Brazil 1 – 7 Germany

In between the World Cup and Continental Championships (Euros, Copa America, African Nations, Olympics? etc), the Confederations Cup was played every two years – since 1995 – before FIfa decided to host it every four years instead. Brazil won the last three (2013: Beating Spain 3-0, 2009: Beating USA 2- 3, 2005: Beating Argentina 4-1). Of these three victories, their 3-0 defeat of Spain was most telling as Spain, had won the 2008 and 2012 European Championships, beating Germany (1-0) and Italy (4-0) respectively. In between, they had also won the World Cup 2010, beating Holland 1-0 AET. With Pep Guardiola’s Barcelona players central to their squad, it was also noteworthy that Barcelona had featured in five consecutive Champions semi-finals between 2008 and 2012, and one more in 2013, when Pep had left: (United 1 – 0 Barcelona AGG), 2009 (Barcelona 2 – 0 United, Winners), 2010 (Barcelona 2 – 3 Inter Milan AGG) 2011 (Barcelona 3 – 1 United, Winners), 2012 (Chelsea 3 – 2 Barcelona AGG.) Although in April 2013, they were eliminated by Munich, two months later, many of these Barcelona players would reaffirm themselves on the international stage and lift the world cup, en route, beating Germany, in the semi final, along the way.

Having been eliminated by France in the 2006 World Cup, Spanish football had come a long way, and although they were stunned by USA in the 2009 Confederations Cup Semi Finals, they were expected to beat Brazil in the 2013 final, only to be stunned once again in the final by a Neymar led attack. Brazil looked set to honour their host nation status and win the 2014 World Cup in their backyard, but Germany had other plans. In the semi-final, they dominated and humiliated Brazil racing ahead in the first half thanks to five goals, with four of them coming in 9 minutes. After the game, lots of criticism was levelled against the Brazil squad, and yet, the irony was that the starting eleven was not very different from that team that had beaten Spain months earlier. Brazil were missing Silva (suspension) – replaced by Dante – and Neymar (injury) – replaced by Bernard – but the side featured 7 starters from 2013, whilst Paulinho, a starter in 2013, came on at half time. Miacon replaces Alves, completing the four changes, meaning that there were only four changes, with two of them being forced.

2013 Brasil 3 – 0 Spain 2014 Brasil 1 – 7 Germany

12 Julio Cesar 12 Julio César
02 Alves 23 Maicon
03 Thiago Silva 13 Dante
04 David Luiz 04 David Luiz
06 Marcelo 06 Marcelo
11 Oscar 11 Oscar
17 Luiz Gustavo Dias 17 Luiz Gustavo Dias
18 Paulinho (Hernanes – 88′ ) 05 Fernandinho (Paulinho – 45′ )
09 Fred (Jo – 80′ ) 09 Fred (Willian – 69′ )
10 Neymar 20 Bernard
19 Hulk (Jadson – 73′ ) 07 Hulk (Ramires – 45′ )

Brazil’s collapse, then, cannot simply be attributed to their squad, despite it being deemed so average. Maybe the likes Ramires and Paulinho could have started the match, but would it have made much of a difference. More importantly, the question of the Brasillian defence is the real question here, for at least five of Germany’s goals came from Brazil errors.
1 Marcelon gives the ball away and eventually, an unmarked German score from the corner
2 Hulk misplaces a pass and after a counter, Klose scores after Paulinho fails to intercept
3 After a hopeful Luiz long ball, Germans counter. Mueller misses cut back but Kroos doesn’t
4 Seconds later, Kroos steals from Paulinho in his own half, and exchanges passes to score
5 Luiz misplaces a hopeful pass, then pulls out of a tackle as Khadeira goes on to score
6. Lahm, unmarked, takes advantage of Marcelo out of place, and squares it to Schurle
7 Players get caught chasing Lahm, after a long throw, as he plays it back to Schurle
We might argue that if not for these criminal errors, the score line would have been very different even if, as the summary below suggests, Germany had at least three more chances to score. Brazil did, however, miss three decent chances, and so, did themselves no favours, but the fact remains, it was more a case of an implosion than a conquest.

