Jimmy Chitwood
Hall of Famer
why i support diversity ... by wanting to preserve White people.
South Africa World Cup 2010
- Thread starter Matra1
- Start date
Solomon Kane
Mentor
- Joined
- Jul 3, 2006
- Messages
- 783
Italy ties paraguay 1-1. I'm for Italy but paraguay did not look as mestizo or indio as I had anticipated.
Solomon Kane
Mentor
- Joined
- Jul 3, 2006
- Messages
- 783
I'm glad Japan beat Cameroon--but I agree that we could learn from both teams--each nation should be itself. Cameroon for the Cameroonians. Japan for the Japanese.
Solomon Kane
Mentor
- Joined
- Jul 3, 2006
- Messages
- 783
I could live with a German victory as long as Cacua is not a hero.
Amren.com
Mentor
- Joined
- Aug 22, 2007
- Messages
- 1,337
http://www.stormfront.org/forum/showthread.php?t=579652
Who's White?
by John Law
I'd like to address the first part of the term 'White Nationalism' and answer the question, "Who's White?"Â
It's a fair question, a fundamental question really. Our enemies have no trouble identifying us but sometimes people who are just becoming racially aware have difficulty answering this question. It's the kind of question that can invite hair-splitting arguments or mind-numbing technical discussion. Those things are fine in their place but what folks really need to get started on this path of White Nationalism is a simple working definition that can be readily applied to almost any situation.
So in response to the question, "Who's White?" we answer: "Non-Jewish people of wholly European descent. No exceptions."
What comprises "European?" Those areas north of the Mediterranean and west of the Urals corresponding roughly to what was formerly known as European Christendom.
Note the word "wholly" -- "of wholly European descent." Sometimes a person might volunteer that he is some small part non-White, like 1/64th or 1/128th, and then ask if we still consider him White. The answer is that if a person identifies with his non-White part so much that he is concerned about it and feels compelled to tell us about it, then we consider him to be non-White.
If someone were to say that they were 12.5% Amerindian then, as far as we're concerned, that's what they are, 1/8th non-White. This is something about which we can't compromise. You're either White or you aren't.
After all, on an anonymous message board, we don't have the person-to person contact that we do in the real world. We don't have the visual clues, the body language, the vocal expressions, the facial expressions, the overall impressions that we can get in real person-to-person meetings. In personal encounters if someone looks White, sounds White, acts White, says they're White, then we can pretty much assume they're White. But on an anonymous message board we don't have those visual and auditory clues. A poster can post a picture of anybody at all and claim to be that person but unless we have met that poster in person, we don't know who they are. On an anonymous message board all we have is what a poster writes and if he writes that he is part non-White, then that's what he is, part non-White.
Dr. William Pierce had this to say about the matter:
Quote.
Who can say that he has no non-Aryan ancestry at all in his family tree? Not I. Most people can say who their parents and grandparents are. Only a few Americans can go back as far as four generations, however. I doubt that as many as one percent of Americans can go back six generations with any degree of certainty. Jews and liberals seize this fact to confuse people with the claim that we're all mongrels, that there is no such thing as a "pure" race, etc. -- therefore, it doesn't do any good to try to preserve the White race, because it really doesn't exist.
I'm sure that you are not fooled by that sophistry. We must be practical. We know that there is a White race, and that it is easy to select individuals from that race who constitute a relatively "pure" sub-group. I'm not an expert on Amerindian ethnology, but I do know that the Indians consisted of many tribes which were racially distinct, ranging from essentially Caucasoid to essentially Mongoloid. So if one has Indian admixture, it depends a lot on what tribe. As a very rough rule, if a person looks White and thinks of himself as White and is the kind of person our other members wouldn't mind their sisters marrying-and if we know that he's no more than one-sixteenth non-White, we consider him White.
As I said, that's a rough rule. A person may believe that one of his grandparents was an Indian, because that grandparent lived on a reservation. But the fact is that many people who consider themselves Indians today and live on reservations are more White than Indian, due to earlier racial mixture between Whites and Indians.
End quote.
This type of question, about being partly non-White, is asked endlessly on Stormfront. Some posters are asking an honest question but often others are anti-Whites desperately looking for ways to show that we are all mongrels, that there is no such thing as race, that miscegenation is good and natural, that we should all just go home and let things follow their course.
