Saturday, 6 August 2016

OLYMPIC REQUIEM

Published at the time of the 2012 Olympics. Republished here to coincide with the opening of the Rio Olympics.


by Colin Liddell

Here in the UK the London Olympic Games have been considered a great success. After two weeks of competition, the British Olympic team has won an astounding 29 gold medals and has finished third in the medals table, above the mighty Russians and below only the USA and China. One of the most mentioned facts in recent days is the single gold medal we won at the 1996 Olympics. On the naïve level of simple, uncomplicated sporting enthusiasm it has been a resounding success, and an easy sell to the sporting inclinations of the UK public.

But looking at the bigger picture, the hidden agendas, and the crunched numbers, a different picture starts to emerge; one that suggests Britain’s Olympic success is merely the phosphorescent glow of an entity walking in death’s shadow.

When London won the ‘privilege’ of hosting the Olympics back in 2005, the British public were assured that the Games would boost the UK economy. As we entered the period of economic turbulence and prolonged recession that followed the Subprime Crash, the idea of the Olympics as an economic panacea became ever more entrenched. This was despite the fact that the last four Olympics all saw dramatic downturns in tourist revenues in the countries that hosted them. The present Olympics have revealed a similar pattern, with reports of the number of normal tourists driven away by security and congestion fears far outweighing the number of sports enthusiasts popping into town for their particular obsessions.

The bean counters in London – and London is a city that is mainly famous for its bean counters – certainly had more than an inkling that this would be the effect, especially as the UK has long been oversold as a tourist destination.

But the Olympic spectacle, despite the excesses of sponsorship and corporate hijacking, is not about profit so much as propaganda for the nation that hosts the event. With Beijing 2008 the intent was clear: China wanted to fluff up its image from being a giant, totalitarian sweatshop to something a little cuddlier for its Western trading receptors. In the case of London 2012 the propaganda agenda was more subtle, but obvious to anyone watching the multi-cultural-friendly, multi-channel coverage from the BBC from an un-brainwashed state.

So, why did Britain shoot itself in the foot economically by pumping billions of pounds to put on an Olympic Games that actually harmed tourist revenue? The answer is because it has become an “indigenocidal state,” that is a state in which the demographic trends lead inexorably towards the destruction of the racial character of the nation’s original inhabitants.

There are several stages in this process, and Britain is probably in the early middle phase, where the original inhabitants have been culturally and politically disarmed, and in which minority groups and mixed race groups are growing fast. At this stage the indigenocidal state has two main concerns:
  1. It must prevent the indigenous inhabitants perceiving their gradual genocide or prevent them seeing this in negative terms.
  2. It must prevent the colonizing ethnic minorities from being alienated to such an extent that their behaviour triggers off strong racial awareness among the indigenous group.
The engine driving this can either be a traitorous elite that feels contempt for its common people, which in a British context may be related to the class system as well as to the influence of globalist elements. Alternatively it could simply be driven by a ratchet effect that stems from economic factors, as any attempt to reverse the indigenocidal state would involve serious economic and political costs in the short-term.

The propaganda needs of the UK indigenocidal state explains why London pulled out all the stops to be selected as host city. The intention behind the Olympics became clear in the opening ceremony. To placate Britain’s Muslims the design for Team GB’s tracksuits and sportswear incorporated a blue cross of Saint George in the Union Jack pattern instead of a red one because the red cross was once a crusading symbol.

Most viewers were impressed by the opening ceremony pageant. This presented a potted history of Britain that devalued past ages and was heavily weighted in favour of the multicultural present. It reduced thousands of years of British history to three simplistic stages:
  1. Idyllic peasant society
  2. Industrialization scarring the landscape and oppressing the people
  3. Post-industrial healing through socialized medicine and multiculturalism
By highlighting the large number of non-White immigrants employed in the National Health Service, the pageant skilfully linked something the British public have deep misgivings about with something they have a great deal of belief in.

