Advertisements
Home

The Hyperreality of Corporate Virtue Signaling: Nike and Colin Kaepernick

Leave a comment

Nike’s bizarre decision (bizarre because it cost them almost four billion USD) to make Colin Kaepernick, the mid-tier professional football player who started protesting what he calls “racial injustice” in the United States by kneeling for the national anthem, the face of their classic “Just Do It” advertisements. While this is of course an absurd reflection of the commodity fetishism of post-modern life, arguably the response has been even more absurd.

 

Kaepernick-Nike-Ad-sg-img.jpg

With a Multi-Million Dollar Sponsorship Deal, One Has To Ask: What Exactly Did This Gentleman Sacrifice? Image Courtesy Of: https://www.thenation.com/article/on-colin-kaepernicks-nike-ad-will-the-revolution-be-branded/

 

Surprisingly, various media outlets (like Yahoo Sports) have reported on the responses in an extremely partisan nature; the opening paragraph of Jason Owens’ piece says “In the time-honored tradition of consumers expressing their rage at companies aligning with perceived liberal policies, people took to Twitter on Monday to light their own property on fire”. While the idea of consumers lighting their own purchases on fire is absurd, to tie it to “rage” at companies with “liberal policies” is as absurd as it is untrue. Indeed, many so-called “liberals” burned (or at least threatened to burn) New Balance shoes when the company seemingly came out in support of U.S. President Donald Trump after his election. This is hardly a partisan issue, but it does raise some real questions.

CNN offered another piece of partisan “analysis”, with LZ Granderson explaining the “hypocrisy of Nike outrage” for readers. While this outrage is certainly hypocritical, Granderson—who is apparently a political analyst—offers a poor explanation of this hypocrisy. Granderson connects it to Donald Trump’s (and indeed wider conservative America’s) support for the military. For Granderson, the idea that Pat Tillman (the former NFL football player who quit football and enlisted in the army, only to lose his life in Afghanistan), sacrificed more (i.e., his life) than Mr. Kaepernick, and President Donald Trump’s praise for the U.S. military, are both hypocritical because of the bad blood between Mr. Trump and the late John McCain (widely recognized after his death as a war hero). Of course, Mr. Granderson here fails to recognize that Mr. Trump’s support for the military need not equate to sanguine feelings towards Mr. McCain, especially given the latter’s role in encouraging American adventures in Libya, Syria, and Iraq in the name of globalism. Thus, given the ideological divide between the two politicians, these claims of “hypocrisy” don’t really stand up to scrutiny; quite the opposite, it seems that Mr. Trump is in keeping with his nationalist—and anti-globalist—rhetoric, as (rhetorically at least) Mr. Trump has criticized America’s imperialist wars in the past.

While Granderson’s analysis leaves much to be desired, his assertion that there is hypocrisy in the outrage over Nike is spot on. Unfortunately for Mr. Granderson, however, that hypocrisy has nothing to do with Donald Trump, Colin Kaepernick, racial injustice, or “right” and “left” divides in politics. The hypocrisy inherent in the outrage over Nike, rather, has everything to do with the moral degradation and regressive nature of the American Social Justice Warrior (SJW) mindset. In this instance, the virtue signaling and self proclaimed “anti-capitalists” of the American “left” are lapping up the virtue signaling of corporate America, somehow believing that a transnational corporation—like Nike—is “standing” (pardon the pun) for “something”. The idea that Nike—a company that has based its manufacturing policies on the exploitation of child laborers and impoverished workers in the “third world” so as to sell their products at a premium in the “first world”—cares about morality is bizarre to say the least. Where is the “virtue” in manufacturing shoes for 1.65 USD (if even that) in southeast Asia and selling them for 165.00 USD in Manhattan? Is this standing for something? No, Nike is no paragon of virtue (like FIFA is no paragon of virtue).

Unfortunately, pundits like CNN’s LZ Granderson are not doing their jobs as journalists when they allow Nike to engage in a classic example of what philosopher Herbert Marcuse called “Repressive Tolerance”; capitalism takes what is critical of it (say, protest) and commodifies it before selling it back to the world having taken the teeth out of the criticism. By standing silent in the face of this insult to the American public—and by allowing Nike to engage in what can only be called corporate fascism—the media sends the message that corporations can join the virtue signaling of the SJW class. This is because of an increased focus on “morality”, given Donald Trump’s perceived lack of morality according to the main(lame) stream media. Indeed, Levi’s—a company highly identified with the culture of cowboys and the “wild west”—has picked up on this as well, teaming up with nebulously named “gun control groups” in a bid to signal their own virtue. Not only does this reinforce the dangerous message that corporations “are people too”—after all, they can virtue signal with the best of them—but it also represents the high point of extreme capitalism: the commodification of ideology.

By adopting Colin Kaepernick as the “face” of their advertising campaign—in a bid to virtue signal—Nike is insulting not only the American public, but also its customers all over the world. Nike is simply trying to generate a new “grand narrative” of corporate tolerance which stands in the face of their history of exploitation as they engaged in—to borrow Richard Falk’s term—“predatory globalization”, exploiting low-wage workers throughout the so-called “developing” world. Nike has, for years, been involved in the global “dictatorship of bureaucratic economy” which, as Guy Debord notes in The Society of the Spectacle, “must be accompanied by permanent violence”. In this case, the violence is wholly symbolic (to borrow Pierre Bourdieu’s terminology): those who stand with Nike win the virtuous labels of “tolerant” and “progressive”, and those who stand against Nike are violently tarred and feathered with the labels “racist” and “intolerant”. Of course, out of this paroxysm of symbolic violence, no winner can emerge.

