@ Niccolo

[Errigal]

I'm feeling confused and angry. I went into this whole World Cup adventure with mixed feelings; part of me looked forward to some sporting entertainment while another part of me dreaded a steady stream of multicultural and globalist propaganda. You told me I was stupid to even think that a international sporting tournament with competition between national teams could be such a thing. The idea was absurd to you. I believed you. Now my worst fears have been realized. How can I trust you again?

Video at this link:
http://www.france24.com/en/node/5074233

The France 1998 World Cup winning team was celebrated for its multi-ethnic make-up of brown, white and black players. But in this World Cup the spotlight's fallen on a German team that's beginning to reflect the country's changing demographics.

[Errigal]

The difference between the French and English voice over was funny at one point:


In English:
"Eleven yrs ago Germany liberalized its citizenship laws. Since then the children of immigrants here have a right to a German passport."

In French:
"Eleven yrs ago Germany abandoned the right by blood in favour of the right by soil. Since then the children of immigrants can obtain German nationality"

The English version seems much more candy-coated.

[Niccolo and Donkey]

I'm feeling confused and angry. I went into this whole World Cup adventure with mixed feelings; part of me looked forward to some sporting entertainment while another part of me dreaded a steady stream of multicultural and globalist propaganda. You told me I was stupid to even think that a international sporting tournament organized by countries could be such a thing. The idea was absurd to you. I believe you. Now my worst fears have been realized. How can I trust you again?

Video at this link:
http://www.france24.com/en/node/5074233

Your claim was that the tournament is a celebration of Globalism which is simply impossible since it is a stage upon which nations compete.

Just because some media (SOME) discuss items like that which you have excerpted do not take away from the point of the tournament: national competition.

You also have chosen to ignore how the media has engaged in national rivalry.

Therefore you are guilty of selectively finding media tidbits to support your ridiculous assertion while ignoring national rivarly and missing the entire point of the tournament: national competition on a global stage.

In a globalist environment, nations do not compete with one another since national borders are torn down. Instead, multinational corporations compete with one another for access to resources, markets, and profits.

At the World Cup, nations compete with another.

I'll prep the puppet show one more time since you still don't get it.

Hak will help if my post doesn't.

[Ernest]

Feel like i'm invading someone else's conversation but the problem is that the national teams represent citizenries of states rather than ethnic groups.

If the national teams were made up only of players from one ethnic group each that would be anti-globalist.

When the national teams are made up of players from many ethnic groups, especially unassimilable ones and half-breeds, it promotes globalism.

It represents that ethnicity is irrelevant, that ethnic groups should mix, and that group identity should be vested in a geographical or at most cultural entity only.

[Niccolo and Donkey]

Feel like i'm invading someone else's conversation but the problem is that the national teams represent citizenries of states rather than ethnic groups.

If the national teams were made up only of players from one ethnic group each that would be anti-globalist.

When the national teams are made up of players from many ethnic groups, especially unassimilable ones and half-breeds, it promotes globalism.

It represents that ethnicity is irrelevant, that ethnic groups should mix, and that group identity should be vested in a geographical or at most cultural entity only.

Not all states are nation-states comprised only of one ethnicity.

Basques for instance have long been present in both the French and Spanish national squads.

New World countries like Australia, Canada, etc. have always been very mixed when it comes to ethnic background.

[Ernest]

Your claim was that the tournament is a celebration of Globalism which is simply impossible since it is a stage upon which nations compete.

In a globalist environment, nations do not compete with one another since national borders are torn down. Instead, multinational corporations compete with one another for access to resources, markets, and profits.

At the World Cup, nations compete with another.

I prefer the traditional sense of the word 'nation' like the ethnic Dutch people are the 'Dutch nation', not the denizens of the historically Dutch state. The mixed-race teams are tearing down national borders they are just like multinational corporations. They are antinational.

OTOH as far as there are teams which 100% represent an ethnic group they are promoting nationalism, but then by taking part in a globalist event they are promoting globalism.

