Uploaded June 2026 | Updated September 2026, 2 weeks ago
If you’re a Socceroos fan and watched the ABC’s coverage over the last week or so, you’ve probably come to one conclusion: The Australian national football team literally has some kind of god in its midst.
This topic has obviously struck a nerve with many of you, and I want to say a quick thank you to everyone who sent in links, articles, and thoughts after the last video. It turns out the national broadcaster was only just getting started.
Behold, the Chosen One: Nestory Irankunda.
Sure, the 20-year-old scored a goal in Australia’s opening match against Türkiye, which is great, but at the end of the day, he’s just a guy who kicks a ball around a field.
Connor Metcalfe is also a guy who kicks a ball around a field, and he also scored an incredible goal to seal the win, but in the eyes of the ABC’s commentary apparatus, that goal effectively didn’t happen. The only person who counts is Nestory Irankunda.
Why? Well, I think we all know why, but this ABC headline makes it clearer: “From refugee to Socceroos star: The grassroots club that gave Irankunda a go.”
Yes, because he was born in a refugee camp in Tanzania, in the ABC’s eyes, he is more important than Connor Metcalfe.
Connor also has a history, as reported by the SMH: “As a teen, Connor was ‘half the size of everybody else’. On Sunday, he made history.” Or this one from the Newcastle Herald: “‘This one’s for you’: the cute school beginnings of the Hunter’s World Cup hero.”
Yes, he too had an interesting history, but in the parallel universe of our unbiased ABC, Connor’s history is the wrong history. Not to mention he’s got the wrong skin colour.
Obviously, that’s what we’re all thinking. Do you think if Nestory Irankunda was a white South African whose farming family left the country because of racial violence and became a star Socceroo, the ABC would be aggressively “telling his story”?
Not a chance.
Just to be clear, I’m not here to bash Nestory. He’s just playing football, and he’s certainly not the sports editor of the ABC.
This video is entirely focused on the national broadcaster’s desperate obsession with identity politics, where players are treated less like athletes and more like political props to be divided into categories of who matters and who doesn’t.
In a recent article on the ABC’s Religion and Ethics website of all places, because nothing screams deep moral philosophy quite like a 20-year-old taking a shot on goal, they proudly declared: “When Nestory Irankunda scored, we were Australia: What the World Cup tells us about multiculturalism.”
Yes, when a former refugee scores in the World Cup, you better believe our ABC will dedicate an entire 3,000-word essay to explaining how diversity is our strength and multiculturalism is the absolute best.
And finally, we have this article from our public broadcaster: “How is the most culturally diverse World Cup ever being received in Trump’s America?”
It celebrates black culture, it dumps on Donald Trump, and it checks every single progressive box you could possibly imagine. What else could you expect from a taxpayer-funded activist hub?
Of course, they feature everyone’s favourite new player, Nestory Irankunda, explicitly making sure to point out that he was born in a Tanzanian refugee camp. Because wow, I don’t think any of us have ever heard that detail before. Truly, thank you for bringing it up for the one-hundredth time.
Just below, they note that “The Socceroos squad includes four former refugees, and more than half of the 26 players have different cultural and ethnic backgrounds.”
Right. Because when I tune in to watch an international sporting event, I’m not actually looking to see tactical execution, athletic endurance, or high-level football strategy. No, what I really want is a comprehensive demographic audit of the playing roster so I can accurately calculate the team’s progressive equity score.
So what have we actually learnt from all this? We’ve learnt that our public broadcaster is entirely obsessed with skin colour. We’ve learnt that Nestory Irankunda is the media’s chosen one, while Connor Metcalfe—who achieved the exact same thing on the pitch—is completely ignored because he is a white bloke from Newcastle who didn’t grow up in a refugee camp.
The ultimate irony is that in their desperate rush to lecture us about “social cohesion” and how the Socceroos jersey “belongs to everyone,” the ABC is doing the exact thing they accuse their critics of doing. They are dividing the team, and the country, into arbitrary identity categories of who matters and who doesn’t.
