was heavily criticized as a hypocrite because of past statements he had made to the effect that Romanian crime statistics in Britain were “eye-watering,” and had added: “I was asked a question if a group of Romanian men moved in next to you, would you be concerned. If you lived in London, I think you would be.”

For liberals and offended ethnic minorities Farage’s two actions are contradictory, and yet they shouldn’t be. It’s perfectly possible to offer congratulations on an individual sporting victory without accepting that it dramatically alters known social conditions. The website Police Professional, for example, reports that

The lifting of employment restrictions by the European Union (EU) has seen a massive spike in crime statistics in the UK. Arrests of suspected Romanian criminals more than doubled when the eastern European nationals were first allowed to work in Britain. Transitional controls were imposed by member states on Romania and its neighbour Bulgaria, considered the poor relations of the bloc, when they joined the EU in 2007. Their rights to work and claim benefits were restricted for their first seven years of membership until January 1, 2014. At the end of 2013, the number of Romanians arrested stood at 7,383. That figure rocketed to 17,398 in 2014 with 18,127 Romanians arrested in England and Wales last year — a rise of 145 per cent in just two years.

I’d say this is eye-watering and, as Farage argued, a cause for concern. The added elephant in the room is of course the difference between more economically successful and capable ethnic Romanian nationals and masses of more socially problematic Roma gypsies, who are responsible for most of the “Romanian” crime statistics. I’ve seen no evidence that Emma Raducanu’s father is of Roma gypsy descent, and in fact she seems to have enjoyed an upper middle-class upbringing filled with a “hectic lifestyle of ballet, horse riding, swimming and go-karting.” In short, Nigel Farage is not a hypocrite, and his two actions are not contradictory.

Georgina Lawton, writing for the Guardian, has argued that “Raducanu is living proof of the way a country that celebrates cultural difference can succeed.” No, she isn’t. She’s living proof that a young woman of Euro-Asian parentage can do well academically and become extremely proficient at tennis. This wouldn’t surprise even the most hardened racialist. The fact of the matter is that, in the context of “good news,” Liberals and their allies want us to take an individual story and expand it to group level (“successful ethnic athlete = successful multiethnic culture”), while in the context of bad news they want us to take a group story and reduce it to individuals (“negative group crime statistics shouldn’t be acknowledged because we’re all individuals”). In other words, ethnicity can only be considered at group level if it leads to praise. This is the fundamental contradiction of multiculturalism, and it stands in stark contrast to the position of so-called “racists” who adopt a truly holistic view of race and the individual that is without any such contradictions — I can praise a Ugandan sprinter without believing 200,000 Ugandans will make life in my home nation considerably better.

The Discomfort of Success and the Question of “Contributions”

Another uncomfortable question raised by the Raducanu episode is the issue of immigrant “contributions” to the host society. Sunder Katwala, of British Future, worries that stories like that of Raducanu “give a popular image of the positive contribution of migration and integration, and that has a positive element, as long as it’s not overplayed.” Another representative of a British multiculturalist group is concerned that “valuing immigrants and refugees in the UK is sort of predicated on being successful and giving back a contribution rather than just being human.” Both comments reveal a further contradiction of multiculturalism; that despite talk of oppression and discrimination, some ethnic minorities are significantly and stubbornly more successful than others. The school grades of Asians, for example, remain light years ahead of those of Africans, and the gap in statistics for expulsions and suspensions from schools is equally cavernous. These facts are a brutal rejoinder to claims of oppressive Whiteness, and they are the reason why all celebrations of successful immigrants occur against a much greater shadow of failure, welfare dependance, social degradation, and crime. Success it seems, can be a burden too much to bear for the unsuccessful. In this context, it is hardly surprising to find a quote like that above, where a shamed and uneasy multiculturalist appeals for immigrants to be celebrated simply, and ridiculously, for “being human.”