They may start with an extreme claim of some minuscule admixture, say 1/64th. Then, if we reject that for being non-White they say we are fanatics and if we accept them and their claim then we have started down the fatal slippery slope. If 1/64th is okay, they will ask, then 1/32nd must be okay too since there's little difference between 1/64th and 1/32nd. And if 1/32nd is okay then 1/16th must be fine too. And so on down the slippery slope. Their agenda is to get us on that slippery slope because that slippery slope ends with "there's only one race, the human race." With that, the White race is defined out of existence.
Even after these antis are refuted, they come back a few days later asking the same question as if there had been no prior resolution in the hopes that they can snag a few newcomers and to plant the seeds of doubt. This continues on ad infinitum.
Another tactic of the egalitarian crowd is to try to reduce the basis of White Nationalism to something as absurd and as superficial as skin color. Our contention is that we are a distinct and unique people with our own culture, history and destiny. We have not only the right but the moral duty to perpetuate ourselves. To do anything less would amount to racial suicide. We go to great lengths to preserve bio-diversity, the spotted owls, snail darters, mountain gorillas, etc. etc. Are White Europeans any less worthy of preservation?
Another post that appears endlessly on Stormfront is the kind that denounces various European people as not being truly White. In answer to that false accusation, the National Vanguard has stated that:
Quote.
Due to the generally deplorable understanding of race, it is necessary for us to emphasize that White people are the descendants of all historically European peoples, including the Irish, Slavs, Spaniards, Italians, Greeks, as well as the Germanic, Scandinavian, and Anglo-Saxon peoples, etc., so long as there is no discernible trace of non-White admixture. National Vanguard celebrates the cultural diversity of the White race. Our beautiful languages, traditions, and cultures are a strength. We are pan-European in our views and stand unconditionally opposed to conflicts between White peoples. Outside forces often exploit one White ethnicity against another. We do not excuse anti-White hatreds or historical "scores," and will consistently work towards reconciliation and unity in places such as the Balkans and Northern Ireland. Our watchword is no more brothers' wars.
End quote.
So, again, in response to the question, "Who's White?" we answer: "Non-Jewish people of wholly European descent. No exceptions." And if you tell us you're not, we will believe you.
Who's White?
by John Law
I'd like to address the first part of the term 'White Nationalism' and answer the question, "Who's White?"Â
It's a fair question, a fundamental question really. Our enemies have no trouble identifying us but sometimes people who are just becoming racially aware have difficulty answering this question. It's the kind of question that can invite hair-splitting arguments or mind-numbing technical discussion. Those things are fine in their place but what folks really need to get started on this path of White Nationalism is a simple working definition that can be readily applied to almost any situation.
So in response to the question, "Who's White?" we answer: "Non-Jewish people of wholly European descent. No exceptions."
What comprises "European?" Those areas north of the Mediterranean and west of the Urals corresponding roughly to what was formerly known as European Christendom.
Note the word "wholly" -- "of wholly European descent." Sometimes a person might volunteer that he is some small part non-White, like 1/64th or 1/128th, and then ask if we still consider him White. The answer is that if a person identifies with his non-White part so much that he is concerned about it and feels compelled to tell us about it, then we consider him to be non-White.
If someone were to say that they were 12.5% Amerindian then, as far as we're concerned, that's what they are, 1/8th non-White. This is something about which we can't compromise. You're either White or you aren't.
After all, on an anonymous message board, we don't have the person-to person contact that we do in the real world. We don't have the visual clues, the body language, the vocal expressions, the facial expressions, the overall impressions that we can get in real person-to-person meetings. In personal encounters if someone looks White, sounds White, acts White, says they're White, then we can pretty much assume they're White. But on an anonymous message board we don't have those visual and auditory clues. A poster can post a picture of anybody at all and claim to be that person but unless we have met that poster in person, we don't know who they are. On an anonymous message board all we have is what a poster writes and if he writes that he is part non-White, then that's what he is, part non-White.
Dr. William Pierce had this to say about the matter:
Quote.
Who can say that he has no non-Aryan ancestry at all in his family tree? Not I. Most people can say who their parents and grandparents are. Only a few Americans can go back as far as four generations, however. I doubt that as many as one percent of Americans can go back six generations with any degree of certainty. Jews and liberals seize this fact to confuse people with the claim that we're all mongrels, that there is no such thing as a "pure" race, etc. -- therefore, it doesn't do any good to try to preserve the White race, because it really doesn't exist.