They foolishly think that hyper-focusing on race will somehow fix division, when in reality, they are actively exacerbating it. But the message behind it all is crystal clear: you will celebrate mass immigration whether you voted for it or not.
MUSIC
Allégro by Emmit Fenn
If you’re a Socceroos fan and watched the ABC’s coverage over the last week or so, you’ve probably come to one conclusion: The Australian national football team literally has some kind of god in its midst.
This topic has obviously struck a nerve with many of you, and I want to say a quick thank you to everyone who sent in links, articles, and thoughts after the last video. It turns out the national broadcaster was only just getting started.
Behold, the Chosen One: Nestory Irankunda.
Sure, the 20-year-old scored a goal in Australia’s opening match against Türkiye, which is great, but at the end of the day, he’s just a guy who kicks a ball around a field.
Connor Metcalfe is also a guy who kicks a ball around a field, and he also scored an incredible goal to seal the win, but in the eyes of the ABC’s commentary apparatus, that goal effectively didn’t happen. The only person who counts is Nestory Irankunda.
Why? Well, I think we all know why, but this ABC headline makes it clearer: “From refugee to Socceroos star: The grassroots club that gave Irankunda a go.”
Yes, because he was born in a refugee camp in Tanzania, in the ABC’s eyes, he is more important than Connor Metcalfe.
Connor also has a history, as reported by the SMH: “As a teen, Connor was ‘half the size of everybody else’. On Sunday, he made history.” Or this one from the Newcastle Herald: “‘This one’s for you’: the cute school beginnings of the Hunter’s World Cup hero.”
Yes, he too had an interesting history, but in the parallel universe of our unbiased ABC, Connor’s history is the wrong history. Not to mention he’s got the wrong skin colour.
Obviously, that’s what we’re all thinking. Do you think if Nestory Irankunda was a white South African whose farming family left the country because of racial violence and became a star Socceroo, the ABC would be aggressively “telling his story”?
Not a chance.
Just to be clear, I’m not here to bash Nestory. He’s just playing football, and he’s certainly not the sports editor of the ABC.
This video is entirely focused on the national broadcaster’s desperate obsession with identity politics, where players are treated less like athletes and more like political props to be divided into categories of who matters and who doesn’t.
In a recent article on the ABC’s Religion and Ethics website of all places, because nothing screams deep moral philosophy quite like a 20-year-old taking a shot on goal, they proudly declared: “When Nestory Irankunda scored, we were Australia: What the World Cup tells us about multiculturalism.”
Yes, when a former refugee scores in the World Cup, you better believe our ABC will dedicate an entire 3,000-word essay to explaining how diversity is our strength and multiculturalism is the absolute best.
And finally, we have this article from our public broadcaster: “How is the most culturally diverse World Cup ever being received in Trump’s America?”
It celebrates black culture, it dumps on Donald Trump, and it checks every single progressive box you could possibly imagine. What else could you expect from a taxpayer-funded activist hub?
Of course, they feature everyone’s favourite new player, Nestory Irankunda, explicitly making sure to point out that he was born in a Tanzanian refugee camp. Because wow, I don’t think any of us have ever heard that detail before. Truly, thank you for bringing it up for the one-hundredth time.
Just below, they note that “The Socceroos squad includes four former refugees, and more than half of the 26 players have different cultural and ethnic backgrounds.”
Right. Because when I tune in to watch an international sporting event, I’m not actually looking to see tactical execution, athletic endurance, or high-level football strategy. No, what I really want is a comprehensive demographic audit of the playing roster so I can accurately calculate the team’s progressive equity score.
So what have we actually learnt from all this? We’ve learnt that our public broadcaster is entirely obsessed with skin colour. We’ve learnt that Nestory Irankunda is the media’s chosen one, while Connor Metcalfe—who achieved the exact same thing on the pitch—is completely ignored because he is a white bloke from Newcastle who didn’t grow up in a refugee camp.
The ultimate irony is that in their desperate rush to lecture us about “social cohesion” and how the Socceroos jersey “belongs to everyone,” the ABC is doing the exact thing they accuse their critics of doing. They are dividing the team, and the country, into arbitrary identity categories of who matters and who doesn’t.