1ST HALF

09:35 Marcelo misplaces a pass from Hulk, deep in the German half, and the Germans break. Marcelo tracks back and intercepts a cross earning a corner for Germany. From a Kroos (18) cross, an unmarked Mueler volleys the ball in for the first.

21:37 In the opposition half, Hulk misplaces a pass (intercepted) and Germany break, winning a throw deep within Brazils half. Muller then plays a ball to Kroos that Paulinho fails to intercept – actually misses the ball. The pass is played to Klose who scores on his second attempt after the keeper’s parry “…And Brazil looking very weak defensively here.”

Seconds after Bernard fails to control a long diagonal from Luiz, the keeper collects. Neur throws to Mueller, and after 4 passes – Mueller – Khaideira – Kroos – Mueller – Lahm. Lahm cuts the ball back from the wing, and Mueller misses the shot only for Kroos to pop up and lash the ball home. “It’s getting too easy for Germany”
*Paulinho should have pressed Kroos early, but also, should not have let him continue to run after, but got distracted by Mueller.

Again, seconds later, Kroos spots a Dante pass to Paulinho and tackles Paulinho from behind, deep within the Brazil half. He plays to an unmarked Khadira who has broken loose in a CF position. He plays back to Kroos who slots the ball in
“…its mayhem..Its total collapse for Brazil; It’s goals and glory for Germany”
Commentator reminds us they lost a 4 – 0 lead against Sweden in the qualifiers

28:40 Mueller misplaces a through ball to the feet of Luiz who plays a long ball forward, but it is missed by the forward. Clearing up, the defender races forward from the DM position into the OM position in Brazils half. Despite a bad touch, his lunge beats Luiz to the ball and plays it on to Khadiera who following a 1-2 with Ozil to his left, sweeps the ball home. Note: Dante fails to play Ozil offside whilst Maicon is indecisive in who he is picking up
“Game 61 of 64…it’s five and Brazil are in absolute tatters. Germany are wiping the floor with them”

2ND HALF

50 Klose fails to control a ball that would have made it 2 on 1 against the Brazil keeper
5130 After great work by Marcelo on the left, he passes to Ramires who puts Oscar in only for a weak shot straight at the Keeper
5240 After a corner kick, and a clearance, Ramires headers the ball through to Paulinho who does not trouble the keeper
5800 Schurle is on for Klose and begins with a foul on Marcelo
58:40 Fred takes a shot instead of bringing his partner into play
59 Under pressure, Luiz misplaces a pass back in his own half, however, Mueller is not able to round the keeper completed as it goes out for a goal. A minute later, the keeper makes a great one handed save from a left footed Mueller curler.
61 David Luiz finds Maicon with a fine ball, which he controls on his first touch in the German box, but then falls over under a ghost challenge, as the ball goes out for a corner, essentially wasting a dangerous position
64 After a Luiz past does not find its player , German counter but player on the wing cannot locate Ozil who is advancing or Schurle who is free, unmarked, on the far right
66 Luiz far up the field does not complete his pass, as the block is intercept up field to Mueller, who after playing a 1-2 with Khadiera, releases it to the two free players on the right, but the Brasillian keeper sweeps up
6830 from German defence, play develops up to Lahm who, after playing an exchange with Khadiera on the right, moves into the box, and plays the ball square to Schurle who just got ahead of Mueller to score his first of the game. Marcelona caught out and no one marks Schurle in the box as three are caught ball watching (Willian is bought on immediately for Fred)
75 Khedira off as Draxler comes on
78 After Luiz intercepts a pass for a throw, Germany build from the left, then suddenly, following a Mueller pass from the left wing, Schurle lashes the ball past the keeper. Stunning! The long throw caught them off but also, they were caught chasing Mueller who was in quite a harmless position.
8830 Oscar, played through at a tight angle, shoots the ball wide rather than cutting it across. Only 30 seconds later, Bernard skies a shot, and then, 30 seconds later, as the Germans counter, Ozil completely miscues a 1-on-1, sending his shot wide. (Schurle, although catching up, was wide open on his right) then finally, on the Brazil counter, Oscar scores the final goal. After Marcelo plays it high to the left wing, having beaten the offside trap with a diagonal run, Oscar cuts in past Dante, and shoots the ball over the falling keeper.

