Home

The Case of the 2018 Copa Libertadores Final: A Great Example of the Colonialism of Globalism

Comments Off on The Case of the 2018 Copa Libertadores Final: A Great Example of the Colonialism of Globalism

Boca_Juniors_River_Plate_philips_getty_ringer.0.jpg

All Those Who Call Themselves “Fans” Should Be Worried About the Decision to Move the Copa Libertadores Final to Spain As it is Proof that Globalism Just Represents a New Form of Colonialism. Image Courtesy Of: https://www.theringer.com/soccer/2018/11/28/18115215/boca-juniors-river-plate-copa-libertadores-postponement-violence

 

The 9 December 2018 Copa Libertadores final should never have been played outside of Argentina. It was, as Argentina’s 1978 World Cup winning coach Luis Cesar Menotti said, “an aberration”. Even though almost a month has passed since the Copa Libertadores final was moved from South America to Europe, the ridiculous nature of this odd event endures, especially as it comes in the midst of the current struggle between nationalism and globalism which is slowly developing all over the world.

 

Screen Shot 2018-12-10 at 3.40.54 AM.png

The Caption Shows Just How Much the LameStream Media Distorts the Reporting About Football Fans. The Picture Hardly Shows “Chaos”. Image Courtesy of: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-6426427/Boca-Juniors-v-River-Plate-rivalry-explained-Copa-Libertadores-final-ruined-violence.html

 

Indeed, the idea of moving the cup final was a typical globalist ploy: It aimed to earn more money for a small minority at the expense of the enjoyment of a large majority. The Sydney Morning Herald reported that although Spanish police had to organize the biggest security operation for a football match in the nation’s history, “the security costs were countered by a considerable windfall for the city, which local government officials put at an estimated minimum 55 million euros”. And yet, while Spain was busy making money off of the event, it was justified by Western media in the terms of the proverbial “White Man’s Burden” since the Argentinians were—according to the lamestream media—too “emotional”, “violent”, and—ultimately—“uncivilized” to host the cup final themselves.

 

One of the biggest culprits perpetuating this kind of orientalist discourse was the progressive news outlet The Washington Post, who boldly wrote that “The Madrid final capped one of the most embarrassing chapters in South American soccer, which saw its leaders unable to stage the historic match on the continent. The second leg had to be played in the Spanish capital after it was marred by fan violence in Buenos Aires two weeks ago . . . “. In a similar vein, The Guardian’s David Rieff extended the criticism of Argentine football to a wholesale criticism of Argentine society by writing that “The problem is that for all the greatness of its individual players, Argentinian football has increasingly become a metaphor for everything that is dysfunctional about Argentina”.

 

Going even further, Jonathan Wilson (also, unsurprisingly, of The Guardian) wrote a piece with the odd headline “How Argentinian football had the chance to prove it had changed – and blew it”. Wilson’s piece seems to suggest that violence is “in the DNA” of Argentina’s football, and the president of CONMEBOL [the governing body of South American football] Alejandro Dominguez is quoted as rhetorically asking “how do we not lose our DNA?” when faced with the question of how to reduce stadium violence. Of course, Mr. Wilson already indirectly claims that violence is inextricably linked to Argentinian football by saying—in the preceding paragraph—“It is easy to be seduced by the colour, the passion. The problem is that in Argentina, that tends to come with violence. The reasons are manifold and extend far beyond football”. In short, the reasons that are “manifold” and which “extend far beyond football” are those which, for Mr. Wilson, are primordial elements of Argentinian football. In a sociology classroom Mr. Wilson would be laughed at for being an essentialist—the racist and orientalist thinking which underpin Mr. Wilson’s writing are all too apparent, yet—unfortunately—the globalist media seem to turn a blind eye to the kind of journalism which cheaply feeds on outdated stereotypes when it serves their narrative; in this case, the narrative is one which supports Europe (and the wider global north) profiting from a South American club competition (set in the global south).

 

It is clear that the globalist media do not appreciate the irrationality of true fandom. Byron Stuardo Alquijay, a River Plate fan from Guatemala, told the Daily Mail that  “River Plate for me is my life, my passion. I had to sell my car to come here. I might buy another car in the future but this match will never be repeated”. Unfortunately for Mr. Alquijay, he sold his car for nothing because the match did not actually take place in Argentina. And the fact that the globalist media support the relocation of a match of this magnitude goes very far in showing just how little they actually care about the “average” football fan: the irrational, passionate, and emotional football fan.