[Niccolo and Donkey]

OTOH as far as there are teams which 100% represent an ethnic group they are promoting nationalism, but then by taking part in a globalist event they are promoting globalism.

The World Cup isn't a Globalist Event. It's a national competition on the global stage.

This isn't difficult to understand.

[Crowley]

The World Cup isn't a Globalist Event. It's a national competition on the global stage.

This isn't difficult to understand.

Can't carry on a conversation without being snide, can you Nic? Ernest is right. It is not nationalist competition of the teams are multicultural. It has elements of nationalism in that many competing states are still national entities -- but the media spin will be in favor of multicultural globalism.

[Niccolo and Donkey]

It is not nationalist competition of the teams are multicultural.

Not all states are multiethnic/multicultural.

Also, there is a difference between a national competition and a nationalist competition. Two different concepts.

It has elements of nationalism in that many competing states are still national entities -- but the media spin will be in favor of multicultural globalism.

Only some of the media looks upon it that way. Other media has focused on the national competition element.

Lastly, it's not the media's competition either. The media is not the tournament nor does it define the tournament. It reports on the tournament and spins it as it sees fit.

Western liberal media will report on the tourney according to their biases. North Korean, South Korean, Serbian, Algerian, Ghanian, etc. media will report on it differently.

The UK Sun will played up the competitive angle especially as it baited the Germans in its traditional manner. The Guardian the Independent took a different course.

At the end of the day, it is a tournament in which different countries compete and where only one remains as the final victor. This is antithetical to Globalism.

[Errigal]

Your claim was that the tournament is a celebration of Globalism which is simply impossible since it is a stage upon which nations compete.

Yes and Clark Kent can't possibly be Superman because Clark Kent wears glasses while Superman does not. It is equally impossible for the UN to be a platform for globalist/multiculturalist propaganda because it is where nations meet. Only a fool would say otherwise.


In a globalist environment, nations do not compete with one another since national borders are torn down. Instead, multinational corporations compete with one another for access to resources, markets, and profits.

At the World Cup, nations compete with another.

I'll prep the puppet show one more time since you still don't get it.

Hak will help if my post doesn't.

Do you really think the World Cup is a problem for globalists? I think if we were living in some "Brave New World", with us all talking in Esperanto, they'd happily let the little people have their little soccer tournament.

I enjoy watching it but it's just bread & circuses.

[Niccolo and Donkey]

Yes and Clark Kent can't possibly be Superman because Clark Kent wears glasses while Superman does not. It is equally impossible for the UN to be a platform for globalist/multiculturalist propaganda because it is where nations meet. Only a fool would say otherwise.

The UN routinely engages in actions that violate national sovereignty in the name of "global good".

FIFA does not do this with the World Cup.

Therefore your analogy collapses.

[Errigal]

The UN routinely engages in actions that violate national sovereignty in the name of "global good".

FIFA does not do this with the World Cup.

Therefore your analogy collapses.

So you are telling me that FIFA and the UN perform different functions and were set up for different reasons? :tard: This is far more complex than I ever imagined!

Does this mean FIFA doesn't have its own peace keepers and no-fly zones?

[Niccolo and Donkey]

So you are telling me that FIFA and the UN perform different functions and were set up for different reasons? :tard: This is far more complex than I ever imagined!

Does this mean FIFA doesn't have its own peace keepers and no-fly zones?

FIFA is an international body that regulates the game of soccer and runs the World Cup.

The UN is a different sort of global body since it has often violated national sovereignty in the name of "global good".

FIFA does not have the power to infringe on state sovereignty.

To circle back to the original discussion, the World Cup is a tournament in which nations compete for a trophy. This is antithetical to globalism which seeks to dismantle national borders and which violates national security in the name of markets and profit.

[Errigal]

FIFA is an international body that regulates the game of soccer and runs the World Cup.

The UN is a different sort of global body since it has often violated national sovereignty in the name of "global good".

FIFA does not have the power to infringe on state sovereignty.

