RUGBY WORLD CUP 2019

I wasn't going to bother writing about the Rugby World Cup, but as someone over at Counter Currents has covered it without addressing the real issue, I thought I'd chip in with a short article. As someone who actually played the sport back in the 1990s, I feel I'm a little more qualified than many to comment on how the game has been transformed. When I first started playing at adult level, the whole of rugby union was amateur, ruthlessly so. Anyone who had been paid to play professional rugby league was not permitted to play union and a declaration had to be signed. Most at the rugby club I played for openly displayed their disdain for homosexuals and persons of colour. This was the norm and rightly so. Fast forward a mere twenty years and these normal and natural attitudes have been stamped out - at least superficially. But Nature will always seek to reassert herself and such attitudes will become the norm again as soon as the establishment propaganda machine and means of legal coercion are removed. Equally, national attitudes have also changed, which brings me back to the World Cup.

 

 

 

It was obvious the establishment were going to use South Africa's victory as another bit of relentless anti-White "diversity" propaganda. What ought to have been mentioned in Fenek Solère's article though is that in continuing to play for the South African team, the white players have aided and abetted the "rainbow nation" propaganda and legitimated the ANC's anti-White pogroms. To the outsider looking in on proceedings in Japan, all is well with South Africa. Had an all-black team (no pun intended) taken the field due to a lack of white players willing to collaborate, questions would have had to have been asked. They have betrayed their people as surely as F W de Klerk did when he handed the country to black rule. Although Apartheid was an untenable system - as all multiracial societies are - what ought to have been done was to create a country around the former Orange Free State and Transvaal for Whites.

 

The problem with South Africa is though that it is and always has been multi-ethnic, and as such, a South African team will necessarily reflect that. What was worse was the other team in the final, that of England, whose team was only half ethnically English, with Tongans, Samoans, Fijians and Nigerians all lining up to play for a foreign country. Some were not even born here and became eligible to play after a mere three years' residency, as is now the norm. International rugby, as with other sports, was once about national pride and a battle between rival nations directed into a non-destructive form. Nowadays it is merely an elite-level tier of competition, with countries having become as much clubs as Gloucester, Harlequins and the rest - although it must be remembered that such regional clubs were formed to serve the local community, with the players coming from that particular area.

 

 

 

Professionalism has certainly opened the door to globalism and the dissolution of countries in the minds of sports fans. Back in the mid-1990s, when rugby union first embraced professionalism, there was considerable controversy surrounding various players from New Zealand and Australia coming over and representing Northern Hemisphere teams when they seemed to have little connection with the countries they began playing for. Former Scotland great Gavin Hastings was extremely critical of Ian McGeechan's selection process for the Scottish team in which a large contingent of "kilted Kiwis" were brought over, such as Brendan Laney, Sean Lineen, Glenn Metcalfe and the Leslie brothers, who had suddenly got in touch with their Scottish roots and qualified through a single Scottish grandparent. It was odd though that this sudden interest in alleged lands of ancestry came at exactly the same time as players started to be paid.

 

The issue was settled with the residency ruling in which a player only has to be resident in a country for three years to qualify to play for that country. It meant even players with no ancestral attachments to a country could play for that country. No one questions this ruling anymore because the media silenced any dissent long ago. What it does though is not only to rob native talent of their places in the national team of the host nation, but it impoverishes the national team of the country from which the player has come. Tonga and Samoa won one match each in the Rugby World Cup. How much more competitive would they have been, had the Vunipola brothers (100% Tongan) and Manu Tuilagi (100% Samoan) been playing for their proper ancestral homelands?

What is ultimately happening though, is coercion into the masses accepting that countries are now clubs; and the professional clubs themselves, of course, are now little more than companies. This is the cancer of liberal capitalism that turns all life into a series of commodities, capital, companies and business transactions. Sport, once an enjoyable pastime for all, has now been consumed by liberalism and is used as a vehicle to convey the liberal ethos. Equally, people are increasingly divided into players and spectators. One of the reasons for the mass apathy in Western Man has been his willingness to become a passive spectator in life. For me, this certainly began with the professionalisation of sport and the advent of television, both of which reduced his need to be an active participant in his own entertainment. His former aggressivity and vigour has been expended via proxies in the stadium and on the screen. He no longer knows what it is like to physically battle against other men to win.

 

But everyone has choice in this and at all levels in all contexts. I once knew a former player for Middlesborough Football Club, who is now sadly no longer with us. Despite being offered a contract, he refused, choosing to work instead and play as an amateur because he refused to sell out on his belief in the spirit of amateurism. Equally, those Boers who represented South Africa have the choice to organise teams and leagues among themselves. They would not be remunerated for their endeavours, but equally, they would not be aiding and abetting a regime that wishes to see their people's genocide. Neither can I understand the loyalty shown by nationalists to rugby or football clubs which have been instrumental in undermining national consciousness. Every black player is allegedly an affront to them, yet every year they still paid for a season ticket. And now we have it at the national level - although we have had it for some time. 

 

Did South Africa win the World Cup and England lose? No, I actually agree with the Leftist media: diversity won. It will continue to win as long as we as Whites continue to buy into a system in which lone individuals of our race are rewarded for perceived achievements while other races as a whole are rewarded for nothing. That is the system all those white players have bought into. South Africa's players will receive approximately £10,000 each from World Rugby for winning the World Cup. The SARU, however, will receive millions in broadcasting rights and sponsorship deals etc., which it can pump into developing more black players. And roughly the same system will apply in England. As long as we continue to embrace liberal capitalism and cut each other's throats for ever-dwindling shekels, we will continue to lose. We can choose to win, however; but that will take an entirely different mindset, one based on esprit de corps, teamwork, vigour and a disdain for materialism. Funnily enough, they are the values rugby union was founded on.