Further, some immigrant “contributions” are questionable even on their own terms. Take, for example, Derek Taylor’s 2013 “Thank you for your business”: The Jewish Contribution to the British Economy, a quite shameless panegyric to the Jewish penchant for wealth accumulation. Tucked in among ridiculous tales of Jews inventing jigsaw puzzles [they didn’t; the first jigsaw puzzle was invented by London mapmaker John Spilsbury in the 1760s], and postcards [they didn’t; the first picture postcard is credited to Theodore Hook, an English Man of Letters], are very light references to their more solidly documented role in the development of British pornography and gambling. It was Richard ‘Dirty Des’ Desmond, the son of Latvian and Ukrainian Jews, who first introduced mass-produced pornography into Britain, and who ‘pioneered’ “the first pornographic channel available on satellite television in the UK.” He also “ran a premium rate phone sex company until 1988 when he sold the business after British Telecom raised concerns about the content.” That’s quite a contribution. Equally impressive is the Jewish contribution to gambling everywhere, not least Britain and the United States. I was amused recently to read an essay on Jews and gambling that admitted that Jews were pre-eminent in the development of American gambling. The piece claimed “the Jewish appetite for [sports gambling] (and probably for wagering of all kinds) remains mysterious.”[2] I’ve approached this sentence from multiple angles, but can’t find the mystery in Jews engaging in risk to find profit without labor. Nothing, in fact, would seem more matter of fact. It’s certainly matter of fact in Britain, where Liam O’Brien has pointed out that

all of the ‘Big Three’ bookmakers have had a significant Jewish input. Coral was founded by Joe Coral from a Polish-Jewish background while Ladbrokes, originally a company catering for the upper classes only became a major company under the stewardship of Max Parker and his nephew Cyril Stein whose family were of Russian-Jewish origin. Stein was a major philanthropist for numerous Jewish and Israeli causes throughout his career. [This is a good example of using vice to facilitate large-scale transfer of wealth from Gentile to Jewish communities.] William Hill acquired a significant Jewish connection when it bought the more than 600 shops of Stanley Racing owned by Lord Steinburg.[3]

The tension at the heart of such immigrant “contributions” is explored admirably by the website, which appears to have adopted, and I must say perfected, an approach I employed back in 2015-16 through a subtle and satirical Twitter account named “Skype Directory.” At the heart of the approach is the contradiction of multiculturalism — that multiculturalism will celebrate the “contributions” it feels are worthy of celebration while hiding “contributions” it feels might be regarded negatively. What Skype Directory did, and what Jewish Contributions do, is to highlight the shadow behind the fanfare, or to do a kind of double-take at the other side of those things claimed as Jewish successes or achievements. When Jewish magazines, for example, claim that Jews brought America to the tipping point on gay marriage, the approach dictates that such a claim be highlighted and presented in its own right. The same can be said for the Jewish “contribution” to transgenderism, feminism, abortion, etc. While these may be celebrated liberal values, you can be sure that Jews would only welcome a spotlight on their role in certain very limited circumstances. If the “celebration” of their role became a little too loud, you can be sure that such applause would not be welcome. Joe Biden learned this back in 2013 when Jewish activists were offended when he praised Jewish power and influence:

Joe Biden should  know the ground rules by now. You can praise the contributions of individual Jews. It’s totally permissible to wax eloquent on the accomplishments of  Sigmund Freud, Jonas Salk, or Albert  Einstein—perhaps even implying that humanity would never have come on these ideas and thus be infinitely poorer for it. … You  can even  praise the Jewish community’s role in enacting public policy on which there is a broad consensus, such as the Civil Rights movement.

But you can’t imply that Jews have real power and have used it to push America in directions most Americans don’t want to go or obviously conflict with the legitimate interests of other  groups—particularly Whites. … [Biden]: “I bet you 85 percent of those changes, whether it’s in Hollywood or social media are a consequence of Jewish leaders in the industry. The influence is immense, the influence is immense. And, I might add, it is all to the good.”

And if Jews are in some way shamed or fearful regarding wider awareness of their “contribution,” what is the true nature of that contribution after all?