To circle back to the original discussion, the World Cup is a tournament in which nations compete for a trophy. This is antithetical to globalism which seeks to dismantle national borders and which violates national security in the name of markets and profit.

And yet the World Cup has been used and is currently being used as a vehicle/vector/platform for lots of globalist and multiculturalist propaganda. This is an impossibility to you, which shows why and how propaganda works so well.

The funny thing is that I'd say the one-worlder hype has been toned down from the last World Cup as far as I can see. It's still there but it is not nearly as bad as in 2006. Of course you likely didn't see it then either.

[Niccolo and Donkey]

And yet the World Cup has been used and is currently being used as a vehicle/vector/platform for lots of globalist and multiculturalist propaganda. This is an impossibility to you, which shows why and how propaganda works so well.

You keep missing the whole point of the tournament and are instead focused on what one part of the media is doing in how they report on it.

The tournament isn't about what the CBC/UK Independent/Le Monde say it is. The tournament is about nations competing for the Jules Rimet Trophy.

I can't make it any simpler for you.

[President Camacho]

All the World Cup commercials in the US feature these colorful safari scenes with some nigga from the Malibu Rum (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qtetWxWos2c) commercials narrating while the chimpin' "Circle of Life" Lion King soundtrack plays in the background.

Maybe this is South Africa's idea of expressing their peculiar "nationalism", but I view it as an insidious wave of Dark Imperialism, a call to arms rallying all the sundry races on the planet to overthrow their masters

[Errigal]

You keep missing the whole point of the tournament and are instead focused on what one part of the media is doing in how they report on it.

The tournament isn't about what the CBC/UK Independent/Le Monde say it is. The tournament is about nations competing for the Jules Rimet Trophy.

I can't make it any simpler for you.

Yes Niccolo, I think I said that weeks ago. I have always been talking about the ads, player selections and media coverage around the World Cup, not the actual tournament organized by FIFA since the 1930s. My God are you really this stupid?

All the World Cup commercials in the US feature these colorful safari scenes with some nigga from the Malibu Rum commercials narrating while the bongo "Circle of Life" Lion King soundtrack plays in the background.

Maybe this is South Africa's idea of expressing their peculiar "nationalism", but I view it as an insidious wave of Dark Imperialism, a call to arms rallying all the sundry races on the planet to overthrow their masters

They will likely come for you in your sleep the night of the final match. Make sure to note if the drums sound different. Don't get caught flat-footed like the French plantation owners in Haiti.

[Niccolo and Donkey]

Yes Niccolo, I think I said that weeks ago. I have always been talking about the ads, player selections and media coverage around the World Cup, not the actual tournament organized by FIFA since the 1930s. My God are you really this stupid?

No, what you said is that the World Cup is Globalist just because SOME media give it a bit of slant in that direction. As we well know, you've been shown to be incorrect because:

1. you only focus on one part of the media instead of the media as a whole
2. you're ignoring the whole point of the tournament - national competition on a global stage

[Errigal]

No, what you said is that the World Cup is Globalist just because SOME media give it a bit of slant in that direction. As we well know, you've been shown to be incorrect because:

1. you only focus on one part of the media instead of the media as a whole
2. you're ignoring the whole point of the tournament - national competition on a global stage

We are going round in circles. This is like your Afro-Pope paradox.

[Niccolo and Donkey]

We are going round in circles. This is like your Afro-Pope paradox.

You were corrected on that one too.

[Errigal]

You were corrected on that one too.

Yes that's right: a hypothetical Afro-Pope would be Pope and therefore infallible when the chips were down and just plain wonderful on regular days. The guy would be the Pope so how could it be otherwise?

Similarly the World Cup is fun and is a soccer competition between countries. How could anyone tack on a multicultural or gobalist message to that? Crazy talk.

Man you're limited in your thinking.

[Niccolo and Donkey]

Yes that's right: a hypothetical Afro-Pope would be Pope and therefore infallible when the chips were down and just plain wonderful on regular days. The guy would be the Pope so how could it be otherwise?