Posted in Eternal Birth | Leave a comment

Why We Are Bitter

Our future is futile! All we want is everything and yet, we will have nothing. It is as if we shall forever be on the outside looking in, waiting to take that opportunity that will never come .

There is nothing in place for us, at least, nothing we can see, never mind reach. For the females, they want to live vicariously through those who have fame and for the males, they want to live lavishly, conspicuously, and large.

Maybe we need to add “us” the HOES, as opposed to just putting “me” between the HOES. Either way, the only property we seem to be concerned with is that which elevates us and makes us feel somebody.

Apparently…

Posted in Eternal Birth | Leave a comment

Hoax Caller (B)

In January 2013, a year after starting, we left. We could no longer sustain radio. We were not financially accomplished. We could not be doing all this “voluntary” work if it was not “paying” us/off. Also, we could no longer make the effort to travel there every week, as the distance was taxing. We could no longer come in on a Tuesday which was a labour day. There were, however, deeper reasons. It was as if I was not taking hold of my life, and by that, we mean “realities.” At times, for instance, we were entering the studio despite housing issues and other uncertainties. (As for finances, that is always an issue.) Beyond that, vanity happened: for the information we were offering, we felt slighted by the Tuesday afternoon thinking there should have been enough initiative to give us a “better” slot, even if that meant a longer one. It was as if we were a cog in the wheel, and so there was an issue of “recognition.” It was as if “management” was not familiar with “management”, and factors of talent recognition etc. It was as if they did not realise the amount of effort we had begun to put into the broadcasts, or the depth of research that we had engaged in. We were seen as “just another” as opposed to someone with “the answer.” Again, we can never say if we have “all answers”, but we surely have many, and yet, when there was no “discrimination”, it was as if the people in positions of importance, were sleeping; asleep dreaming they’re awake. Our issue, however, was not the management; it was the people. We also came to fear that they were “groupies.” They were without memory, without discernment, and without conviction. They were defeated and indifferent and so, could not discern my seriousness. They were jokers and clowns imagining they were more serious than they were when really, they were not prepared to do the work to graduate their thought and transform them into serious people. They were there for the ride, and would do so with whoever was on the slot.

There is so much data flying about, or floating about these days, that few can discern the quality of anything. There are a myriad of “talkers” on the “circuit”, and many are repeating the same stuff. There are popular icons, and public figures of prominence, and yet, often, we remain no better. For this reason, this mess, we only listen to a set few; we prefer that to the promiscuous approach. There are those “gullible” ones, however, who entertain anything, discerning little. They have no overall focus and live for the moment, without direction. They take on all information without ever drawing it together, or placing it into a wider framework. They have no memory but live in a continuous present; they are immersed in diversion and obsessed with distractions; they like fashion trends and current affairs that are of no relevance in terms of ultimate goals; they think “positive” without constructive practice; they consume information like it was a buffet; they gather knowledge like hoarders collect newspaper. They fail to, however, collaborate. They fail to develop programmes or put systems in place for peoples that will come after them. They talk about nations but have no relations. They say the family is under attack but cannot piece together their own ones; they live on benefits and say we need to “know ourselves.” They are an embarrassment; they have little appeal; they have little class; in short, they do not impress. They are the necessary dupes. They need to exist to deplete us; they are form without substance. If no one were to call us up, we might realise we are not “reaching” people, but with their “feedback”, we get lost, mistaking our “reaching” for “connecting.”