The Success of Multiculturalism?

It’s really quite strange that a tennis match has been used to demonstrate that diversity is our strength rather than, say, government data on crime and social cohesion. It’s in the latter that we find a true, broad, and far-reaching multicultural contribution. In Britain, Black men are apparently 5.4 times more likely than White men to be arrested for drug offences, and young Black men were 10.5 times more likely than young White men to be arrested for robbery. That’s quite a contribution. There’s also a contribution to weapons-based violent crime:

When compared to 2014, an increase in prosecutions was seen across all ethnic groups, apart from those categorised as White, which saw a decrease of 2% in prosecutions. In 2018, ethnic minority groups were overrepresented for prosecutions of possession of weapons offences, accounting for 30% of all prosecutions in this category. Of all prosecutions for possession of weapons offences, “possession of an article with a blade or point” made up 59% of prosecutions. The Metropolitan police force (London) area accounted for 66% of all Black defendants prosecuted for this offence, compared with 14% for White defendants.

Blacks, Pakistanis, Bangladeshis, and those of mixed-race have also been found to consume welfare payments in astonishing numbers relative to their share of the population. Another contribution! This is to say nothing of the growing agitation for the removal of historical monuments said to offend the sensibilities of these people. Ethnically motivated iconoclasm is unquestionably a contribution.

These things, we should remember, like Raducanu’s tennis victory, “allow us to take centre stage—or court—and draw upon a multitude of experiences that ultimately place us, both as individuals and as a society, in an advantageous position.” I don’t know about you, but I’m having trouble seeing just how advantageous my position is. Maybe I just need to celebrate these people for being “simply human.” Maybe I need to live in one of Spengler’s “World-cities.” Maybe I need to throw myself into being a “global citizen.” Or maybe, just maybe, these multicultural “successes” are nothing but bread and circuses for the ignorant and the willfully corrupt.

[1] O. Spengler, The Decline of the West: Volume II: Perspectives of World History (London: Arktos, 2021), 125-6.

[2] E. Mendelsohn (ed), Jews and the Sporting Life: Studies in Contemporary Jewry Vol. XXIII (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2008), 64.

[3] L. O’Brien, What’s the SP? (eBook Partnership, 2014).

34 replies
  1. Robert Henderson
    Robert Henderson says:

    English team sports such as football and cricket now have greatly reduced white English participation at the top level.

    Football with twenty teams in the top English division the Premiership) is lucky to see 40 English out of the 210 starters in a full Premiership programme see

    As for cricket the 18 counties who make up the County Championship of the 191 players (no subs) of a full Championship programme a 50 0r 60 of the places are taken by foreigners,.

    The sabotaging of English national teams by the playing of foreigners began in the English national cricket in the 1970s and football in the 1980s. This was achieved by picking foreigners for the teams which made supporting them more and more for the native English population.

    The Left loved this because it cut off the chance of the English having an unambiguously English focus of patriotism. This was important because patriotism is not an optional extra.

  2. Joel Peters
    Joel Peters says:

    Dude, yes indeed there are a few talented racially mixed people in music ans sports.

    The golf dude who is an afro but also mixed with asianz, aka halfling, that the jews go on about.

    The guitarist in gunz n roses the rock band, forgot his name, a reggae artist and wasn’t jimmy hendrix mixed racially (his singing was indeed like someone who had a dildo up his behind or something, sorr for the obscene reference) indeed a good musician.

    And now a tennis player.

    It’s just that the media run mostly by anti whites of racially mixed socalled jewish heritage, tend to blow up those few racially mixed individuals that make it.

    Nut what happened to all the HOT white WOMEN that used to dominate the sport of womens tennis oh no they wouldn’t give them any coverage would they, cause it may just result in more white babies, the babies of the enemy oh horror if that was to happen.