This event shows, more clearly than ever, that French philosopher Jean Baudrillard was correct when he said that we are now living in a “hyperreality”, where “simulations come to constitute reality itself” and “the boundaries between information and entertainment, images and politics, implode” (Best and Kellner, 1991). As the masses eat up what is proffered by the culture industry and the mass media, I am left wondering just how the American educational system has failed so spectacularly and created a mass society of the spectacle (again, pardon the pun). Unfortunately, vast swathes of the American public continue to fake outrage at everything…except, of course, that which they should be most outraged at: their own complicity in becoming mindless pawns of the corporate interests of transnational corporations like Nike.

 

nike-child-labor-cartoon-just-do-it1.jpg

Just Do It! Listen To Our Virtue and Get Back In Line and Consume! Image Courtesy Of: https://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/index.php?threads/does-nike-still-use-child-slave-labor.557694/

 

This is why it is important that we all stand up for our countries against the dangerous ideology of globalism, which merely serves to legitimate corporate greed and exploitation.

 

Advertisements

Football Brings Greeks (As Well as Turks) Together in the Wake of Devastating Fires

Leave a comment

Many journalistic and academic works about football tend to focus on the negative aspects of football fandom, particularly harping on rare instances of hooliganism or “xenophobia” in order further a narrative designed to transform football fans from emotional “supporters” into docile “consumers”. In so doing, however, these writers often (perhaps purposefully) choose to ignore the positive aspects of sport which can actually bring people together in traumatic times of grief and sorrow. The footballing world’s response to the tragic wildfires which recently engulfed the environs of Athens, claiming over 80 lives, are an example of this function of sport.

 

The famous Greek side Olympiakos announced that they will be donating 1 million Euros to victims of the fires, while also setting up bank accounts at three Greek banks to accept donations. Meanwhile, Arsenal’s new signing Sokratis Papastathopoulos announced that he would be donating the weekly profits from his own business to the victims. This kind of solidarity is especially important when one considers the fact that arson may have played a part, a possibility which Greek leaders are looking into given the speed with which the wildfires spread. This national tragedy, as the Pappas Post notes, prompted Thessaloniki based club PAOK Thessaloniki to donate 100 percent of the proceeds from their recent UEFA Champions League tie with Swiss side FC Basel.

 

Screen Shot 2018-08-03 at 9.54.32 AM.png

“As a first aid action, PAOK FC will grant all the proceeds of today’s match to repair damage and alleviate families affected by the tragedy of Attica. Our thoughts are with the families of the victims and in ways of further assistance”. Translation and Image Courtesy of: http://www.pappaspost.com/solidarity-reigns-among-greeks-after-tragic-fires-in-attica/

 

It is important to note that support for the victims within the football world has also come from outside of Greece. Recently, Turkish side Galatasaray SK donated almost 1.5 million U.S. Dollars—the proceeds from their friendly with AEK Athens—to the victims. Before the match, the Galatasaray players took the field with t-shirts wishing their neighbors well. Similarly, Izmir side Goztepe took the field for a match with Olympiakos on 26 July 2018 with a “Pray for Athens” banner. Unfortunately, however, these important developments in Greek/Turkish relations have been widely ignored in the global English language press. This is not surprising, as the media’s narrative prefers to see sport as an avenue to further divisions in society (as can be seen from the bizarre kneeling fiasco in the United States’ National Football League (NFL)). So long as the globalist media prefers to drive wedges between communities in favor of their narrative, and continue to provide a one dimensional image of football fans, we as readers will receive a distorted view of the world.

 

galatasaray-gecmis-olsun-komsu--12039041.Jpeg

fft16_mf12039040.Jpeg

Greek and Turkish Solidarity on the Football Field. Images Courtesy Of: http://www.milliyet.com.tr/galatasaray-dan-atina-da-anlamli-ti-galatasaray-2716533-skorerhaber/

 

2076832_620x410.jpg

Image Courtesy of: https://www.haberturk.com/goztepe-den-yunanistan-a-destek-geldi-2076832-spor

 

For an interesting academic take on the press reporting of football matches between Greek and Turkish sides, please see here: http://users.auth.gr/npanagiotou/articles/Emre-Nikos-EMU2007Paper.pdf

As someone who knows that Turkish and Greek cultures have many more similarities than they have differences, my thoughts go out out to all of those who have been affected by this tragedy in Greece.

 

Turkiye-vs-Yunanistan-1.jpg

An Image that Scares the Globalists. Image Courtesy Of: https://turkiye.net/yazarlar/bugra-bakan/turkiye-ve-yunanistanin-karsilastirmali-ekonomik-durumu/

 

greece_turkey_friendship.jpg

Culture Is Real, so Stand Up For It Regardless of Your Nationality. Image Courtesy Of: https://komsudaneoluyor.net/prowthiste-ypiresies-proionta-se-tourkous-touristes/

 

 

Academic and Journalistic Integrity Disappear in the Age of One Dimensional Thought

Leave a comment

As both an academic and a writer, I have recently become appalled by the irresponsibility I have seen from both academics and journalists in the main (lame) stream media. Indeed, it seems that integrity in both of these professions has gone out the window, replaced by a desire to shape—and indeed manufacture—one dimensional thought. In this respect, both academics and journalists risk becoming no different from corporate advertisers. Like advertisers, who seek to create an image for consumers through rhetoric, so too do professional academics and journalists seek to create a self-image for the consumers of main (lame) stream media.

