Tag Archives: boxing

Xenophobia is a real thing, it is not the version we see in Star Trek. Xenophobia quite literally translates to ‘foreign fear’. The fear of foreign issues. The media exploits it for any flames it can create, as fear invites flames, flames create ‘clicks’ and clicks translate to advertisement money. It is the simplest way for media to use people to generate revenue for them. Yet I saw the other f this exploited fear in another way last night. I was about to write an article to something related to this, as such that story gets pushed back and now I focus on this as it is related to the bigger picture. 

The first trigger were the Crusade memes we have seen this year (there were a few). Now I like the age of Crusades to some degree, but we were deceived to a much larger degree. The crusades were mostly the nobles pillaging the Arabian lands and it was done with the blessing of Pope Urban II. The treaty of Claremont (1094) gave rise to this and many people (often in states of near starving) rallied to the sound of the the call to free the land of Christ, which was largely ludicrous as that was Jerusalem and that was debatable Jewish/Saracen (Muslim). So here came the crusades and that was a massive slaughter around Accra, Jerusalem and a few other places. Yes, there are a few inaccuracies here, but the sentiment is decently sound. An interesting telling is seen in the movie Kingdom of Heaven by Ridley Scott. The western world had a decent technological advantage, but they could not stop the Arabian nations to unite in their anger to the west. Between 1092 and 1291 approximately 1.7 million people died. These people died by warfare, disease, starvation, and murder by banditry. In the current Russian losses against the Ukrainian defenders there were merely 647,800 losses, so the losses were then 300% larger. So what do you think will happen now that the Arabian lands have an economic advantage and the west no longer have a technological advantage? Did the Karen’s of this world consider that small setting in ‘their’ crusades?

And when you consider that stage, we get to the article that ‘set’ me off. It was the Daily Mail (at https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/boxing/article-13889805/Anthony-Joshua-Daniel-Dubois-selling-national-soul-Saudi-PR-silence-criticism-SIMON-JORDAN.html) where we see ‘SIMON JORDAN: We must stop selling our sporting soul to the Saudis, I don’t like the sense that everything in this country is there solely to be bought’ It is a weird sense. You see, the owners of whatever is there to be sold, because they want money and the Saudi’s (and other nations) have it. The byline “I found it a tad perplexing to sit in our own Wembley stadium on Saturday night and listen to the national anthem of Saudi Arabia” which is nice, because on September 23 1932 the country Saudi Arabia was established. The Saudi’s are proud of this and they should be allowed to be proud. So I went over to YouTube and I found the Saudi National anthem. It was beautiful. Now, I was lucky because I cannot speak Arabic to any degree. I cannot even order a Shawarma if my life depended on it (as I die of starvation), as such YouTube was the answer as the movie had the song and the texts both in Arabic and English. 

Hasten!
To glory and supremacy,
Exalt the Creator of heavens!
And raise the green flag
Carrying the written light of aegis;
Repeat: “Allahu Akbar!”
O my country!
My country,
As pride of Muslims live on!
Long live the King
For the flag
And the land!

It reveres their country, their faith, their king and their flag. What is wrong about that? Because it isn’t revering the Union Jack? The owners (the governing body of English football, the Football Association) decided to honour the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia on their national day. I see nothing wrong with that. So how did he come to “I don’t like the sense that everything in this country is there solely to be bought”? Shouldn’t his first though be “I don’t like the sense that everything in this country is there solely to be sold” In that the question refers to their inner ‘christian’ being, get cash now before it is too late. And in this America is already ahead of them, making all kinds of ‘unions’ before the wells of wealth run dry. And when we get “Though I consider myself a capitalist, I find it a little bit distasteful that we seem so willing to give away our national soul for the right price” and there is the larger story. The idea that the people would hand over ‘their national soul’, they sold their soul for a price and the buyer was willing to buy. I don’t see this part anywhere. We then get “I turned up to our most iconic sporting arena in the country, recognisable around the globe and the seat of our national game, to watch two British heavyweights Daniel Dubois and Anthony Joshua, and it felt like downtown Riyadh.” And I wonder (apart from the fact that Riyadh is prettier and a lot cleaner than London). Wembley Stadium is, as far as I can tell, still owned by the Football Association, so what gives? Was it merely a sign of respect to play the Saudi National anthem on their national day? I don’t know what the driving force was to playing that song, but I am willing to see that it as a sign of respect to the Saudi involvement on their national day. But what do I know. What is interesting is that the Daily Mail gives us “A British journalist has claimed he was barred from Saturday’s showpiece fight between Anthony Joshua and Daniel Dubois at Wembley after labelling the event an ‘unashamed sportwashing exercise’.” Was this the case? I do not know as too many media is about creating flames. Perhaps that journalist could not afford the ticket and whomever he ‘represented’ had another journalist assigned to the event. I do not know, but I wonder what the facts are. The Daily Mail is a decent expert in creating flames and this time around they let Simon Jordan create the flames. 

That is the larger stage, the media is losing more and more reliability as they more and more depend on ‘clicks’ from flames. We do not know what to believe and the article does not help. For one, an no point do we see who the owner of Wembley Stadium is, as far as I know it is still owned by the Football Association. The article does not bear that out, not even once. Weird isn’t it. Oh and before you start a crusade, remember that wars are won by those who are better informed and as such you would get a massive beating from whomever represents the new Saracens. Something to think about.

Have a lovely day.