    Same I guess with the golf player. Golf had very little mainstream coverage before the halfling afro came along. But then it was the rage. And I don’t mind golf but it’s kinda a sport often played by upper and midleclass people, maybe not for the common man (sometimes sure). And once the halfling didn’t win focus went away.

    They use elements from reality to create a focus that distorts the real reality a focus that together with propaganda results in a warfare against white through an anti white alternative reality created by the mass media industry directed by tribal matters and the like…

    So I guess, wouldn’t it make more sense to make the argument against racial mixture maybe based on different regions success also before and after racial mixture? Like for example The National Alliance did in Attack or whatever their newspaper was called (regarding some country or region I seem to remember). Or lika has been done in that book covering the history of white people by some south african white dude? Sure the latter book is in some instances what should one say a bit too much based on speculation but regardless good if I remember correctly.

    It’s a war fought on many fronts, the media, music industry, IT, Hollywood, TV, government, think tanks and lobbying organizations, many universities (the academia I suppose they could atleast be called when there was still honesty and professionalism, which there is still sometimes but anyways).

    What is the goal. I would say pretty obviously racial mixture on a large scale.

    Why was bussing of blacks done, I suppose racial mixture.

    Why propaganda in the media and commercials for racial mixture, to get racial mixture I suppose.

    The purpose. Fear of whites. Getting rid of competition (because heavily mixed people on average are less great for the most part), a stupid dumbed down slave class made to consume mass produced made in china things. And having the rest of the world as slaves is a cultural focus within groups.

    And many pushing it are racially mixed themselves hence they push their own genetics. Isn’t this natural?

    Also these mixed people are afraid of being thrown out of white territory because whites may not want their genetics in their gene pool and the like. Hence they fight for their own right to live in a region in many ways I suppose could be a cause or partial cause.

    But regardless of cause, culture, genetics, heritage, historic events and so on it is a plain fact that these tendencies are pushed down people’s throats at an alarming rate.

    • Jud Jackson
      Jud Jackson says:

      In America when I was growing up in the 60’s and 70’s a lot of working class people played golf. It wasn’t just a rich man’s game. But joining a country club was a different story. The working class people who played golf, played on regular golf courses, not in country clubs.

  3. Joel Peters
    Joel Peters says:

    And let’s not forget Leo Kravitz & uhhh, can’t think of anyone else, but I think there was a author in Russian that was ok that was halfling afro and a mulatto in france that wrote the book the three musketeers or whatever.

    And wasn’t Dostojevskij a bit tatar background but maybe they are white or whiteish I don’t know.

    • Dan Carter
      Dan Carter says:

      Yes they think Dostojevsky had a tatar in his family tree like in 1350’s or so, so like 400 years before he was born or so, so not a large part.

      And I do think tatars are like a turkic people of some kind so in a traditional sense, not white.

      Als, yes there was some poet and playwriter in Russia that had a great grandfather that was african of the subsaharian kind. I also did not read his work and neither poetry or theater is a great interest of mine but I did read somewhere that he is thought of as a founder of Russian literature.

  4. Angelicus
    Angelicus says:

    Excellent article (as usual). However, there is an annoying little detail. Nigel Farage IS a hypocrite! He is as fake as a three-pound note. He clearly, and proudly, said that the main purpose of UKIP was to destroy the BNP. He NEVER said a word about the on-going cultural and racial war against true Britons (that means White Britons). His pathetic pseudo-nationalism was all about Brexit, a perfect cause for thousands of flag-waving morons. The same kind of idiots who say they are proud of their grandparents “sacrifice in WW2”. With “friends” like that, who needs enemies?

    No wonder Farage joined that despicable news station called “GB News” which, like UKIP is 100% “controlled opposition”.

    • Dan Carter
      Dan Carter says:

      Yes indeed he seems to also be quite dark skinned allmost brownish in tone for a Brit, so what is his heritage.

      There is even a village in the UK somewhere where most people are descendants of northern african soldiers in the Roman army.

      But that being said most brittons are quite homogenous.