I'm sure that you are not fooled by that sophistry. We must be practical. We know that there is a White race, and that it is easy to select individuals from that race who constitute a relatively "pure" sub-group. I'm not an expert on Amerindian ethnology, but I do know that the Indians consisted of many tribes which were racially distinct, ranging from essentially Caucasoid to essentially Mongoloid. So if one has Indian admixture, it depends a lot on what tribe. As a very rough rule, if a person looks White and thinks of himself as White and is the kind of person our other members wouldn't mind their sisters marrying-and if we know that he's no more than one-sixteenth non-White, we consider him White.
As I said, that's a rough rule. A person may believe that one of his grandparents was an Indian, because that grandparent lived on a reservation. But the fact is that many people who consider themselves Indians today and live on reservations are more White than Indian, due to earlier racial mixture between Whites and Indians.
End quote.
This type of question, about being partly non-White, is asked endlessly on Stormfront. Some posters are asking an honest question but often others are anti-Whites desperately looking for ways to show that we are all mongrels, that there is no such thing as race, that miscegenation is good and natural, that we should all just go home and let things follow their course.
They may start with an extreme claim of some minuscule admixture, say 1/64th. Then, if we reject that for being non-White they say we are fanatics and if we accept them and their claim then we have started down the fatal slippery slope. If 1/64th is okay, they will ask, then 1/32nd must be okay too since there's little difference between 1/64th and 1/32nd. And if 1/32nd is okay then 1/16th must be fine too. And so on down the slippery slope. Their agenda is to get us on that slippery slope because that slippery slope ends with "there's only one race, the human race." With that, the White race is defined out of existence.
Even after these antis are refuted, they come back a few days later asking the same question as if there had been no prior resolution in the hopes that they can snag a few newcomers and to plant the seeds of doubt. This continues on ad infinitum.
Another tactic of the egalitarian crowd is to try to reduce the basis of White Nationalism to something as absurd and as superficial as skin color. Our contention is that we are a distinct and unique people with our own culture, history and destiny. We have not only the right but the moral duty to perpetuate ourselves. To do anything less would amount to racial suicide. We go to great lengths to preserve bio-diversity, the spotted owls, snail darters, mountain gorillas, etc. etc. Are White Europeans any less worthy of preservation?
Another post that appears endlessly on Stormfront is the kind that denounces various European people as not being truly White. In answer to that false accusation, the National Vanguard has stated that:
Quote.
Due to the generally deplorable understanding of race, it is necessary for us to emphasize that White people are the descendants of all historically European peoples, including the Irish, Slavs, Spaniards, Italians, Greeks, as well as the Germanic, Scandinavian, and Anglo-Saxon peoples, etc., so long as there is no discernible trace of non-White admixture. National Vanguard celebrates the cultural diversity of the White race. Our beautiful languages, traditions, and cultures are a strength. We are pan-European in our views and stand unconditionally opposed to conflicts between White peoples. Outside forces often exploit one White ethnicity against another. We do not excuse anti-White hatreds or historical "scores," and will consistently work towards reconciliation and unity in places such as the Balkans and Northern Ireland. Our watchword is no more brothers' wars.
End quote.
So, again, in response to the question, "Who's White?" we answer: "Non-Jewish people of wholly European descent. No exceptions." And if you tell us you're not, we will believe you.