We stepped down from our role to focus on financial ones. We said we need to secure our future rather than sacrificing it for people who were not going to support or uplift us. It is not to “blame” them as fundamentally, there is no sustaining consciousness for these ideas. There are no platforms or structures for these ideas. We are just a scattered collective. We will continue to burnout and breakdown so long as there is no organising collective or more importantly, a CODE. In the past, however, we attempted to be spectacular individuals. We thought we could “go at it alone.” We imagined our “talk” would be of consequence without realising it needed a collective. This means then, that the issue is twofold. Firstly, there are few serious people. Many of the listening audience are “clowns” however, there are others who are indifferent as they have little faith in the talk. When they were serious, others were not; when they put themselves out, others did not. When they gathered knowledge, others did not appreciate them; when they made sacrifices, others ignored them. When they made efforts, few paid attention. When they warned us, we laughed at them. And when they died, we cried for them, without ever having done things for them when they were living. These people gave their time and made efforts; many were serious about “dignity” – dubbed, “liberation” – but were met with ridiculousness. They listened to radio desperate to hear seriousness but instead, were met with comedy. They came to listen to people who should have been nowhere near a mic. They were listening to personalities rather than workers. They wanted builders but hear banter, and did the right thing: they left hoes to be hoes and didn’t attempt to turn them into housewives. Myself, I called up these jokers and mocked them… hoping others would realise it was a parody. Few saw through this comedy; they took the farce for fact because for them, between work and play, there was little difference.

<img src="” alt=”” />

Posted in Eternal Birth | Leave a comment

Hoax Caller (A)

We cannot quite recall exactly when it was we started to tune in to “protest” radio, in particular, the “conscious” station. We used to attend the “meetings” but no longer. We rarely even hail the others we see – they are people that we used to know. Even today, we are quite reluctant to listen to broadcasts, never mind call in, as we see the broadcasts as a farcical. Nevertheless, between January 2012 and January 2013, we hosted a “show” on a West London platform, broadcasting to the public, on Tuesday afternoons. This lasted for a year, but was with its difficulties. In particular, we had a couple disagreements with “management”, questioning the degree to which they were “serious” and “focussed.” Much rather, they had a problem. They found us to be “eccentric.” They concluded that we were “intelligent” but needed to value our “leaders.” Earlier, they had complained suggesting that our broadcasts were missing some direction and structure however, later on, their argument evolved. They came to take exception to our comments on leadership. This was because, we challenged the popular rhetoric and cherished convictions. We said that these icons and their accompanying images, whilst assuring and comforting, were unimportant. We said that whilst their memories may soothe us, there legacies are not apparent. In sum, we said, these “stories” were irrelevant. Our argument was quite simply, it does not matter how far I have some if I still have so far to go. Likewise, I cannot concern myself with the best efforts at escape if I remain in a cell and so, unless we were going to use these previous efforts to update or contrive a plan, to even mention them was to delude ourselves.

Peoples preferred the dream. They didn’t want me to delve into these characters and identities and so there was a split. There were some listeners who took to this “refreshing” approach, and scholastic bias, by meeting us with praise and gratitude. Meanwhile, there were others who saw our effort as “prehistoric”, akin to taking people through a “museum” tour. (It was intriguing but didn’t provide us with anything to take away.) In fact, it seemed to be that they were suggesting we were “abstract.” Finally, there was another critique: apparently, in addition to “attacking” the concept of “community” and “leaders”, we were quoting “James Baldwin.” To his credit, we praised Baldwin for “defeating” Minister Malcolm in their debate (which was more a panel discussion.) It was not that Baldwin was “articulate” but “sharp”, and we recognised that. (Oba Shaka said this.) We found this useful in as much as seeing our “heroes” defeated gets us to reflect. American getting whooped by Vietnam got them “thinking” (although, in a typically British fashion, they will belittle this defeat so as the maintain their psychological superiority-selfhood.) In short, we were told to stop referring Baldwin and to stop attacking leaders. We might say that to some extent, this was useful . Another maestro at the station said that we needed to uplift the people who already are bitter and defeated whilst a caller suggested that we were speaking down to people. (Another suggested we were not enthusiastic.) In time, we came to work with these comments, and work alongside the callers; the people.