On 9 July 2018, CNN ran a piece by the academic Robert M. Sapolsky of Stanford University with the headline “Be alarmed when a leader tries to make you think of humans as vermin”. Mr. Sapolsky took offense to U.S. President Donald Trump’s comment that “Democrats ‘want illegal immigrants, no matter how bad they may be, to pour into and infest our Country, like MS-13’”, because the word “infest” is generally used in relation to subhuman—and often unwanted—creatures like insects or vermin. In support of his argument, Mr. Sapolsky cites academic research (like this) which claims that

 

social conservatives tend toward lower thresholds for disgust than liberals. They’re more likely to be unsettled by wearing someone else’s (clean) clothes, sitting on a chair still warm from a previous occupant, or thinking of someone spitting into a glass of water and then drinking it; show them a disgusting picture (e.g., a wound teeming with maggots) and their autonomic nervous systems tend to lurch more than a liberal’s would (and as an important control, this lower threshold is not found among economic or geopolitical conservatives).

 

Indeed, this research is similar to earlier academic “findings” which claim that disliking body odor is connected to having “rightwing views”. Now, of course, this is fairly absurd; do we not have a right—as individual humans—to value cleanliness? Perhaps this new interpretation is connected to Sociologist Norbert Elias’ view that as society “civilizes” it begins to take on the qualities of the lower classes since, traditionally, those with less access to adequate housing and bathing facilities are more likely to be “unclean”.

Yet the media skewing of perceptions goes far beyond one academic’s defense of a criminal gang like MS-13. It also involves geopolitics as well. After Mr. Trump said, in response to a journalist’s question regarding the United States’ hypothetical defense of Montenegro under NATO’s Article 5 which sees an attack on one member as an attack on all, that “They’re [Montenegrins] very strong people, they’re very aggressive people. They may get aggressive and, congratulations, you’re in World War Three,” the BBC was beside itself. The BBC’s Balkan correspondent Guy Delauney went so far as to claim that Mr. Trump depicted the Balkan nation as “a nation of conflict-crazy lunatics”. The logical jump here is staggering: While Mr. Trump is merely pointing out the absurdity of connecting the U.S.—through mutual defense treaties—to small nations in geopolitically contentious areas like the Balkans, since it could increase the risk of potentially dangerous conflicts, nowhere does Mr. Trump claim anything about “conflict crazed lunatics”. Unfortunately, the media—these days—will go to great lengths to shape the perceptions of its readers (many of whom are likely grossly uninformed).

Sadly, social media also engages in the same type of opinion formation. Take, for instance, three maps produced on the social media platform Instagram. The first depicts a comparison of voting results in Turkey with the ethnic map of Turkey, the second compares the populations of vast swathes of middle America to New York’s most populous areas, while the third compares the size of various European nations to the size of Ukraine’s ethnic-Russian minority. The subtext of these maps is extremely dangerous.

 

screenshot_20180709-030048_instagram.jpg

screenshot_20180719-110752_instagram.jpg

screenshot_20180719-110820_instagram.jpg

The Three Maps in Question. Courtesy of Instagram (Specific Accounts at Top).

 

Essentially, the maps of Turkey send viewers the message that Turkey should be divided along ethnic lines—even though we all know that ethnic demarcations based on demographic surveys do not correspond neatly to reality on the ground. One would think that this lesson would have been learned from the disaster of British boundary drawing in the Middle East following World War One. The map of the United States sends the message that Mr. Trump is somehow an illegitimate president, because rural residents in sparsely populated areas voted so differently than urban residents in densely populated areas. According to this logic, it is unimportant that people in such disparate areas as Maine and Texas should think similarly; it is more important that urban residents of New York City think similarly. The map of Europe sends the message that the ethnic Russian minority in Ukraine is a sizable one, implying that—somehow—Russian annexation of Ukrainian territory can be justified. These three maps show the dangers of opinion shaping via social media; it makes the world a more dangerous place.

I will close this short essay with a picture of a Mercedes billboard I saw in Istanbul. It depicts three young people with a Mercedes, along with the caption “Very original. Just like you”. Here, we see a corporate entity—in this case Mercedes—looking to shape the perception of consumers. The message being sent says “if you want to be original, then buy a Mercedes”. Since every human being wants something to set themselves apart in an increasingly homogenized world, the message is clear: If you want to confirm what you already think about yourself, then buy our product. The advertisement plays into the individual’s deepest desires, even though—in reality—conforming to corporate advertising will have the exact opposite effect from the one initially desired by the consumer. Buying a Mercedes will not set you apart in reality, but the emotional affirmation offered by the advertisement is more important. Just like the emotional messages sent by CNN and BBC look to confirm their readers’ own senses of moral superiority and “tolerance” vis-à-vis the masses’ “intolerance”.