    • Curmudgeon
      Curmudgeon says:

      I learned, decades ago, that the average Brit is a lost cause when it comes to WWII. The ones my age and older blather on about “we’d all be speaking German” were it not for the “sacrifice in WW2”. Asking them about the attempted Communist (Jew) takeover in Germany or Kalergi’s “Practical Idealism” being published at the time of the rise of National Socialism draws a blank stare. I quickly learned they were a lost cause about multiculturalism by asking simple questions about the “benefits of culture” – like the curry take-away – such as ‘Are you saying there is no Briton that can learn how to cook a curry?’ and watching their heads explode. It’s the same in Canada, and dare I say, pretty much everywhere in the (((Western liberal democracies))).

      • Les
        Les says:

        The Channel Islands were occupied by Germany in World War 2. They did not make the locals take compulsory German lessons nor was there any plan to. And these islands were occupied for almost 5 years. Try mentioning these facts to the brainwashed Britons.

    • Lucius Vanini
      Lucius Vanini says:

      You are SO right about traitor Farage. A fortnight before the Brexshit vote that charlatan assured self-hating Englanders that leaving the EU would enable more BLACKS to settle in Britain as mainlander Europeans would be kept out!

      An unreformed EU–one in which the Orban/Visegrad faction isn’t triumphant–would have changed Britain’s color in time; but Brexshit has sped up the disaster.

      At least, while Britain was in the EU, influxes of Whites from the mainland considerably exceeded those of non-Whites. Not now!

  5. Leon Haller
    Leon Haller says:

    An excellent essay. But I wish this type of information (how multiculturalists speak out of different sides of their mouths so as always to present the effects of multiculturalism on white societies as positive) could be reduced to a redpilling slogan. The Left’s slogans generally seem to resonate with whites more than do the Right’s. My own, perhaps self-interested (and probably inadequate), explanation is that reality is complex; rightists are modally more ethical than leftists; and so rightists have a hard time condensing their complex truths into simplistic slogans, and further, resist being untruthful in order to do so. But we need to try, especially as white IQ keeps declining (alongside the general IQ decline experienced by increasingly ‘diversified’ nations).

    • Bobby
      Bobby says:

      Yes Leon. I always bring this up. We need to somehow find a way, to make the knowledge, and facts that are disseminated here, ‘user friendly,’ for the masses.

      Keep working on it. I am.

  6. Jaime Jonas
    Jaime Jonas says:

    I find it ridicolous to use ONE example of sports success to make general sweeping statements about the benefits of immigration without including the costs (costs vrs benefits.??). Difficult to envision all immigrants as Olympian medalists…

  7. Emicho
    Emicho says:

    Peter Hitchens pointed out that this Emma Raducanu, like all children of the well off, went to one of the few remaining grammar echools that leftist wreckers haven’t managed yet to destroy. You think she’d have won the US Open at 19 or 16 or whatever if she went to an unruly bog-standerd comp like the majority of us? More likely she’d be celebrating her second kid’s third birthday and wondering if it’s absent father Tyrone would be making an appearance.
    Emma’s school was segregated of course, as the elite put all their children in sexually segregated schools.
    You think she’d have been able to focus on her tennis if she was surrounded by boys at school? If you went to a mixed school, think back to how much of your mental time went to thinking of the opposite sex, and how different things could have been if that time was spent on your studies?
    The left-wing British elite is the most hypocritical in the world. And no-where is this shown up so much as in schools. Their record in this department is a horror show.
    How can boys possibly be expected to concentrate on their school work, when they have girls their own age(and above) absolutely mesmerising them by dressing like tarts? It’s unbelievably *oppressive* and unfair.
    Another aspect I found fascinating at 14 or so, is that the pressure for girls to “put out”, doesn’t come from boys, it comes from the peer pressure of their girlfriends. I was amazed by this, but as you age, it makes sense.
    Isn’t it not interesting that for hundreds of years when the churches ran schools, as actual places to learn, and not as experiments in creating ‘democratic societies’, they segregated the kids by sex, for the most obvious reasons imaginable.
    And to this day, rich parents pay top dollar to have kids in sexually segregated at school. Yet us peasants get the opposite, we don’t even get the choice.
    It’s one of the very, very few utter societal catastrophes that cannot be blamed on Jews, we Brits did this to ourselves.
    I don’t know this, but wouldn’t be surprised to learn that this disaster is being blocked from being fixed by Jews though. And considering all Leftism is essentially a form of Judiasm, maybe we shouldn’t let them off the hook for this either.