Jimmy Chitwood said:<div></div>jcolec02 said:
<div></div>ÂÂÂ
<div>why would i cheer for either of these teams? </div>
<div> </div>
<div>they certainly weren't representing my tribe, as not a single White athlete was on the pitch. i don't have a problem with that, however. why, you may ask? it is a "novel concept" in today's globalized multi-cult that two national teams actually had a roster filled with players who were representative of their nation. Japan was Japanese, and Cameroon was dark-as-night black africans. </div>
<div> </div>
<div>i wish Western nations would take a similar approach ... oh, wait. they are. the West is already stocking their teams with africans.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>as an aside, Cameroon looked like a stereotype of itself. their play was selfish, un-organized, and sloppy, and when things got tough they started arguing with one another. how "strange" that blacks would behave in such a manner ...</div>
<div> </div>
<div>also, just from looking it appeared that Japan was a bit bigger and much swifter than their black opponents. but i thought blacks were all huge speed demons. again, how "weird" ... </div>
<div> </div>
<div>in the early match of the day: for the Danes, their lone non-White defender certainly looked affletic as he headed a ball off his teammate's back for an own goal. pathetic. offensively, they did almost nothing. they were overmatched by the Netherlands.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>the mostly White (two non-White starters if i recall correctly) Dutch looked impressive. their non-White starters were non-factors, though, so why have them on the field? the Dutch did bring in a black forward off the bench who displayed some speed, but you'd have thought he was a PoY candidate the way ESPN's commentators jizzed all over themselves while talking about him.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>so far, to me this World Cup has been more about errors and a love affair with all things african than stellar performances. hopefully we will see better play as the tourney progresses.</div>
I completely agree. Why can't we root for people who are like us in our country. Japan can. Spain Can. Italy can, for now. The US and England and France can't. Not only that is way too disproportionate. If England had 1 or 2 blacks, it might be palatable. Even 2, is too much if you look at the population.
Just about the whole Paraguayan team it seems plays in England, a disgrace.
Deadlift
Hall of Famer
foobar75 said:Thrashen, you are being unreasonbly harsh on Germany. It is unfortunate that this whole World Cup thread has turned into a "who's white, who's not" discussion.
It seems, for some people, white = Anglo Saxons exclusively. Others, (myself included) are more inclusive, and count the peoples of southern Europe (Spain, Italy, Greece) as well as certain groups of people from Turkey, Persia, etc, not to mention the South Americans from Argentina, Uruguay, as well as 40% of Brazil amongst the Caucasians. In any event, this will be the first/last time I will make any mention of my take on this whole matter. I think we should focus more on soccer going forward.
I'm not trying to get into an argument. I'm not angry, and I don't think anyone on this thread is angry, but I'm simply posting that Turkic genetics are real, and the good news is, it's usually easy to spot.
It isn't accurate to just list the negro and Jew as being the only "alien" genetics in the world, and the only threat to our continued existance. I'm not saying that you're suggesting that, but I have to make my point. For example, I find Asian-praise to be quite mystifying. It seems like White men have some kind of "lapse" in thinking, and suddenly forget that Asian men lust after White women just like every other race on the planet. I know.. there are White male/Asian female "relations" - and I oppose them. That probably causes Asian men to be even more lustful towards White women... They need to find a womb somewhere.
CFs, Rebajlo, posted this Turk in the Zidane thread, Abdullah Ercan:
With those weak cheek-bones, that clearly looks like an Asian skull to me. There's usually tell-tale signs that someone is mixed, and the Asiatic genetics are VERY strong. CFs, Guest, mentioned, essentially, that someone shouldn't be "penalized" for having an Asian ancestor from a few hundred years ago. To be honest, I don't think that's the situation at all. If a DNA test was done, I imagine that it would show that many of them have considerable Asiatic ancestry. I'm simply using my eyes to the best of my ability and looking at physical traits/features, and I'm certainly not "one-dropping" everybody from the European East.
But, if it was only "some" (alien ancestry that they had), and they still had jet black hair/eyes (etc), wouldn't that be the definitive proof that we are not only the recessive race, but that the very small, incredibly small, minority of folks with colored eyes/hair, should stay away from Turkic peoples? What would be the point of mixing? The tiny percentage of folks with light-features can't possibly "convert" all of Europe to having those same features, much less the rest of the world. We are facing the threat of genocide.
From what I've noticed, the "elite" families in Italy and Greece almost always produce fair-featured athletes. Bargnani, Gallinari, the Italian heavyweight boxers, their soccer players, etc. Greek basketball players are usually quite White, and their soccer team, awful as it may be, looks to be mostly fair-featured. I know that everybody in those populations "aren't dark"... I have also defended Greeks. I think that this does confirm something, though. A good number of fair folks must be finding fair mates and producing fair offspring. This is delightful news.
If the "elite" families won't give their daughters to Turkic men, I suppose I won't do that either. If it's good enough for them, it's good enough for me...
Deadlift
Hall of Famer
Jimmy Chitwood said:<div></div>jcolec02 said:
also, just from looking it appeared that Japan was a bit bigger and much swifter than their black opponents. but i thought blacks were all huge speed demons. again, how "weird" ...