Wow, what an entirely dishonest summation of the points made by Constantine, For God and Ireland, and myself.

Similarly the World Cup is fun and is a soccer competition between countries. How could anyone tack on a multicultural or gobalist message to that? Crazy talk.

You said it is a Globalist event. Now you're moving the goalposts and saying "tacked on".

Thanks for conceding the point.

[Errigal]

Wow, what an entirely dishonest summation of the points made by Constantine, For God and Ireland, and myself.

Boo hoo.


You said it is a Globalist event. Now you're moving the goalposts and saying "tacked on".

Thanks for conceding the point.

No I've been talking about the coverage, the ads and the teams used as showcases of immigration since the start. Follow the thread from here:

http://www.thephora.net/forum/showpost.php?p=873605&postcount=14

[Niccolo and Donkey]

Boo hoo.



No I've been talking about the coverage, the ads and the teams used as showcases of immigration since the start. Follow the thread from here:

http://www.thephora.net/forum/showpost.php?p=873605&postcount=14

And here's your post (http://www.thephora.net/forum/showpost.php?p=873620&postcount=18) where you made your initial foray and that has been shown to be in error.

[Errigal]

And here's your post (http://www.thephora.net/forum/showpost.php?p=873620&postcount=18) where you made your initial foray and that has been shown to be in error.

:confused:

You are a stupid person who needs to have the last word. Go for it.

[Niccolo and Donkey]

:confused:

You are a stupid person who needs to have the last word. Go for it.

You've already conceded the point. It's not my fault that you continue.

[harjit]

Do you really think the World Cup is a problem for globalists? I think if we were living in some "Brave New World", with us all talking in Esperanto, they'd happily let the little people have their little soccer tournament.
One person at MSF was saying he doesn't like it because of all the nationalist chest-beating.

I'm not agreeing with him, or disagreeing with you, just amazed at the variance in perspective between people.

[Crowley]

One person at MSF was saying he doesn't like it because of all the nationalist chest-beating.

I'm not agreeing with him, or disagreeing with you, just amazed at the variance in perspective between people.

Because at this point it is both. We still live in a predominantly nationalist world, and I'm fairly certain we will continue to, even if White nationalities are in fact mixed out of existence, as planned.

[Errigal]

One person at MSF was saying he doesn't like it because of all the nationalist chest-beating.

I'm not agreeing with him, or disagreeing with you, just amazed at the variance in perspective between people.

Because the World Cup is both a bunch of harmless and child-like flag-waving around a spectator sport and also a springboard for globalist/multiculti hype.

This is not like I'm talking about an object that can exist in two places at once or something. Holy fuck you guys are slow!

Because at this point it is both.

Yes it is both. See Niccolo some people are able to wrap their minds around this concept.

[Niccolo and Donkey]

Yes it is both. See Niccolo some people are able to wrap their minds around this concept.

I repeat: it cannot be both. Just because SOME media make it out to be so doesn't make it true.

[Errigal]

I repeat: it cannot be both. Just because SOME media make it out to be so doesn't make it true.

Doesn't make what true?

[Ahknaton]

The UN routinely engages in actions that violate national sovereignty in the name of "global good".

FIFA does not do this with the World Cup.

Therefore your analogy collapses.
Perhaps a better analogy would be the Olympics then? From the very beginning the Olympic movement has been explicitly internationalist and universalist (http://www.thesportjournal.org/article/olympic-education). Whether or not you think the World Cup is similar, at the very least this shows that "national competition on the world stage" is compatible with an internationalist message.