  8. anonym
    anonym says:

    They reduce a genuine sense of community and home, into an abstract, intellectual idea of community and home. The Manchester City of past, and the new Manchester City, where hardly any of the players or coaches are English, and the whole club is part of an international sports concern, has nothing in common. The old club wasn’t as successful, but the bond between the supporters and the club was undoubtedly stronger on Maine Road than on the new Ethiad stadium.

    Why even have national competitions, when a team of foreigners in your country’s shirt wins over another team of foreigners? The sports fans pretends to be proud and patriotic when they win, but the smiles and the joy is as passionless and abstract as if the “best idea” had won. Or the best financial conglomerate.

    It’s civic nationalism for sports.
    And the guys who smile genuine smiles is doing so because it means that they have won: the have destroyed another part of our home.

  9. Seraphim
    Seraphim says:

    The ‘Romanian’ criminals were in fact ‘Romani’ i.e. Gypsies and certainly acted hand in hand with the ‘Romanichal’ (aka Angloromani, aka ‘English Gypsies or English Travellers’).

    • Donny C.
      Donny C. says:

      The gypsies i around the world through their organizations with the help from rich people with this heritage and also socalled tattare (Swedish term for another Indian heritage group) made a deal with India and they are now considered part of the east Indian diaspora.

      And the gypsies were thrown out of India, officially for eating cows given to them by an Indian maharaja or similar.

      In Sweden there is the saying: “eat the cake and keep it too”, meaning someone trying to eat to whole cake and also keep it which isn’t possible.

      So the gypsies and east Indians seems to in this case trying to: “eat the cake and keep it also”.

      Meaning they wanna have the financial benefits from living in formerly white countries or largely white countries and also be able to connect with their country of origin in an ethnicity sense. And I guess India would wan’t the benefit of connecting with a group already established in formerly white countries.

      So what does this imply regarding the gypsies and issues with them and the like and possible solutions to the problem with many in this particular group…

      Maybe this sense of belonging to India could in effect be part of some kind of movement or the like.

      In Eastern Europe there are gypsy chiefs living in luxury mansions from the groups of beggars and thieves they control in Europe. Gypsies engage in drug trade also.

      In Eastern Europe there are countries in which the gypsies are having lot’s of kids… I even saw someone implying they are taking over village after village or the like and so on…

      • ChilledBee
        ChilledBee says:

        Speaking of Romanians: Sandal Horsea had served a nine-year jail term in Italy for sex trafficking. Upon release, he then went to England to set up brothels. In between his pimping work he would burglarize homes. He entered the home of an affluent Asian family posing as a delivery driver. The following is a harrowing video of what he did to the female occupants of that home. One of the victims of this beast was only 14.

        Unfortunately, he is only one example of the thousands of Romanian criminals that have blighted the U.K.

        • Seraphim
          Seraphim says:

          And he wasn’t a Gypsy? No matter that you got his name wrongly.
          Remember the scandal of the ‘Benefits Boulevard’?
          “According to the Department of Work and Pensions’ website, Romanians working ‘in a self-employed capacity’ can claim housing and council tax benefit and child benefits…The result is that Romanian gypsies see Britain as the perfect destination as they try to escape poverty and discrimination in their home country… Gang members made regular budget flights to Britain, where they used forged Home Office residency documents and fake job references to obtain National Insurance numbers, and enabling them to claim tax credits, income support, child benefits and housing handouts”.
          You see, the ‘Roma’ were fleeing Romania because they were persecuted by Romanians.