During our broadcasts, we sometimes clashed with a caller who spoke about “spirituality”. Those who “know” us know that we have no patience for the “spooky stuff” seeing it as an alternative to the typical escape of sex. We have always found the concept to be ill-defined and conveniently, poorly judged. Our critique is outlined as follows: We rarely, for instance, ever hear anyone linking spirituality to morality, but moreover, have yet to see people who compliment this evolutionary consciousness with concrete challenges to the existing regime, and status quo, every day in their walking life. It is as if this “hysterical” comfort is an excuse for serious study, hence, why we refuse to entertain this “melanin magic”, and ignore those who even mention it. People like Manu Ampin, have answers, without saying we have a special connection with the “most high” but instead, we “believe” in the “Willie Lynch” speech. For these reasons, we sometimes clashed with this caller, however, this isn’t to pretend that we were the enemy of the people. We had many supporters. Our problem, however, was with the seriousness of these people, rather than the resistance and opposition. Our “problem” then, was with our “friends” rather than our “enemies.” Those who “liked” us did not seem to take this sympathy further. Instead, we still had people asking us about a “solution” rather than accepting our concept of seriousness. We had people calling us “intelligent” but still not taking on board our concept of “seriousness.” We HAVE people who like our language-focus, but still do not quite seem serious. This remains our issue. Those who study, do so for play, whilst those who are not that way inclined, only play.

Posted in Eternal Birth | Leave a comment

To Accuse Or Suspect (Vol 3)

Only last week, I sat in on a forum of nonwhites. In their presence was a white female who was doing research into the experiences of nonwhites in attempting to get access to services. The attendees complained about the council not recognising their group but paying lip service to it in their reports so as to tick the boxes of their “equality” criteria. (In a routine manner, these “blacks” did not exist beyond the “uses” and “purposes” of the whites. They were objects, or chattel, for these uses of these “professionals.”) The attendees fretted and ultimately enquired as to what the researcher would do with the information they gathered as if it was to collate a report, the idea was not new. They even informed her that many reports had been published in the past. It got worse when one person claimed that they need to inform and educate the council on how to help them. It was at this point I all but wept. It was as if these nonwhites still did not get it; the council has no regard for people it has no concern for. It cannot be reformed; it cannot be educated. It is beyond ruin.

These nonwhites still clung to their faith in “human” beings and imagined, as it were, that these whites were operating within a moral framework. It is this idea of a moral framework which may soon become a recurring theme. Syed, for instance, has repeatedly brought to our attention the work of a Nigerian based writer who claims that what the nonwhite world did not realise about Europe was that the Europeans were not operating within a moral framework. (This reiterates what Marimba Ani noted in “Yurugu” when she spoke about the “rhetorical ethic” which sees Europeans utilise language as a weapon to neutralise or deceive nonwhites.) Although I have contested this idea of a moral framework with Syed, he seems to prefer that idea. I prefer to say that they have a different concept of language that is not shared by nonwhites; that unlike nonwhites, whites draw upon language to maintain their regime, and so, to begin with, they are starting from a different place; a place of power. I do not see it as an issue of morality; I see it as an issue of language and a matter of power. It is from this place I have to be suspicious of this lady when she speaks of “white supremacy”. Is she trying to pull a T.I. and “bring em out”?