In the Nigeria/Argentina game, I was a bit taken back at how tiny the Nigerians were!
Really, some of our athletes need to step up, but where the heck is the black football "advantage??"..... the skin tone?
Jack Lambert
Hall of Famer
- Joined
- Jan 3, 2009
- Messages
- 4,743
Jimmy Chitwood said:why i support diversity ... by wanting to preserve White people.
<div> </div>
<div></div>
She looks pretty hot, but if I were a young white girl, I wouldn't exactly be walking around like that in South Africa.
foobar75
Master
- Joined
- Jul 29, 2008
- Messages
- 2,332
Thrashen said:
Cleary, we agree far more than we disagree. I won't dispute anything you're saying here. First of all, Cacau is disgrace and has zero business playing on the German national team. He's a black man from Brazil, he's not German. It cannot be any simpler than that. Surely, it must be either Brazil or bust for him, and not this mercenary crap of playing for whichever country gives him a passport.
As for the Turks, it's a somewhat different situation. They are probably the sons of 2nd and 3rd generation Turks who were born and raised in Germany, and more than likely have very little connection to Turkey itself. So, their presence is more legit than some foreigner who comes in after the fact and gets a passport, thereby becoming "German". In an ideal world, sure, the entire German squad, all 23 players, would be native Germans.
At least Germany does not resemble an African team like France, or even England for that matter. And yes, if Germany ever faced a squad with native whites truly representing their nation, I'd root for the latter team.
Solomon Kane said:
You would think a country like Germany wouldn't stoop so low and bring in a Brazilian. Why do the fans accept it? There was some suggestion that Almunia , who is Spanish, play for England now that he qualifies. But, Capello said no. Maybe the FA did also. Arteta, also Spanish, could play for England now, but he wasn't considered.
celticdb15
Hall of Famer
- Joined
- Jul 24, 2007
- Messages
- 8,469
Deadlift said:Jimmy Chitwood said:jcolec02 said:
also, just from looking it appeared that Japan was a bit bigger and much swifter than their black opponents. but i thought blacks were all huge speed demons. again, how "weird" ...
In the Nigeria/Argentina game, I was a bit taken back at how tiny the Nigerians were!
Really, some of our athletes need to step up, but where the heck is the black football "advantage??"..... the skin tone?
I was waiting for someone else to bring this up. I noticed the same thing and even one of my DWF friends mentioned how weird it was to see the Japanese tower over most of the Cameroonian's.
accesscrimea
Guru
- Joined
- Nov 5, 2008
- Messages
- 201
Regarding England - Capello played just about the most black team possible (only the mixed keeper James could have been picked to make it even more black). Most of the substitutes for England were white.
The next game might be different. If Barry, Cole and Crouch get a start (which they REALLY should), and with King injured (what a suprise), suddenly England are starting with just 2 mixed and 9 whites.
Generally Japanese people are shorter than Whites and West African Blacks, so its surprising that they were bigger than the Cameroons. The tallest people in the world actually live in the Dalmation region of Croatia. I was there this winter and although im an average 5ft 11 inches, i felt short there. The average height for guys there is 6ft 1.5 inches.
The next game might be different. If Barry, Cole and Crouch get a start (which they REALLY should), and with King injured (what a suprise), suddenly England are starting with just 2 mixed and 9 whites.
Generally Japanese people are shorter than Whites and West African Blacks, so its surprising that they were bigger than the Cameroons. The tallest people in the world actually live in the Dalmation region of Croatia. I was there this winter and although im an average 5ft 11 inches, i felt short there. The average height for guys there is 6ft 1.5 inches.
waterbed
Mentor
celticdb15 said:<div></div>Deadlift said:In the Nigeria/Argentina game, I was a bit taken back at how tiny the Nigerians were! Really, some of our athletes need to step up, but where the heck is the black football "advantage??"..... the skin tone?Jimmy Chitwood said:<div></div>also, just from looking it appeared that Japan was a bit bigger and much swifter than their black opponents. but i thought blacks were all huge speed demons. again, how "weird" ...jcolec02 said:
<div> </div>
<div>I was waiting for someone else to bring this up. I noticed the same thing and even one of my DWF friends mentioned how weird it was to see the Japanese tower over most of the Cameroonian's.</div>
no mather the height of the populations ,national soccer teams are always close to eachtoher in height.nearly all nation teams have an average height of5-10 to 6-1 feet no mather if their population is small or not.