        • Leon Foucault
          Leon Foucault says:

          Not that it matters when the gypsies leaved India but here we go.

          It is rumored that gypsies left because they ate cows given to them by the maharadja of some kind.

          They were according to the story given cows and were going to travel around India as musicians. But then they ate the cows and cows are I suppose holy in India so they were thrown out.

          Gene tests have shown that gypsies are from the lowest cast in India.

          There is another group often called “tattare” in the scandinavian region this because people thought they were tatrer the turkic people living in Russia. They were also from India but more mixed and gene tests have shown they were from different casts. So they could be fron an army that lost against a muslim army of some kind.

          The, just like gypsies speak a language originating in India. But they tend to be mixed with Europeans more.

          They are also looked down upon by majority populations a lot just like gypsies.

          I think these groups left India at different times but it may not have been really different so often these two groups are confused.

          There was even a gypsy in Sweden who wrote an article in a large newspaper claiming that the “tattare” are also gypsies, which is not really true from what I read on the subject.

  10. ChilledBee
    ChilledBee says:

    Another person who should be highlighted in the annals of Multiculturism in the UK is a man who was so successful at being an enterprising racketeer, pimp, and thug, Perec “Peter” Rachman. He came to London via Poland and in short order took over rent-controlled blocks of apartments in Notting Hill and promptly installed West Indians in hopes of driving the White tenants out with their criminal activities and loud music. He was so successful that he even got his own entry into the Oxford Dictionary that summed up in a word the brutal, tactics he implemented to get rid of White tenants “Rachmanism”. Fortunately for Rachman, his fellow tribe members in Parliament were instrumental in continuing the steady flow of West Indian tenants via the House of Commons by the Labour Attorney General, the immigrant Russian Jew Sir Frank Soskice when in 1965 when the first Race Relations Act was passed into law. We can thank the likes of Rachman for the vibrant and wonderful Notting Hill Festival.

    • T.Gilligan
      T.Gilligan says:

      Informative comment Chilled Bee, and an very pointed article Dr. Joyce regarding the stench of unabashed hypocrisy that is glaringly open. The Emperors New Clothes every time.

      Back to Rachman: documentary on BBC2 about 3 years ago about Notting Hill and the class divisions; the doc was narrated/presented by the mixed-race Nigerian Olusogo. One telling clip featured Rachman lording it in the back seat of a Rolls Royce with two glamourous ladies; the upper-middle class tones of the early 1960’s narrator was sycophantic in praising |Rachman for seeing the ‘dazzling opportunity of kicking out whites and putting black families in the flats’. That was quite revealing of the media and class using those terms to describe their own people.
      Cultural Benefits spot: On the London Metropolitan police web page they are looking for Balasanka Naraganan who absconded from a care facility. He is described as a white male (he’s clearly not, judging from the picture).
      ‘Triple shooting (and stabbing) at barbers as police hunt gunmen in Forest Gate’. Just as well there is no racial description if the first one is anytime to go by. From the London Evening Standard.

  11. Bobby
    Bobby says:

    Thanks as always for the great work Andrew.
    I’ve been using Orwell’s definition of freedom lately, to be able to say; 2+2=4, in response to the looney left and their garbage and the Jews and their Satanism;

    “Georgina Lawton, writing for the Guardian, has argued that “Raducanu is living proof of the way a country that celebrates cultural difference can succeed.” No, she isn’t. She’s living proof that a young woman of Euro-Asian parentage can do well academically and become extremely proficient at tennis.”

    That’s statement is a great example of 2+2=4. The subject is also a great example of how the Jews take anything and wrap it around reality and then distort reality, so that it benefits them.

    • Otto Siegel
      Otto Siegel says:

      This is however a new smart tactic by the racially mixed socalled jews.

      Indeed they can easily bring in hundreds of millions of well educated east asians and Indians and the like and have whites mix with them.