 

97e0b55786220bc24a0b0e4d24dc61c25dde8e10.jpeg

The Irrational, Passionate, and Emotional Football Fan. Image Courtesy Of: https://www.smh.com.au/sport/soccer/pain-for-boca-and-gain-for-river-plate-in-spain-20181210-p50l8k.html

 

Brian Phillips of theringer.com did a good job of summing up the absurdity. Just before the new venue (in Madrid) was announced, Mr. Phillips wrote “If Boca’s and River’s most hardcore fans can’t attend the game, it will probably go by without a replay of Saturday’s mayhem. That will keep the players safe, at least. But taking humans out of the equation is not really a lasting substitute for trying to understand human nature”. Indeed, eliminating human beings is a very poor response to the “problem” at hand.

 

It is clear that globalization and the commodification of football has gone too far; not only is it seeking to take football away from those who make it what it is (the fans), it is also seeking to justify this theft through racist discourse which feeds on orientalist discourses of the “emotional” and “irrational” non-Westerner. Perhaps the ultimate irony of it all—even more ironic seeing as how it comes from the “tolerant” lamestream media in the West (Reuters pointed it out)—is that “a competition named in honour of the liberators of south America was […] played in the home of their former rulers”. Football fans everywhere should be ashamed at the kind of wrangling that led to Argentina’s premier football fixture being moved from Buenos Aires to Madrid. If you wouldn’t be ok with the Manchester derby being played in Japan, the Istanbul derby being played in Sao Paulo, or–**gasp**–the Spanish El Clasico being played in Doha, then I would think you shouldn’t be ok with what happened to the Copa Libertadores Final. In the new year, be sure to stand up for your country and, of course, your local team. It is, after all, one small way to resist the neo-colonialism of globalism.

The Dangerous Attack on Free Speech in American Society

Comments Off on The Dangerous Attack on Free Speech in American Society

One of America’s greatest Sociologists, C. Wright Mills, said that it was a sociologist’s job to point out the absurdities within their societies. Currently, it seems like PETA’s equating “anti-animal language” with hate speech is a good example of absurdity in modern American society which needs to be pointed out. The animal rights activist group has recently taken to Twitter to propose a change in the way idioms are used in the Englush language. For instance, they propose that the saying “beat a dead horse” should be replaced by “feed a fed horse”, or that the saying “bring home the bacon” should be replaced by “bring home the bagels”. Normally, this kind of absurdity could be easily dismissed as far-left wing activism which has gone off the deep end; after all, one would think that the very absurdity of this would make it irrelevant.

 

Screen Shot 2018-12-06 at 11.49.14 PM.png

Image (Unfortunately) Courtesy Of: https://www.usnews.com/news/national-news/articles/2018-12-05/peta-compares-anti-animal-language-to-hate-speech

 

Unfortunately, there is something far more insidious at work in this attack on language. As the literary theorist Gayatri Chakravorty Spivak points out in her book “Nationalism and the Imagination”, language is intimately tied into conceptions of what the “nation” is. Spivak writes:

Language has a history; it is public before our births and will continue so after our deaths. (Spivak, 32).

The history of language is the history of the nation. It is something that roots the individual in the context of the nation and, at the same time, places the individual within a community beyond the “self”. As someone who is bilingual—as well as bi-cultural and a dual-national—I know better than many just how important language is. And it is idioms that are the most important; they say in only a few words things about cultures and nations that thousands of words cannot. And this is why any attack on words—in the name of resisting some sort of “cism” (racism, sexism, speciesism, and the like)—cannot be accepted.

 

Can any society truly accept this kind of censorship without contesting it? In the past, totalitarian regimes—like that of Nazi Germany—chose to burn books so as to destroy the old culture in hopes of creating a new one. Now, in the postmodern age—where, as Foucault and Elias point out, we have become repulsed by exhibitions of outright violence—we accept outright censorship in the form of political correctness in the name of “progressivism”. While books are not being physically burned, thoughts are still being silenced. And one cannot say certain terms lest they be slandered by the label of “racist”, “sexist”, or—even—“speciesist”.  Of course, this is absurd. Unfortunately, however, few are resisting this censorship of language.

 

In the workplace, this type of linguistic control has extended to the forceful use of “gender neutral pronouns” . Indeed, in the universities, “inclusive teaching” seeks to control educators’ language, and the University of Kansas has gone so far as to rationally—and technocratically—dictate what kind of pronouns educators should use. Any educator who is a true educator—that is one who stands for free speech and independent thought—should stand against this form of censorship and thought control. Unfortunately, I see few educators who are willing to take this risk. After all, in the postmodern era, the threat of symbolic violence—in the Bourdieuian sense—is all too real for many educators. Rather than risk tenure, educators are choosing to remain silent to the fundamental assault on free speech that political correctness is engaging in.