the netherlands for example average height male population 6-1 feet and our soccer team is on average 181 cm( 5-11.25)
the japanese average male population is 5-7 and thear soccer team on average 5-10 .
in general popualtion in a lot of coutries like 1/40 is under 5.5 feet but in soccer only 1 or eary out of a leaugu with 500 players.Same for very tall height.
waterbed
Mentor
I did mean a height in general popualtion in a lot of european countries of 5-5 or smaller is 1/40 but in soccer most of the time only 1 or 0 out of a leaugue with 500 players(pro leaugue).
Overall, the teams from white nations have been fine racially with the exceptions of France, England and, of course, the U.S. I have seen all the starting lineups and will do a rundown of the race of the starters after tomorrow's games.
Deadlift
Hall of Famer
North Korea's ball-handling has impressed me.
Unfortunately (for us), they're playing more beautifully than some of our boys...
Unfortunately (for us), they're playing more beautifully than some of our boys...
accesscrimea
Guru
- Joined
- Nov 5, 2008
- Messages
- 201
Great performance by North Korea. Finally a watchable game, after hours of complete garbage!
Ivory coast - the strongest of the west African nations (but not the strongest African nation, as the media likes to report - it is in fact Eygpt) looked unispiring in their game with Portugal but they look the most likely of the black teams to do well and cause a media orgasm.
Heres hoping that Portugal and North Korea progress from the group!!
Tomorrow the team im looking forward to seeing finally gets a game - Spain. A fantastic array of many of the best players (all white) in the world!
Ivory coast - the strongest of the west African nations (but not the strongest African nation, as the media likes to report - it is in fact Eygpt) looked unispiring in their game with Portugal but they look the most likely of the black teams to do well and cause a media orgasm.
Heres hoping that Portugal and North Korea progress from the group!!
Tomorrow the team im looking forward to seeing finally gets a game - Spain. A fantastic array of many of the best players (all white) in the world!
One of the only real French players is being ignored on the pitch and players won't pass him the ball. Only another real Frenchman talks to him.
story
KNYSNA (South Africa): Socially isolated and largely anonymous on the pitch, Yoann Gourcuff has endured a disquieting start to his first World Cup campaign with France.
The Bordeaux playmaker has long been considered his country's natural heir to Zinedine Zidane, but his ineffective performance in Friday's 0-0 draw with Uruguay has added weight to calls from him to be dropped.
At 23 and with only 21 caps to his name, Gourcuff is experiencing for the first time the unique claustrophobia of a major tournament.
In France's opening match against the Uruguayans, the former AC Milan player looked hesitant and uncomfortable, frequently giving the ball away despite his deserved reputation as a midfielder of supreme technical quality.
The question on everyone's lips since the start of last season has been: Where is the Gourcuff of 2008-09, who swept all before him with Bordeaux and became an integral component of France's first-choice XI?
Gourcuff had been looking to the World Cup to help banish the memories of a dreadful season with Bordeaux, who meekly failed to defend their French title and finished sixth.
But his poor form has persisted and his problems have been compounded by the suspicion that he has become a peripheral member of the France squad, ignored by the team's leaders and senior stars.
In French sport daily L'Equipe on Friday, France captain Patrice Evra confirmed in just a few words that Gourcuff is something of an outcast.
"Yo (Gourcuff), I never hear him," Evra said.
"To speak to Gourcuff, you have to talk to (Jeremy) Toulalan. It's with him that I see him having a laugh."
There is even speculation in the French media that Gourcuff is being ignored by his teammates on the pitch, with Nicolas Anelka and Franck Ribery allegedly guilty of deliberately failing to pass to him against Uruguay.
In training and particularly during warm-ups at France's plush World Cup base, the malaise is noticeable.
Gourcuff often trains alone or goes through his warm-up routine with either his Bordeaux team-mates - Alou Diarra, Cedric Carrasso and Marc Planus - or Toulalan, his only allies in the French set-up.
Is Gourcuff a victim of jealousy provoked by his golden boy status or is he simply too fragile psychologically?
Writing in L'Equipe on Sunday, former France left-back Bixente Lizarazu said Gourcuff was "too self-effacing, too nice and probably too well-brought up".