      Regardless their aim of a holocaust of the entire white race will succeed then.

      Those immigrants will be good workers and have low crime rate which will make the current strategy of the right wing anti immigration movements pretty useless. There will also be more mixing with them because they are smarter on average and nicer.

      The main focus by these organisations and movements is pointing out the often horrendous crimes of africans that are in Nordic countries 8 times overrepresented in RAPE crime and the same with arabs and the like.

      When this strategy will no loonger work these movements just have one oportunity to make progress, RACISM, or etno centrism with a largely white focus and so on.

      Otherwise DOOMED, just sayin…

      • Karlfried
        Karlfried says:

        Hello Otto Siegel, I agree with You.
        If a group, for example the German Volk or the white race, wants to survive, it is clear, that this group cannot allow foreigners to come into their country and breed and stay in large and growing numbers.
        That fact is very simple.
        There is no need to explain and justify this.

        It is the other way round, if we start explanations, that we want to live and why we want to live, we put ourselves in a weak place.

        It is a matter of cause that we want to live.
        And if someone wants to persuade us to commit racial suicide, than this one is clearly a death-bringer towards us. Maybe he says that he brings good things, but in the end he is a death-bringer.

        • Otto Siegel
          Otto Siegel says:

          Yes, really I am not an overly race obsessed person when it comes to politics, but in personal matter i.e. choice of partner and trust and such matters yes I assume you could call me highly etno centric.

          But yes indeed when different races or ethnical groups live in the same territory, there tends to be mixture over time and in effect after a while almost everyone of not all people will be mixed, so then there is no choice no more.

          This makes it seem possible to me that the idea of bringing subsaharian africans to America may have been a plan for intermixture from the beginning.

          Secret societies are rumored to have been involved in the American independence and such symbolism is used at the dollar bills (secret society symbols). It is my impression that these secret societies are pushing for racial mixture but I have no proof really other than certain formulations in what is said to be recruitment documents by such organizations.

          This can of course be partially dealt with with segregation as it was done in the states. The only reason I see for that is that one could have cheap labour from it. But look at Germany or Denmark for that matter these countries don’t have this mass cheap labour and do great without it.

          A more natural state of affairs would be I suppose to have segregation by territory of the different races from some kind of rough estimate on races or the like. Would be pretty easy to implement due to different races looking different and also state files regarding and showing the different origins of first and second generation immigrants and the like I suppose.

  12. Bobby
    Bobby says:

    Ah. Forgot to mention.
    Someone should write a piece on Merrick Garland (Garfinkle) threatening to use the DOJ to investigate and label as domestic terrorists, parents who are protesting and speaking out about their children being taught Critical Race Theory, in American schools. It is stunning how the Jews barely care to hide behind crypsis any longer.

    I would take a stab at it but can’t give the subject the time it deserves at the moment.

  13. katana
    katana says:

    Here’s a link to the podcast referring to the Skype Directory.

    Andrew Joyce’s Podcast – T & T No. 1 – The Skype Directory — Jul 15, 2020 — Transcript

    [The is the 2nd podcast (although labelled as No. 1) in a series from The Occidental Observer contributor and scholar Andrew Joyce on the “jewish problem/question“, with the series re-titled as “T & T” (“Talmud and Taboo“), and available at his newly created BitChute channel.

    In this podcast he discusses his Twitter based “Skype Directory” project that catalogued jewish activists with brief bios and descriptions of their work. This was eventually taken down by jews as it shone a light on their negative activities as jews and as a group.

    He then goes on to discuss the long-term efforts of leading jewish activists, such as billionaire Moshe Kantor, to criminalize worldwide of all and any criticism of jews and their agenda of multiculturalism, under the pretext of “tolerance“. A jewish tyranny, imposing total censorship as their goal, in other words.

    — KATANA]

  14. Trenchant
    Trenchant says:

    (Mod. Note: Can’t disagree with your assessment. Don’t recall approving those. Thanks for the catch, fixed.)

Comments are closed.