They foolishly think that hyper-focusing on race will somehow fix division, when in reality, they are actively exacerbating it. But the message behind it all is crystal clear: you will celebrate mass immigration whether you voted for it or not.
MUSIC
Allégro by Emmit Fenn


![NSW Police: “English Optional, Virtue Signalling Mandatory”
This is the New South Wales Police recruitment page, and this is their latest campaign: “You Should Be A Cop.” Like so much in modern Australia, the focus is squarely on diversity. Just look at the images:
• Woman.
• Woman.
• Woman.
• Ethnic minority.
I think the women have it.
But this is the specific campaign we’ll be focusing on today—and thank you to the viewer who sent this in: “Be a Cop in Your Community.” It sounds innocuous enough. Well, here is the ad they’ve been running on Instagram and wherever else.
Now, I’m not going to play the video because I always get stung when I do that, but I will play the audio. See if you can notice the pattern.
[Audio Clip]
And to be clear: no, this is not an April Fools’ joke.
As you heard, they are speaking in every language other than English. Apart from Mandarin—which I study—I don’t even know what languages they were speaking.
Now, the first question is: Why? What is the purpose of running an ad in foreign languages? Look, I’m a realist; there are many different languages spoken in Australia, and I’ve got nothing against people speaking their own. However, there’s one language that bonds us all together: English. You can’t get by in Australia just speaking Swahili. You can’t get by just speaking Japanese. If I walk into a Woolworths and start speaking Chinese, I’m just going to get a blank stare and a very awkward silence.
Not to mention, anyone living in Australia who is proficient enough to become a police officer would surely already know English. If they aren’t proficient in English, they’d be a liability as a police officer. How can you serve the broader community if you only speak Hindi?
So, who exactly are the police targeting with this ad? Well, I think the answer is simple: virtue signalling. “Look at us! We’re inclusive!”
They state in the blurb that they’re looking for recruits who can speak another language. Okay, fine—but couldn’t they have just done that in English? By sticking to only four languages, they were actually being quite exclusive.
Obviously, what they should have done was have these same people speak in English:
“Hi, I’m from China, but now I’m an Australian citizen and I can speak Chinese. Look at me! I’m a police officer now. If you’re from China, you too can become a police officer… as long as you’re not a spy for the Communist Party. But hey, even if you are, I won’t tell anyone. It’s our little secret… I hope that wasn’t recording.”
According to the “Be a Cop in Your Community” page, they are seeking “applicants who identify with one of our targeted cultural or language groups.” They provide a list of very specific languages, including Arabic and Syrian.
But why these languages? Well, they note:
“The Be a Cop in Your Community program is focused on four Priority Areas in the South West Metropolitan Region: Auburn, Burwood, Cumberland, and Liverpool. These Police Area Commands serve some of NSW’s most culturally and linguistically diverse neighbourhoods.”
So, apparently, “community” only matters in specific postcodes. Are they suggesting that if you live in the Northern Beaches or The Shire, you don’t need a “community connection”?
Or perhaps it’s just that those residents don’t have the “right kind” of diversity.
But of course, being a “diverse” police officer involves special skills that require reimbursement. As they note on their page:
“You may be entitled to allowances, such as the Community Language Allowance Scheme.”
Yes—it certainly sounds like a “scheme” to me. While most people get paid for what they do, these recruits get a bonus for what they are.
And finally, remember the all-important motto: “Your culture is your strength.” Yep. As long as you’re not “just” Australian, your culture is super-duper important. You may have thought the “strength” of a police officer was their ability to uphold the law, maintain physical fitness, and display courage under pressure.
But no. You were wrong.
Apparently, it’s your “culture” that is the most important thing. Forget about your black belt in Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu; being able to order a kebab in Arabic is far more important.
MUSIC
Allégro by Emmit Fenn NSW Police: “English Optional, Virtue Signalling Mandatory”](https://i.ytimg.com/vi/aoHKnuT3S4k/mqdefault.jpg)





![The “Controversial” New Olympic Rule: Biological Reality
Ever since the second modern Olympic Games held in Paris in 1900, Olympians have been broken into two distinct categories: male and female. I know—that sounds absurd in the modern world. But it’s true; people back in 1900 thought that men and women were different when it came to sports. They were sexist, they were transphobic, they were probably even—dare I say it—racist.