"Today he needs to start baring his teeth and sharpening his elbows."
Gourcuff's current struggles come as a surprise to Patrick Rampillon, his coach at Rennes during his formative years.
"I'm surprised," Rampillon told AFP. "With the young players, everyone was in agreement about him. There were no flaws in his character and no warning signs. "Looking at the match against Uruguay and saying there was a problem with Gourcuff is a bit strong."
It cannot be denied, however, that Gourcuff seems a shadow of the player he was in 2009.
France coach Raymond Domenech has long supported his rising star but must now decide whether or not to take decisive action by dropping Gourcuff for the potentially pivotal second Group A
story
KNYSNA (South Africa): Socially isolated and largely anonymous on the pitch, Yoann Gourcuff has endured a disquieting start to his first World Cup campaign with France.
The Bordeaux playmaker has long been considered his country's natural heir to Zinedine Zidane, but his ineffective performance in Friday's 0-0 draw with Uruguay has added weight to calls from him to be dropped.
At 23 and with only 21 caps to his name, Gourcuff is experiencing for the first time the unique claustrophobia of a major tournament.
In France's opening match against the Uruguayans, the former AC Milan player looked hesitant and uncomfortable, frequently giving the ball away despite his deserved reputation as a midfielder of supreme technical quality.
The question on everyone's lips since the start of last season has been: Where is the Gourcuff of 2008-09, who swept all before him with Bordeaux and became an integral component of France's first-choice XI?
Gourcuff had been looking to the World Cup to help banish the memories of a dreadful season with Bordeaux, who meekly failed to defend their French title and finished sixth.
But his poor form has persisted and his problems have been compounded by the suspicion that he has become a peripheral member of the France squad, ignored by the team's leaders and senior stars.
In French sport daily L'Equipe on Friday, France captain Patrice Evra confirmed in just a few words that Gourcuff is something of an outcast.
"Yo (Gourcuff), I never hear him," Evra said.
"To speak to Gourcuff, you have to talk to (Jeremy) Toulalan. It's with him that I see him having a laugh."
There is even speculation in the French media that Gourcuff is being ignored by his teammates on the pitch, with Nicolas Anelka and Franck Ribery allegedly guilty of deliberately failing to pass to him against Uruguay.
In training and particularly during warm-ups at France's plush World Cup base, the malaise is noticeable.
Gourcuff often trains alone or goes through his warm-up routine with either his Bordeaux team-mates - Alou Diarra, Cedric Carrasso and Marc Planus - or Toulalan, his only allies in the French set-up.
Is Gourcuff a victim of jealousy provoked by his golden boy status or is he simply too fragile psychologically?
Writing in L'Equipe on Sunday, former France left-back Bixente Lizarazu said Gourcuff was "too self-effacing, too nice and probably too well-brought up".
"Today he needs to start baring his teeth and sharpening his elbows."
Gourcuff's current struggles come as a surprise to Patrick Rampillon, his coach at Rennes during his formative years.
"I'm surprised," Rampillon told AFP. "With the young players, everyone was in agreement about him. There were no flaws in his character and no warning signs. "Looking at the match against Uruguay and saying there was a problem with Gourcuff is a bit strong."
It cannot be denied, however, that Gourcuff seems a shadow of the player he was in 2009.
France coach Raymond Domenech has long supported his rising star but must now decide whether or not to take decisive action by dropping Gourcuff for the potentially pivotal second Group A
Gary Lineker, the great English Forward, had a Brazilian player name his son after him. But here is another white guy that defers to the Brazilians saying he is just a poacher and not like the "great" Brazilians. Why do whites have to act like that. I am so sick of the Brazilian worship.
World Cup 2010: Brazil star Melo names his son Lineker
Brazilian Melo on naming son Lineker
Brazil's Juventus midfielder Felipe Melo has revealed that he named his son after former England star and BBC presenter Gary Lineker.
"I gave that name [Lineker] to my son because I find it very beautiful, different... and an honour," said Melo.
"He was a great player, a big name in the national team of England and in the history of the English national team."
Lineker, who was the top scorer at the 1986 World Cup, said: "I am extremely flattered, albeit mildly embarrassed."
He added: "Surely with the array of talent within the Brazilian team, he could have named him after someone other than a goal hanger like me!"