With my colleague I explained the subtle dynamics implicit, and in the background, when speaking with this white lady. I can tell her that she is in a position of power and that I am very cognisant of; that it has an impact and dictates how I can respond to her. I cannot, for instance, answer her “question” and “explain” to her, Neely Fuller’s functional concept of “race” as “white supremacy.” I cannot speak openly with any white person about race because whiteness is a political party; that there is generally a possessive investment in whiteness; that she is a person but I am not one under the current arrangements; that I can volunteer information to her that she hijacks, subverts and uses against nonwhite peoples. I cannot “inform” her of her whiteness and what it entails in terms of her being a warden as opposed to a prisoner; that at any time, a white person is a police enforcer; that I am under her rule and at her mercy; that she is in charge and in control. I can only do what she permits; and yet, she must acknowledge, and even confess this, but that isn’t everything.

Posted in Eternal Birth | Leave a comment

always learning

On duty

Posted in Eternal Birth | Leave a comment

To Accuse Or Suspect (Vol 2)

In the week, I met with a “white” woman. Of course, she was not a “white” woman but an associate. She was in fact a voice hearer group facilitator. We were meeting to discuss the possibility of combining to work on a paper exploring paranoia and hearing voices. She was seeing if I might be a consultant to the project which involved training services in the experiences of voice hearers. Agreeing provisionally, she then proceeded to show me a slide from their planned training sheet and it looked at the background of people; their frame of reference which “informs our beliefs about the world and our beliefs about other people’s beliefs.” Of these many items, “race” was on the agenda, which prompted her to pose a question to me, as a non-white: should race be included as a frame of reference, assuming, and since, there is one race. It was at this point that our thinking began.

Later in the conversation, as she went on to talk about bel Hooks she mentioned “white supremacy”, and maybe she expected to me to be moved but far from that, I was suspicious. Tim Curry has destroyed “white privilege” arguments, whilst Renegade has embarrassed white rhetoricians who profess to challenge white supremacy, and likewise, when a white female mentioned this, my initial reaction was to question her purpose in pushing the envelope. To begin with, she did not connect herself to white supremacy but the way she spoke about it might have suggested it was something abstract, in the ether, somewhere. It did not seem to connect her to the regime; to identify the ways in which she might be complicit in the regime and even collaborate with practitioners within it. More importantly, “white supremacy” does not identify the ways a “white” person performs “zookeeperism.”

It makes it impersonal and to the extent someone does that, they collude in maintaining the order, by design or by default. Saying “white supremacy” implies that the prisoner and the warden can work together to eradicate or eliminate this evil but invisible menace that is out there somewhere. It implies, pretends, or imagines that we have equal power, or powerlessness, and are similarly subjected to the regime; taking for granted, of course, the regime exists. More importantly, “white supremacy”, like the words “racism” is a scapegoat, a puppet; it is akin to the football fans complaining about the spectator making “insulting” gestures and chants, singling that person out as a “bad apple” and a “racist” as opposed to identifying that person as one offshoot of the already pathological regime that their chanting is merely an extension of. This white supremacy talk then was only a reason to be suspicious in as much as it obscured more than it explored.

If this associate wanted to be useful she would have put on the table the issue of how her whiteness operates and how she practices. performs or permits zookeeperism, Therefore, we agree with Renegade who asks all “white” people to speak about the regime and their role within in it; how they function in relation to nonwhites and how they relate to each other as whites, whilst Welsing asks that whites tell nonwhites what they speak about when nonwhites are not around. For us, the issue is “whiteness” and for nonwhites, this whiteness is an inescapable reality. It cannot be ignored, overlooked or bypassed because as a nonwhite, my experience and reality is dominated and dictated by the zookeepers I am subjected to and at the mercy of. She cannot cease to be white, even at this personal level we were in. She is always white, and her whiteness is always an issue (suspect), or a problem (accuse). Earlier today when I met another friend, the topic was “whiteness” and the extent to which “whites” are conscious of how their whiteness impacts and affects others,

Posted in Eternal Birth | Leave a comment