 

20180708_133430.jpg

“Very Original. Just Like You”. Image Courtesy of the Author.

European Success Comes at Africa’s Expense: Former U.S. President Barack Obama’s First Major Post-Presidential Speech Focuses on Football but Misses the Mark

Leave a comment

Former U.S. President Barack Obama chose to make the focus of his first major post-presidential speech football, and in so doing proved (as has become the norm for globalist figures) his distance from the people. At an event in South Africa celebrating the 100th anniversary of Nelson Mandela’s birth, Mr. Obama praised the French national football team as an example of “inclusivity”. Unfortunately for Mr. Obama, however, his speech missed the mark on many levels.

As I have written before, the FIFA World Cup—particularly the 2018 incarnation of it—has become a propaganda tool for globalist interests. Predictably, Mr. Obama’s speech followed the globalist logic. Mr. Obama noted that the “multicultural” French squad confirmed Mr. Mandela’s “principle that we are bound to a common humanity”, and that this is a

 

truth that is incompatible with any form of discrimination based on race or religion or gender or sexual orientation. And it is a truth that, by the way, when embraced, actually delivers practical benefits, since it ensures that a society can draw upon the talents and energy and skill of all its people. And if you doubt that, just ask the French football team that just won the World Cup. Because not all of those folks – not all of those folks look like Gauls to me. But they’re French. They’re French.

 

While Mr. Obama may have wanted his “observation” to be interpreted as one in favor of multiculturalism, instead it seems that he has not abandoned the race-baiting tactics which have so disastrously divided the United States; indeed, the focus in this statement is not on the caliber of play but instead on the physical appearance of the French team. And that is something that someone as “tolerant” as Mr. Obama should have recognized before making such a ludicrous statement.

 

Yet Mr. Obama was not done. He continued by saying:

 

Embracing our common humanity does not mean that we have to abandon our unique ethnic and national and religious identities. Madiba never stopped being proud of his tribal heritage. He didn’t stop being proud of being a black man and being a South African. But he believed, as I believe, that you can be proud of your heritage without denigrating those of a different heritage.

 

Here I am forced to ask who—aside from, perhaps, Google—would ever claim that being proud of one’s heritage means denigrating those of different heritage? Mr. Obama seems to be going by the bizarre logic of Google, which equates xenophobia with nationalism, that I criticized on 10 July. It is a shame that Mr. Obama is so caught up in the narrative he is trying to spread that he cannot see the problems inherent in his effusive praise of the French side.

 

While the French side deserve all the credit in the world for winning a physically and mentally taxing tournament like the World Cup, the image of the “multicultural” French side may not be as rosy as some commentators seem to assume. As I have written about previously, globalization is essentially imperialism with a kinder face. In France’s case, their “multicultural” football team may be less a reflection of their “tolerant” society (which, in actuality, is fairly racist), and more a reflection of neo-colonialism; the team is the fruit of past imperialism! France’s team won the world cup with a squad featuring a many players of African descent; according to Yahoo Sports, there were players of Congolese, Guinean, Nigerian, Cameroonian, Algerian, Mauritanian, Senegalese, Malian, Tologlese, Angolan, Zairian, and Moroccan descent in the French squad. Yet, at the same time, this World Cup saw the worst performance for Africa, as a continent, since 1982; it was the first time in 36 years that an African side failed to appear in the tournament’s second round, and the African contingent’s 15 games resulted in 10 losses, two draws, and just three wins.

Comically, the BBC asks, rhetorically, “What Went Wrong for Africa in 2018?”, and they suggest VAR and “bad luck” as possible answers. Readers who expect honest reporting—rather than globalist rhetoric—from journalists would do well to avoid the BBC, because the answer is quite clear: What went wrong for Africa is that some of Africa’s most talented footballers are currently playing for European countries! If Mr. Obama actually cared for Africa—as he continually claims to do—he could have addressed the neo-colonialism of the French football team while also praising it. Or he could have praised Croatia, who—despite their small size—showed what a team can do when both players and fans are united with a strong sense of national identity and national pride. In the end, however, Mr. Obama’s rhetoric is just that: rhetoric. It has no basis in reality, and merely represents another form of globalist propaganda. Meanwhile, I am hoping for a true African success at the next World Cup. After all, that is likely what Nelson Mandela would have truly wanted: the sons of Africa playing under an African—and not a colonial—flag.

 

Drogba.jpg

For Instance, Didier Drogba didn’t play for France…He Played for the Ivory Coast. Image Courtesy Of: https://fr.starafrica.com/football/articles/mondial-2018-drogba-revient-sur-lechec-de-lafrique/

Thoughts on Google’s Manipulation, Nationalism, and Football Part 2: The Tribulations of Croatia’s World Cup Adventure

2 Comments

Author’s Note: Upon returning to Turkey from a short trip to Greece I was reading the daily news at home and could not help but notice the main(lame)stream media’s obsession with the word “xenophobic” (and its other forms, like “xenophobia”. When I looked it up on Google, just to see how they would define it, I was surprised to see that—as a synonym—Google decided to provide its users with “nationalism”. This is, of course, absurd and only someone with a very weak knowledge of the English language would accept “nationalism” as a synonym of “xenophobia”. Yet, since Google is so keen on brainwashing internet users around the world I thought that I should—in the vein of famous Sociologist C. Wright Mills—stand up to this absurdity. This is part two of a two-part post responding to Google’s unacceptable attempts to mislead the public.

