"Mayonaisse"-skinned Brits can't win World Cup Soccer in Brazil's HELL sez NY TIMES

The Sunday edition of The New York Times published a snide, reverse-racist piece describing just what kind of hell BRAZIL is…especially for white people. It even enlisted noted drooling cripple Stephen Hawking to make a point about British chances melting whenever the team has to play in the tropics.

Contrasting the "chilly and soggy" climate in Liverpool, the author reported on "rain forest conditions" in Brazil, where the humidity is up around 87, "which, oddly enough, is about how many times England has lost a penalty-kick shootout."

Just why the New York Times would devote so much space to Brit-bashing, rather than interviewing members of the American team, I have no idea. But it continued with an interview in which a British fan complained about the "crawlies" all over the ground, and a warning about "a tiny, vampire catfish said to be able to swim up the urethra of anyone who urinates in the Amazon river."

After reporting "there are two seasons in Manaus, summer and hell," the paper noted that Hawking calculated that "a temperature rise of nine degrees (five degrees Celsius) can decrease England's chances by 59%." After noting that England hosted the only World Cup it won, the Times snickered that "England's current best player, Wayne Rooney, is as pale as mayonnaise. He would need a couple of tanning salon visits to quality as pasty."

I doubt the Times would allow a writer to say that some natives competing in England "have skin as black as midnight, and would need some whitening before it could look like anything but tar."

After noting that no Europeans have won a World Cup in South America, the Times quotes a British fan: "Humidity will kill an Englishman." Chuckling that the Brits should've "took turns under the French-fry lamp at McDonalds," the Times winked about Brits who trained in Miami for a while, but "it is difficult to seem intimidating when one is exhausted."

It's only in one of the very last paragraphs that the American team is even mentioned. The Yanks, it's said, are "more amused than concerned about swampy conditions," and spectators would only be likely to "worry about…large numbers of British men wearing Capri pants."

Why would a huge article in the Times focus almost exclusively on belittling the British players and fans, with not a word about the French or the Germans or Scandinavians? Maybe the British fans have something to do with it...their embarrassing flag waving, beer guzzling, and ludicrous outfits (including men painting their faces and wearing tu-tus). It's possible the Times just used the British players because it's harder to write an entire piece on idiot fans who seem so oblivious to how quickly their team will sink to defeat.

There's just a passing paragraph from an Italian player who is "curious" to see how the weather will affect his play. Oh well…as long as the joke is on white people who can't deal with the climate…all's well at the New York Times. Except…let's wait for July and August in New York City, when the sun is unbearable and the humidity turgid and tropical and so dense that, as Spike Milligan once mentioned, "you could grab the air and squeeze water out of it with your fist."