 

For those of us who still respect freedom of thought in the modern world, at least we have the football fans. Whether it is in the form of banners or choreographies, fans tend to make their voices heard. Even in the form of stickers—which some Besiktas fans affixed to a pole in Istanbul—fans are able to express their nationalism (in the form of an Ataturk sticker), their opposition to the E-Ticket scheme pushed by the state, as well as their own identity as “the peoples’ team”. Freedom of speech is something worth standing up for, and, in this regard, educators may have something to learn from football fans. After all, it is our language which plays a role in defining our cultures and—by extension—our lives. To ignore it would, in effect, mean ignoring our very lives.

 

20180720_131338.jpg

At least the Football Fans are Still Free. Image Courtesy of the Author.

Football Vs. The Hyperreality: FC Basel and FC Young Boys Bern in Switzerland

Comments Off on Football Vs. The Hyperreality: FC Basel and FC Young Boys Bern in Switzerland

On 2 December 2018 FC Basel faced FC Young Boys Bern in the Swiss Super League, and both sets of fans put on a good display. It was a great example of why football is good in the stadium; sport offers a space for human expression in the real world.

 

Screen Shot 2018-12-03 at 2.39.07 AM.png

Emotion in Reality. Image Courtesy Of: http://www.ultras-tifo.net/photo-news/5501-basel-young-boys-02-12-2018.html

 

Indeed, the tifo put on by FC Basel’s fans shows just how much importance they put on the match day experience in the space of the stadium. The fact that this needs to be emphasized is, sadly, a sign of the times. This is because the first time these two teams met, on 28 September 2018, the focus was on protest. In the September match, the ultras of Young Boys Bern protested the growth of “eSports” by raining tennis balls and Playstation controllers onto the pitch while unfurling a giant banner of a “pause” button in the stands. While some commentators, like Jack Kenmare of Sportbible.com, could not understand why the Young Boys Ultras were protesting the growth of eSports, other commentators did a little more homework.

 

Screen Shot 2018-12-03 at 3.01.19 AM.png

Tennis Balls and Playstation Controllers are Emblematic of Protest in the Postmodern Age. Image Courtesy Of: https://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2018-09-24-swiss-football-fans-throw-controllers-on-the-pitch-in-esports-protest

 

Indeed, Forbes.com’s Steve McCaskill’s piece focused on the difficulty of “mixing eSports and sports”. Mr. McCaskill points out that, in this instance, the Young Boys’ Ultras were protesting the increased commercialization of football—a classic case, indeed, of industrial football. Mr. McCaskill goes on to point out that

 

FC Basel supporters have been especially vocal in their opposition to the plans, making their discontent about the club’s eSports operations well known. They believe the club’s resources should be devoted to football rather than the ‘brand’ […]

‘Many clubs in Switzerland’s first division now have an eSports player, but their fans are not protesting as often as Basel fans,’ adds [Oliver] Zesiger [a Swiss football scout]. ‘I think there’s a certain dissatisfaction among Basel-fans with their club being marketed as a product, rather than a football club. This doesn’t necessarily include only the “against modern football” crowd. Basel fans don’t want to be called clients for example’ […]

 

Here we clearly see that the FC Basel fans are making a very real point. Why divert resources from the reality of football—as seen and experienced on the pitch and in the stadium—in favor of the hyperreality of football—neither experienced or, truly, even seen—on a screen? Indeed, this is a valid question (and not to mention one that would have sounded absurd just a decade ago). The entire notion of trading football as it has been traditionally experienced for over a century for a digitized simulacrum of the game itself is, of course, a losing proposition. After all, eSports are—ostensibly—only as good as the players on the pitch, since the ratings of FIFA’s players are based on real-life performance….thus the two are intimately connected….right?

Unfortunately, it seems as if the modern world has become all-too accustomed to finding digital “solutions” to the real world. After all, Google seems to believe that if something is offensive, the solution is censorship (It is also something I have written about). I even know from my own experience with this very blog that—sometimes—traffic is actively diverted when the topics discussed diverge from the dominant narrative of progressive thought. This in and of itself is something worth thinking about. Regardless of if we are talking about sports, interpersonal relationships (online dating and Tinder, for instance), or even basic communication (social media), at what point does our reliance on technology start to mean trading reality for a hyperreality? While the social engineers might think that the hyperreality is preferable—since it eliminates the chances for irrational and emotional human behavior deviating from the expected “norms” generated by algorithms—the truth is that this will, inevitably, lead to an “iron cage of rationality” far more pervasive than any that Sociologist Max Weber could have conceived of.