Of course any event involving competition between national times cannot be completely anti-nationalist, but the tension between internationalism and nationalism at events such as the Olympics and the World Cup (and I think they are very similar) is old news:
It is precisely the relationship between nationalism and international
peace - a one-sided one hitherto, because invariably regarded as a contradiction
in terms - that forms the challenging peace ethos and fascination of Olympism.
From the beginning, COUBERTIN's sights were set upon an interplay between
nations united by enthusiasm for peace and an internationalism that would
set a ceremonial seal on their peaceful ambitions.
The internationalism of the Olympics was even couched in explicitly globalist terms, drawing an analogy between sports and "free trade":
In his early writings, he refers to international sporting encounters as "the
free-trade system of the future" (COUBERTIN 1967, 1), seeing
the participating athletes as "ambassadors of peace" (COUBERTIN 1891),
even though by his own admission he still had to take care, at the time
of the founding of the IOWA in 1894, not to say too much about this, not wanting
- as he says in a document that has come down to us - to ask too much of sportsmen
or to frighten the pacifists.
The brand of nationalism promoted is a declawed, non-belligerent variety (not that there's anything wrong with that IMO), which reinforces the points many have been making here about the toned-down nationalism of the WC:
With his ideas of peace, however, COUBERTIN associated
an ethical mission which, then as now, was central to the Olympic Movement and
- if it were to succeed - had to lead to political education. On the threshold
of the 20th century, COUBERTIN tried to bring about enlightened internationalism
by cultivating a non-chauvinistic nationalism (cf, QUANZ 1995).
Of course, there is a difference between globalism and internationalism, and I would call the World Cup and the Olympics "internationalist" rather than "globalist", but I think the distinction isn't very significant.
This is antithetical to globalism which seeks to dismantle national borders and which violates national security in the name of markets and profit.
It may not be globalist per se, but it is certainly not antithetical to it. Also I think you are misdefining globalism. Globalism does not necessarily entail abolishing national borders, it simply makes national concerns secondary to global ones.

[Dan Dare]

The analogy between the Olympics and the World Cup is a good one. In each case there are strict bounds placed upon the expression of nationalistic sentiment by the organisers and sponsors; any such interplay has by definition to good-natured, anodyne and inclusive.

We have seen this in South Africa, with commentators falling over themselves to gush about the multicultural composition of the teams put out by the the major participants, gasp! even Germany! There can be no greater measure of how far we have come in the post-war era than that. Not to mention the enlistment of the national team captains to recite the approved mantra 'Say No to Racism' in their respective languages prior to the commencement of each quarter-final match.

Surely there can be no stronger endorsement of the principle that differences between nations are only skin-deep, if even that, and that we are all part of a single entity, the universal Brotherhood of Man. The fact that we have organised ourselves into nations, for the time being, must in time come to be seen as an unnecessary and oumoded anachronism. I fully expect that in a future World Cup, perhaps as soon as 2018, for the competition to be waged between the likes of Foxconn, Toyota, Mastercard and MacDonalds, in which the competing national 'teams' will be at complete liberty to source their playing talent from wherever their brand is recognised.

[harjit]

I fully expect that in a future World Cup, perhaps as soon as 2018, for the competition to be waged between the likes of Foxconn, Toyota, Mastercard and MacDonalds, in which the competing national 'teams' will be at complete liberty to source their playing talent from wherever their brand is recognised.
That would suck.

It's a bit like that in Japan, in both pro baseball and soccer, where teams are as often referred to by their sponsoring company as by their city. For example the Tokyo Giants (baseball team) are frequently referred to as the Yomiuri Giants. Same with other cities. It takes a certain fun out of it.

[Jimbo Gomez]

That would suck.

It's a bit like that in Japan, in both pro baseball and soccer, where teams are as often referred to by their sponsoring company as by their city. For example the Tokyo Giants (baseball team) are frequently referred to as the Yomiuri Giants. Same with other cities. It takes a certain fun out of it.


Get used to it. Such situations come natural to the sort of society you enthusiastically defend.

[Charlie Robespierre]

The kind of ideology that circulates around the arteries of the World Cup would like to help steer the term 'nation' into meaning large province.

[Errigal]

The kind of ideology that circulates around the arteries of the World Cup would like to help steer the term 'nation' into meaning large province.

Yes and keep the tone of the World Cup as no more than a harmless inter-provincial rivalry. Having a mix of exotic players on each team helps maintain that impression.