But fast forward 120 years or so, and biological reality is now questionable. Now, in the name of inclusivity, we’ve seen a push to allow athletes to enter female-only competitions based on how they identify.
For example, my male stallion—who identifies as a female human—recently entered the Queensland 100m final. Not only did she win the age championships, but she also broke the world record. See? Women can do anything!
But enough joking around. Let’s get back to the real world, where the new strategy for breaking female records apparently involves being a biological man.
But in the year of our Lord, 2026, something strange has happened—something that went completely against the approved script. As the ABC simply put it: “Trans athletes banned from competing in Olympic Games.” Apparently, the IOC has decided that only biological females will be allowed to compete in female events from now on. What? That’s crazy! Only females can compete in female events?! Who could have possibly seen that coming? Unsurprisingly, this “return to reality” has caused absolute chaos and controversy—at least in some circles.
The new IOC president, Kirsty Coventry—the first female and the first African to hold the office—made her decision very clear. She said:
“At the Olympic Games, even the smallest margins can be the difference between victory and defeat. So, it is absolutely clear that it would not be fair for biological males to compete in the female category. In addition, in some sports, it would simply not be safe.”
In classic, “impartial” ABC style, they’ve questioned the move with headlines such as: “Warnings of abuse as trans women banned from Olympic female events,” and “Australian Olympic Committee backs Olympic transgender rules despite human rights concerns.” Human rights concerns? What about the rights of women to actually have a fair competition in their own category?
The Conversation, of course, got in on the sanctimonious moralising, claiming: “The Olympics’ transgender athlete ban is a legal and moral minefield.” And we can’t forget The Guardian: “Human rights experts raise concerns over Olympics transgender women athlete ban: Critics say new IOC guidelines violate fundamental human rights.”
That’s right—I was born a man, went through puberty as a male, and have increased bone density and other physical advantages, but now, as a trans woman, it’s my “fundamental human right” to dominate biological women in the Olympics!
Just to be clear, nobody is saying trans women can’t compete. They just can’t compete in the female category.
Unsurprisingly, The Guardian brought race into this. They actually claimed: “Athletes who are intersex or have differences of sex development, including cisgender women, will be overly affected by the new guidelines, with women of colour likely to be disproportionately targeted due to their appearance.”
What are they even saying here? That “women of colour”—whatever that means this week—are more likely to “look like men” and therefore face more scrutiny?
So, is this Korean sprinter more likely to be tested? What about this Indian tennis player? Who exactly are they talking about? It seems the only ones “targeting” women based on their appearance are the very journalists claiming to protect them.
The Guardian also interviewed human rights lawyer and former Olympic swimmer Nikki Dryden, who is firmly against the move. She warned:
“If these rules are adopted… your daughter… may be subjected to sex testing just to participate. Worse, it creates a culture where [someone] feels entitled to question whether your daughter ‘looks female enough’ to belong. That is not protecting women’s sport. That is policing girls’ bodies… The IOC’s new guidelines will be unlawful in Australia… Moving towards exclusionary, invasive rules is not only unnecessary, it is a step back over 25 years.”
But exactly how “invasive” are we talking here? The Conversation spells out the process:
“The screening will be done via an athlete’s saliva, a cheek swab or blood sample. Any athlete whose test shows the presence of the SRY gene [the gene associated with men’s sexual development] will be banned from the women’s category.”
So, a cheek swab. One time. To ensure the category for biological females actually contains… biological females.
So, what do you think? Has the IOC finally made the right move here? Or is the very fabric of human rights and the future of civilisation at risk because we’ve gone back to defining a woman as… a woman? Let me know your thoughts in the comments—I’m sure they’ll be civil.
MUSIC
Allégro by Emmit Fenn The “Controversial” New Olympic Rule: Biological Reality](https://i.ytimg.com/vi/cokAfcq6phA/mqdefault.jpg)