 

Nationalism:Xenophobia.png

Beware Google’s Manipulations. Image Courtesy of Google.com

 

Like many previous World Cups, Russia 2018 has been presented to fans as a globalist celebration of “one world” and “one game”. Of course, this message has been mainly sent by FIFA’s corporate sponsors, which look to steamroll the world—and football fans—into one homogenous, all-consuming, mass. That Budweiser (France 1998) and Coca-Cola (Brazil 2014) sent the same messages during previous World Cups goes to show the extent of consumerism’s intimate ties to the World Cup experience in the age of extreme capitalism.

 

images.jpeg

Coca-Cola Advert from Brazil 2014. Image Courtesy Of: https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRjm8Vl6uN4zjSqehlv7Hu8GFWIlZZNLh9p2Jk-OMbf4Uf0atBTRA

 

Unknown.jpeg

Budweiser Advert from France 1998. Image Courtesy Of: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i8uoRvD-FCw

 

Watching this World Cup, it is fascinating to see just how wary the news media—and FIFA—are of any messages which run afoul of the utopic “one world” message espoused by globalism.  Anything that goes against the narrative is liable to be labeled as “nationalistic” or—perhaps, judging by Google’s twisted logic—xenophobic as well! In a World Cup competition—itself a sporting event contested by the representatives of nation-states—there is always going to be a tension between nationalism and globalism. Just like this tension is evident in the wider world, so too is it evident in the World Cup. Despite what the globalists may wish, nationalism is not going away (a fact which the late Anthony D. Smith continually reminded scholars of). Interestingly, it is Croatia—the tournament’s unheralded surprise package—which has brought this tension to the fore time and again during the tournament.

 

Croatia is a small Balkan nation of around 4,000,000. Despite its small population, however, the Croatian team has shocked the world by making it all the way to the World Cup final. Of course, this is not the best outcome for the sponsors; after all, they are all about the markets, and a bigger population means a bigger market which means more money. And this may be why the Croatian team has been criticized time and again for—perhaps unwittingly—going against the globalist narrative. Most recently, following Croatia’s upset of England in the semifinals, the main(lame)stream media outlet Bloomberg published a piece with the sub-headline “The small country wins thanks to a unique combination of professionalism and warlike nationalist fervor”. While the author is correct in asserting that football did indeed play an important role in the break-up of Yugoslavia and subsequent identity formation of an independent Croatian state, the disdain for any type of “nationalism” is evident in the text: one passage reads “While soccer fans remain a political force, with all their nationalist warts and anti-capitalist pathos, the fervor of the 1990s no longer determines the political landscape”. Clearly, to the author, “nationalism” and “anti-capitalism” represent “warts”; they are disfigurements which need to be removed in order for Croatia to fully enter the globalist utopia.

 

It is important to note that this is just a journalistic interpretation of Croatia’s unprecedented success. Meanwhile, FIFA has also been swift to reprimand Croatia’s team—and players—for other actions which have gone against the globalist narrative.  Defender Domagoj Vida received a “warning” from FIFA for a Youtube video dedicating Croatia’s quarterfinal victory (over Russia) to Ukraine. Mr. Vida explained that the video, in which he says “Glory to Ukraine”, is a joke dedicated to his Ukrainian friends at Dynamo Kiev (the footballer’s former club). Predictably, the video did not go down well with FIFA, who sent an ‘official warning”. Given that the video was pro-Ukrainian, Russian politicians were—like FIFA—quick to condemn it, with the Russian parliament’s sports committee member Dmitry Svishchyov saying “Political, nationalist and racist slogans are not welcome at the World Cup.”. From this comment, it seems that Mr. Svishchyov has either been reading too much Google, or he is mistaken as to what entails “racist” and “nationalist” speech. Expressing support for one country—in this case Ukraine—does not entail “racist” speech. Unfortunately, however, the global culture industry continues to frame the debate, and anything that goes against the narrative is liable to be labeled “racist”… or worse; Mr. Vida escaped with a fine but the Croatian official also appearing in the video was fined 15,000 Swiss Francs.

 

1034225456.jpg

Domagoj Vida, a Hero to Many For Resisting the Global Culture Industry. Image Courtesy Of: https://tr.sputniknews.com/spor/201807151034289908-vida-ukrayna-yanlisi-ikinc-video/

 

Yet this was not the only moment of “indiscretion” for the Croatian side. Following the team’s round of 16 victory over Denmark, the Croatian soccer federation was fined over 70,000 USD for “an incident in which members of the Croatian national team were seen drinking ‘non-authorized beverage products’”. The “non-authorized beverage product” in question was one not officially approved by FIFA as an official World Cup beverage, yet by daring to consume such a beverage the Croatian team was fined ten times what Russia was fined for unfurling a neo-Nazi banner against Uruguay earlier in the tournament. Clearly, adhering to the globalist logic of consumption is much more important than being “tolerant”; this fact alone should be enough to show World Cup fans just how hollow the globalist tropes of “tolerance” are.