Melo, 26, is expected to be named in Brazil's side to take on North Korea on Tuesday in their opening match of the World Cup.
"For me it's an honour to play under the gaze of so many great players of world football - Pele, Maradona, Lineker and other great players," he said.
World Cup guide - Brazil
Set to win his 19th cap for Brazil, Melo has been compared to manager Dunga following his impressive displays in the holding midfield role.
"We have similar characteristics and that's important," he said. "Every team needs a player with a strong character to help out when a team-mate is in need.
"We have similar style, always working hard to steal a ball here and there. I never like to lose a challenge and he was like that too.
"Dunga dominated his position. I'm trying to learn from his experience and the tips he is always giving me. He has already won everything - I haven't."
Dunga won 96 caps for Brazil and was captain when they won the 1994 World Cup in the United States.
Bidding to win their sixth World Cup, Brazil follow the North Korea match with Group G games against the Ivory Coast on 20 June - also in Johannesburg - before taking on Portugal on 25 June in Durban
http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/football/world_cup_2010/8739765.stm
World Cup 2010: Brazil star Melo names his son Lineker
Brazilian Melo on naming son Lineker
Brazil's Juventus midfielder Felipe Melo has revealed that he named his son after former England star and BBC presenter Gary Lineker.
"I gave that name [Lineker] to my son because I find it very beautiful, different... and an honour," said Melo.
"He was a great player, a big name in the national team of England and in the history of the English national team."
Lineker, who was the top scorer at the 1986 World Cup, said: "I am extremely flattered, albeit mildly embarrassed."
He added: "Surely with the array of talent within the Brazilian team, he could have named him after someone other than a goal hanger like me!"
Melo, 26, is expected to be named in Brazil's side to take on North Korea on Tuesday in their opening match of the World Cup.
"For me it's an honour to play under the gaze of so many great players of world football - Pele, Maradona, Lineker and other great players," he said.
World Cup guide - Brazil
Set to win his 19th cap for Brazil, Melo has been compared to manager Dunga following his impressive displays in the holding midfield role.
"We have similar characteristics and that's important," he said. "Every team needs a player with a strong character to help out when a team-mate is in need.
"We have similar style, always working hard to steal a ball here and there. I never like to lose a challenge and he was like that too.
"Dunga dominated his position. I'm trying to learn from his experience and the tips he is always giving me. He has already won everything - I haven't."
Dunga won 96 caps for Brazil and was captain when they won the 1994 World Cup in the United States.
Bidding to win their sixth World Cup, Brazil follow the North Korea match with Group G games against the Ivory Coast on 20 June - also in Johannesburg - before taking on Portugal on 25 June in Durban
http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/football/world_cup_2010/8739765.stm
"So in response to the question, "Who's White?" we answer: "Non-Jewish people of wholly European descent. No exceptions."
This Jewish girl looks white. I'd grow a beard and pray at the wailing wall for this.
Bar Rafeili
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2009_swimsuit/models/bar-refaeli/09_bar-refaeli_27.html
This Jewish girl looks white. I'd grow a beard and pray at the wailing wall for this.
Bar Rafeili
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2009_swimsuit/models/bar-refaeli/09_bar-refaeli_27.html
Matra1
Mentor
L'Equipe has speculated that the players want Arsenal's Abou Diaby to replace Gourcuff.
Europe--I'm with you on the picture. Jewish women get my vote for the most beautiful on the planet.
And, fwiw, I doubt most people could find the actual line between Europe and Asia on a map. It's just a freaking imaginary line. Turks, for example, are incredibly white. We have a lot at my university, and you would never imagine them any other way. And the entire Mediterranean (European, Asian, and African coasts) was colonized and settled by Lebanese, Greeks, Romans, and even Germans (Vandals, Ostrogoths, Visigoths) and Normans (who were originally Danes). The only differences around the Mediterranean are cultural.
And, fwiw, I doubt most people could find the actual line between Europe and Asia on a map. It's just a freaking imaginary line. Turks, for example, are incredibly white. We have a lot at my university, and you would never imagine them any other way. And the entire Mediterranean (European, Asian, and African coasts) was colonized and settled by Lebanese, Greeks, Romans, and even Germans (Vandals, Ostrogoths, Visigoths) and Normans (who were originally Danes). The only differences around the Mediterranean are cultural.