The content and tone of the pageant and the Olympic coverage that followed it focused disproportionately on Blacks. In the context of what happened in London last summer, when the city was shaken by riots, this could be viewed as abject appeasement.

During the pageant, there was a section that prominently featured race mixing as a positive and a thing to be taken entirely for granted. We saw a household with a Black father and White mother and their mulatto daughter, who lost her mobile phone which was then returned to her by a Black youth whom she then rewarded by kissing. The presumption was that they would then raise the next generation of even blacker Britons.

In addition to acclimatizing White Britons to having their daughters seduced and impregnated by Blacks, this segment seemed designed to send out a strong message to young Black males that they were not excluded, but are in fact valued and privileged members of society.

The indigenocidal state in plain site: giant 
non-White baby reared by the welfare state.
This is certainly the case for the British Olympic Committee, which goes out of its way to promote non-White athletes. The most obvious case of this was selection of Lutalo Mohammed (Black) instead the World number one Aaron Cook (White) to represent Britain in the under-80kg Taekwondo competition. Mohammed being Black and having a Muslim name was just too great a temptation for the box-ticking Team GB selectors to resist.

But why is it important for non-White and especially Black athletes to do well for Britain? The real answer is of course completely taboo. It is because, despite the best efforts of British society, Blacks are not the same as Whites and even with incessant affirmative action still find it difficult to achieve “equality.” Their lack of ability in most areas of expertise drives them to focus on those activities where their abilities can count or which are allocated to them by the wider society as part of a kind of caste system. As in other Western countries this is usually low-grade crime, music entertainment, and some sports. Having Black athletes winning gold medals for the UK is perhaps the easiest way to create an illusion of positive, high-profile social inclusion.

In these Olympics Britain’s Black athletes did reasonably well. There were two boxing golds from Afro-Caribbeans – one male and one female – while Mohamed Farar (his name conveniently shortened to "Mo"), a refugee from Somalia, won two more gold medals in long distance running. The mulatto athlete Jessica Ennis also won the high-profile Heptathlon.

This meant that five of the UK’s 29 gold medals were won by Non-Whites, or around one sixth. But this proportion was still much lower than expected or hoped for. The script was for Blacks to feature much more prominently. The actual results meant that the media had to work harder to magnify the Black contribution to Britain’s medal tally and to the Olympics in general (Bolt mania) while subtly downplaying White success.

The proportion of Black medal winners in the UK’s tally was limited by two factors: Black failures and White successes. Because Black British athletes enjoy a degree of favouritism, they can often under-perform in competition. Lutalo Mohammed, the Taekwondo fighter, for example, ended up winning only a bronze. But a more significant and interesting factor was the success of Britain’s White athletes. But this success is not what it seems.

Lutalo Mohammed, box ticker, bronze medalist
Any Olympic success is built on a mountain of training as well as a heap of also-rans who found out the hard way they didn’t have what it takes to succeed at a particular sport. Quite simply, sport is a losing game for most people. If you come from a minority that has shown little aptitude for anything else, then it makes sense to dedicate years of your life to the possibility of winning Olympic gold, as you have nothing to lose and nothing to gain elsewhere, especially if the society you live in supports this. This is quite opposite from the situation traditionally faced by bright young Whites. In the past, the large number of careers and opportunities offering a much more reliable chance of success and demanding less in the way of sacrifice meant that there was little temptation to get deeply involved in sport. Britain’s impressively high medal tally suggests that this is no longer the case.

A combination of recession, austerity, outsourcing, cheap immigrant labour, affirmative action (a.k.a. anti-White racism), and the rise of short-term contract work over permanent employment is now putting the squeeze on the kind of people who would never have dedicated their lives to sport before. For these people sport has now becoming the same kind of low-chance escape that it has always been for Blacks. In other words, intelligent and driven young White people have now been pushed by our society into the position once occupied by ethnic minorities. Gold medals won by Whites are now also tickets out of the ghetto. Celebrate that, Britain!

 

No comments:

Post a Comment