 

These tropes are so hollow that FIFA continually contradicts itself while attempting to tow the globalist line. Following the semi-finals, broadcasters were ordered to stop “zooming in on ‘hot women’ in the crowd” of World Cup matches. Apparently, such “zooming in” is a result of sexist broadcasters. Of course, one could easily point out that showcasing female fans does quite the opposite; it provides an opportunity to showcase female fans and thus allows football to become less of the male preserve that it has traditionally been. Football is best with fans, and their gender should not matter. Unless, of course, FIFA wants to create a controversy out of nothing.

 

_102485477_gettyimages-538998040.jpg

Apparently, These Fans Should Not Be Shown (According to FIFA). Image Courtesy Of: https://www.bbc.com/sport/football/44800145

 

Similarly, the British Independent claims that France’s “multicultural” team (and the patriotism it elicits) does not “disguise the racism in French society”. What The Independent fails to note is that France’s “multicultural” squad is a direct result of colonialism; the sons of French colonial possessions have come to the metropole to represent the national team in this World Cup, yet there is no mention of this uncomfortable link in The Independent’s piece. Rather, they prefer to focus on the perceived racism that exists in French society. Of course, underlining the team’s connection to the colonial past would have undermined the main(lame) stream media’s case, so it went unmentioned. Yet, for those of us who care not for equality but who strive for justice, this is unacceptable; in order to keep globalism from becoming an extension of imperialism we must not be silent when we see immigrants being exploited (a topic that the Washington Post hints at when noting the issues with calling France an “African team”). Wouldn’t it be nicer if there actually was an African team in the latter stages of the World Cup, rather than a French side advertising the European nation’s neocolonial tendencies? Of course it would be…but don’t expect that kind of analysis from the Washington Post, which prefers divisive race baiting in their “analysis”. And yet, when a former Croatia manager points out the national backgrounds of the French side, he is immediately slammed for being “racist”. Again, it represents yet another attempt to slander Croatia, the side that FIFA’s corporate sponsors did not really want in the final; England would have brought in much more publicity (and, of course, money). This is why it is important to read through the lines of the headlines put out by the main(lame) stream media; most of it is just a cheap way to frame debate and increase the divisions among people based on gender or race.

 

Keeping these examples in mind, football fans must wonder: where is the freedom in a world dominated by the logic of extreme capitalism and consumption? When corporate interests decide what drinks a team can and can not consume, it becomes clear that we are living in an age of corporate fascism. When broadcasters are told what images of fans they should focus on—and which types of fans they should ignore—it becomes clear that we are living in an age of corporate fascism. When the news media attempts to divide people based on demographic characteristics, it becomes clear we are living in an age of corporate fascism. It is these types of social control that we all must resist, regardless of the team we support or the nation we are a citizen of. The only way to defeat globalism—and its corporate sponsors—is by standing up for countries and their cultures. Otherwise, we risk becoming anonymous parts of a homogenized global “culture” of consumption. Nationalism and patriotism are not xenophobia, despite what Google might say.

 

Please See Part 1 Here.

Thoughts on Google’s Manipulation, Nationalism, and Football Part 1: Greece and Turkey

2 Comments

Author’s Note: Upon returning to Turkey from a short trip to Greece I was reading the daily news at home and could not help but notice the main(lame)stream media’s obsession with the word “xenophobic” (and its other forms, like “xenophobia”. When I looked it up on Google, just to see how they would define it, I was surprised to see that—as a synonym—Google decided to provide its users with “nationalism”. This is, of course, absurd and only someone with a very weak knowledge of the English language would accept “nationalism” as a synonym of “xenophobia”. Yet, since Google is so keen on brainwashing internet users around the world I thought that I should—in the vein of famous Sociologist C. Wright Mills—stand up to this absurdity. This is part one of a two-part post responding to Google’s unacceptable attempts to mislead the public.

 

Nationalism:Xenophobia

This . . . Might Not Be The Best Way To “Learn New Words”. Image Courtesy Of Google Search.

 

While sitting at a seaside restaurant on the Greek island of Chios, my friend explained to me the myriad of issues that membership in the European Union brought Greece. From rising prices as a result of adopting the Euro to absurd regulations which prohibit private citizens from consuming produce from their own gardens, my friend painted a picture of a highly regulated dystopia favoring corporate interests over the interests of Greek citizens at large. My friend summed it up as the destruction of Greek culture in the face of an imposed “European” culture; one which has driven a wedge between two very similar cultures: those of Greece and Turkey. Of course, as my friend noted, “they”—the globalist powers that be in the European Union—are afraid of a Greco-Turkish union since it would be a geopolitical power in the Mediterranean. To avoid such an outcome, the differences—mainly religious—between the two cultures have been highlighted to prevent any inkling of the kind of “Helleno-Turkism” that historian Dimitri Kitsikis once called for. It made for a melancholy night over ouzo, as one had to ask what similarities Greek culture has with, say, Swedish culture, other than both being members of the so-called European “Union”.

 

20180703_120700.jpg

Beautiful Pyrgi. Image Courtesy Of The Author.

 

The next day in the beautiful village of Pyrgi I met a storekeeper who could recite the Turkish football team Karsiyaka’s “Kaf Kaf” chant better than Turkey’s own Prime Minister! Why was it, then, that Greek storekeeper could recite this famous chant better than a Turkish politician? It is because one is a real person working in the interest of his local business (it is a smart move to create rapport with Turkish visitors) while the other has become detached from his own population while working in the interests of global capital. Indeed, that a train could derail in Northwest Turkey—and cause the loss of 24 innocent lives–is testament to the fact that Turkey’s globalist leaders ignore infrastructure when it does not directly benefit international capital. It is easy to build an unnecessary third airport in Istanbul; it is harder to maintain the railways that citizens use every day.

