This World Cup is already exposing the western hypocrisy.
First there were reports of shootings near the English camp and now their equipment has been stolen.
Yet the same people who made a big deal about Qatar not allowing alcohol in stadiums haven’t said a single word about any of this.
They want to fly halfway across the world and lecture other countries on how to run things, but stay silent when it’s a Western country dealing with serious safety concerns.
Funny how it works, right?
When Russia hosted the World Cup in 2018, it had to suspend normal visa rules for the tournament. Foreigners with tickets could enter visa-free, using a scheme called ‘Fan ID.’
Russia also had to do weird stuff to keep FIFA’s sponsors happy. For example, small shops near Fan Zones and stadiums could only sell Budweiser beer on match days.
So yes, FIFA absolutely does dictate conditions to host governments when it suits FIFA. Infantino pretending otherwise is nonsense.
Who believed that "if they only released the hostages"? Who believed in the ceasefire?
After killing 500+ people in about 3 months, Israel- armed and supported by the US - continues its genocide in Gaza undisturbed.
Don't let it become the new normal. Stand up against genocide!
Cuba is not a "disaster" because Cubans are incompetent.
Cuba is a poor country that has survived 60+ years of blockade from the richest empire on earth.
You call them "incompetent people" while ignoring that Washington has tried, every single decade, to strangle their economy, sabotage their development, and punish any country that trades with them.
The miracle is not that Cuba is poor.
The miracle is that after Bay of Pigs, assassination attempts, terrorism, sanctions, and embargoes, Cuba still has doctors, schools, and a state that never once knelt and begged for U.S. permission to exist.
If Cuba is "destroyed," what do you call a country that spends trillions on wars and still can’t give its people free healthcare, affordable housing, or debt-free education?
You look at a nation that has been economically suffocated for generations and blame the victim’s "incompetence."
I look at the same island and see something else:
A small country that refused to sell its sovereignty, and is still being punished for the crime of not wanting to be someone else’s plantation.
@marcorubio@SecRubio
This is what their government did to make them rich, he failed because he wanted to.
1. Job Reservation. Mines and Works Act (1911, amended 1926)
This law officially reserved skilled and high-paying jobs for white people only, especially in mining and industry.
Example: A Black worker could not become an artisan or supervisor, even if they had experience. White workers were protected by law. This worked like BEE in reverse, it guaranteed jobs for whites only.
2. Industrial Conciliation Act (1924)
This law recognised white trade unions but excluded Black workers from many labour protections and skilled positions.
Example: White workers could negotiate wages and promotions, while Black workers were treated as cheap labour. This helped white people move up economically.
3. Colour Bar in Employment (Formalised from the 1920s, enforced strongly after 1948)
Many jobs were officially or unofficially marked as “white only”.
Example: A company could legally refuse to hire a Black manager or engineer. White people had first preference in employment and promotions.
4. Natives Land Act (1913)
This law stopped Black people from owning or buying land in most of South Africa. Only about 7% of land was set aside for Black people (later increased to 13%).
Example: A white family could own large farms, while Black families were forced into overcrowded areas. This created white wealth and Black poverty.
5. Native Trust and Land Act (1936)
This law reinforced the 1913 Land Act and strengthened land separation.
Example: Black people were further restricted from land ownership, while white farmers were protected and supported by the state.
6. Group Areas Act (1950)
This law forced people to live and do business in areas assigned to their race. The best urban and business areas were reserved for whites.
Example: Black business owners were removed from city centres, while white businesses took over prime locations.
7. Bantu Education Act (1953)
This law created separate education systems. White schools were well funded, while Black schools were designed to prepare students for manual labour.
Example: White children were trained to become professionals. Black children were trained to be workers. This gave whites a long-term advantage in jobs and income.
8. Pass Laws. Natives (Abolition of Passes and Co-ordination of Documents) Act (1952)
Despite the name, this law strengthened pass controls. Black people needed permission to live or work in cities.
Example: A Black person could be arrested for being in the city without papers, while white people moved freely and accessed jobs easily.
9. Homelands /Bantustans. Promotion of Bantu Self-Government Act (1959)
This law stripped Black South Africans of citizenship and forced them into “homelands”.
Example: A Black person was treated like a foreigner in their own country, limiting access to jobs, businesses, and wealth. White people kept full rights.
10. Government Contracts and Tenders (1948–1994)
During apartheid, state contracts mainly went to white-owned companies through laws, regulations, and practice.
Example: White businesses received government work and funding, while Black businesses were excluded. This is very similar to today’s BEE procurement, except it was permanent and whites-only.
From 1911 to 1994, South Africa had race based laws that economically empowered white people only.
These laws affected land, jobs, education, business, and movement. BEE exists today because those advantages lasted for decades and created deep inequality that did not disappear in 1994.
Apartheid was a violent legal system that stripped Black South Africans of citizenship, land, movement, education, and skilled work. Today’s redress policies are not “anti-white laws.” Equating the two is historically illiterate, morally bankrupt, and deliberately dishonest.
Mohamed Salah is a defensive liability and his output no longer justifies Liverpool carrying him. Lots of numbers here that show that clearly.
https://t.co/KHumUIdOfK