 

2050114_b4a13fd172670f09bc53d25d0cd5edd5_640x640.jpg

2050114_22274a0f930e517a199356cd2f84317c_640x640.jpg

Clearly There Was Very Little Inspection Done on the Tekirdag-Istanbul Route Before the Accident. Images Courtesy Of: http://www.haberturk.com/son-dakika-tekirdag-da-tren-kazasi-iste-olay-yerinden-ilk-kareler-2050114/5

 

During our conversation, the shopkeeper said something very important; something that all scholars of nationalism should keep in mind. He told me that the hardliners are dumb: “We only have ninety years [on earth]. So why would we live our lives hating people because of their nationality?”. Indeed, it is a great question. Life is short. So why harp on national differences when the cultures are so similar? Loving one’s country—and one’s culture and fellow citizens—does not mean hating other countries, cultures, or people. Despite what Google’s lies might tell you, life is not that simple. Nationalism is not xenophobia; it is by traveling that one can best gain the knowledge necessary to defeat the divisions created by global corporations like Google.

 

20180703_184844.jpg

A Turkish Truck Travels to Chios to Help Drain Sewage. It is the Artificial Divisions of Globalism Which Keep Turks and Greeks Apart, Not Nationalism. Image Courtesy Of the Author.

 

Upcoming: Part Two

Erdo-Gone? Globalism Faces a Major Challenge in the Upcoming Elections in Turkey as Football Takes Again Becomes a Political Tool

1 Comment

On June 24 2018, Turkey will head into a crucial election which will define the future of the nation. The reverberations of this election will be felt far beyond the borders of Turkey, as it is a battle between globalism and nationalism. Indeed, it seems that many Turkish politicians are aware of this battle as they have looked to use football to stoke nationalism in a bid to paint over the fact that Turkey has, for the last 16 years, been led by the globalists of the Justice and Development party (AKP). And, just like in the wider world, globalism is teetering on the brink in Turkey.

Some commentators, like the Washington Post, saw Donald Trump’s election as “the end of the world order”, with European Council President Donald Tusk claiming that Mr. Trump’s actions “play into the hands of those who seek a new post-West order where liberal democracy and fundamental freedoms would cease to exist”. While this fear mongering is unfounded—after all, it is arguable whether or not the post Cold War “New World Order” has truly brought “liberal democracy” or “fundamental freedoms” to the world—it is true that the world is going through a profound transformation; Turkey might just be the latest country to experience this transformation.

For too many years national leaders around the world have preferred their own pocketbooks to their peoples’ well-being as they “built bridges” with multinational corporations, ignoring national borders in order to benefit the flow of corporate dollars while individual citizens struggled. This state of affairs has gone on for so long that people have come to believe that this is the only way forward, that globalization can be the salvation of the world. Perhaps this is why we have seen Germany’s Angela Merkel—who has taken issue with Mr. Trump’s nationalist rhetoric before—so ready to support Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan in the upcoming elections. Despite recent diplomatic spats between their two countries, Ms. Merkel reportedly invited Mr. Erdogan to Berlin following the election (essentially seeing a victory for Mr. Erdogan as the only possible outcome). While Berlin refuted the invite (likely following criticism), Mr. Erdogan’s opponents seized on the invitation.

 

angela-merkel-g7-2018-e1528703913154.jpg

Globalism Under Fire? Image Courtesy Of: https://qz.com/1301788/photos-of-trump-at-g7-and-xi-jinping-at-sco-sum-up-state-of-global-leadership/

 

thumbs_b_c_9736efdaa4bc52253695cde226f375be.jpg

Germany’s Geopolitical Play In the Name of Globalism. Image Courtesy Of: https://www.aa.com.tr/en/europe/merkel-invites-erdogan-to-berlin-after-elections-/1160036

 

Opposition leader Muharrem Ince asked on 30 May 2018 “What partnership do you [Ms. Merkel] have that you’re trying make him [Mr. Erdogan] succeed? Will you benefit from his election? We are not butlers of Germany, we are the independent Republic of Turkey.” Similarly, the imprisoned leader of the pro-Kurdish Peoples’ Democratic Party (HDP) Selahattin Demirtas told Ms. Merkel that she would be inviting Mr. Erdogan as a retired President. Indeed, the actions by Ms. Merkel are hardly becoming of a leader who continually pledges support for “democracy” and Western liberal values, but they go far to show just how bankrupt such sentiments have become. Mr. Erdogan has also been shaken by this precarious state of affairs, and has repeatedly made false claims on the campaign trail while appealing to voters. His contradictions are to be expected; after all he is running on a nationalist platform despite being a globalist. Even the AKP’s 2018 election slogan is “Vakit Turkiye Vakti”, which translates roughly as “The Time is Turkey’s Time”. Of course, this is an absurd slogan and makes one ask: if this is now “Turkey’s Time”, then whose time was it for the past 16 years with the AKP in power? Implicit in this slogan, of course, is that the globalist time is now over. While many voters in Turkey might recognize this Freudian slip in the slogan, it is clear that AKP politicians are looking to use football in order to bolster their localist credentials while further dividing the electorate.

 

Dd9OGZ1V4AAdonw.jpg

Then…Whose Time Was It Before? Image Courtesy Of: http://ahmetunver.com.tr/2018/05/30/turk-milletinin-24-haziran-imtihani-7/

 

A picture circulating on the internet contains the badges of Turkey’s three biggest football clubs with the message “Let’s come together at the ballot box, don’t let this match go into overtime”. While the message is one of unity through sport in the face of the ruling AKP, football has become a main target of the AKP in their election campaign as well. On 9 June 2017, Mr. Erdogan closed out the famous 19 May stadium in Ankara with a political rally. In his speech, Mr. Erdogan promised Ankara a brand-new 55,000 capacity stadium; it is not the first time that Mr. Erdogan has used the promise of a new football stadium to collect votes.

 

IMG-20180611-WA0005.jpg

The Football Fans Are United This Election. Source Unknown.

 

Later, on 18 June, Turkish Prime Minister Binali Yildirim attempted to ride the football wave in Izmir by pointing out to supporters of Karsiyaka SK that while other clubs in Izmir (such as Goztepe) have gotten new stadiums, Karsiyaka has not. While Mr. Yildirim may have thought that this move would gather votes from a district of Izmir that has consistently shown high rates of support for the opposition Republican People’s Party (CHP)—up to 80 percent—his presentation left much to be desired. In his speech, Mr. Yildirim incorrectly recited the famous Karsiyaka chant “Kaf Kaf Kaf, Sin Sin Sin, Kaf Sin Kaf Sin Kaf” as “Sin Sin Sin, Kaf Kaf Kaf, Sin Kaf” before trailing off (for a correct rendition, please see here). For many commentators, this has become a topic of ridicule. Karsiyaka SK’s famous chant is something that not only every football fan in Turkey knows, but also something that almost everyone from Izmir knows. It is deeply embedded in Turkish culture, and the fact that the nation’s Prime Minister—and native of Izmir—could butcher this chant shows just how detached the AKP politicians have become from the public they claim to represent. By attempting to appeal to local pride, Mr. Yildirim instead revealed the extent to which globalism—and the pursuit of foreign capital—drives AKP policies in Turkey while also encouraging the division of the electorate, in this case along the lines of football support.

 

New folder (2)-eskistat-864-ic.jpg

From Stadiums to “National Gardens”. Image Courtesy Of: https://www.aa.com.tr/tr/turkiye/eski-statlar-millet-bahcesi-olacak/1156543

 

Interestingly, the AKP’s appeal to football has included not only stadium construction, but also stadium destruction. On 25 May 2018 the AA announced President Erdogan’s plans to turn old stadiums in ten cities—along with the Ataturk Airport—into “national gardens”. Work has already begun in both Konya and Eskisehir on this new project. The idea of “national gardens” is certainly a shrewd political move by the AKP. It simultaneously caters to the globalist position of “environmentalism” while also distracting voters from the rampant deforestation in Turkey that has occurred during the AKP years. Millions of trees have been cut down in Turkey to make room for the development projects—like the third Bosphorus bridge—that the AKP has used to further the rentier state. The “national garden” project also means that the AKP can double its gains off of stadium construction; having already won voters by constructing stadiums they are looking to again win voters over, this time by destroying stadiums.

 

9387159_orig.jpg

The True Enemy of the Environment is The Globalist Rentier State. Image Courtesy Of: http://globetamk.weebly.com/blog/deforestation-in-turkey

 

While the AKP look to confuse voters by oscillating between globalist and nationalist positions, recent polls do not look good for the ruling party. Opinion polls from May 2018 found that the AKP enjoys the support of just 34.8 percent of voters. By comparison, the opposition CHP, IYI Party, and HDP enjoy 23.4, 17.2, and 14.1 percent support, respectively. With support for President Erdogan in the presidential election at just under 40 percent, it is likely that the election will necessitate a run off on 8 July (https://www.bbc.com/turkce/haberler-turkiye-43907962 , which Mr. Erdogan may not win.

 

yeni2.jpg

yeni.jpg

ittifaklar.jpg

From Top:
“Which Party Would You Vote For In a General Election Were it To be Held This Sunday?”
“Which Candidate Would You Vote For In a Presidential Election Held This Sunday?”
Predicted Combined “Coalition” Votes.
Images Courtesy Of: http://www.cumhuriyet.com.tr/foto/foto_galeri/992691/4/Son_ankette_Erdogan_ve_AKP_icin_sok_sonuclar.html

 

With globalism teetering on the brink in Turkey, it will not be surprising if the headlines in the Western media after the election read “Erdo-Gone”. Of course, if the AKP’s years of uncontested rule are to finally end, it will first require the Turkish electorate to put the divisions fostered by globalism aside and truly unite as a nation. If football fans are able to unite, then there is no reason that the electorate cannot unite as well. The days of supporting political parties like one supports a football team—the mentality of “takim tutar gibi”—must first end if there is to be any hope of escaping the dystopia of globalism in Turkey. Only by defeating the imperialism of globalism can there be true development–and prosperity–in nations around the world.

Older Entries Newer Entries