Noted American philosopher and novelist Ayn Rand has graciously cleared her hectic social schedule to answer a few questions about the MLS cup, David Beckham, and also her philosophy of “objectivism.” Please note that while I am a fan of MLS and respect Mr. Beckham’s sporting endeavors, I do not intend for this post to serve as an implicit or explicit endorsement of Ayn Rand’s philosophy. Or their implications for MLS. Nevertheless, as an intellectual celebrity, we were delighted to get a few words in with her.

Even if they don’t really clarify much of anything.

Editor: Ayn, few people know that before becoming a philosopher, you were actually a screenwriter in LA and playwright in New York. As such, MLS fans obviously want to know – were you secretly hoping for a LA Galaxy vs. NY Red Bulls final?

Ayn Rand: Everybody always wants to see the most productive geniuses at the highest level and to achieve greatness we must create systems that do not reward mediocrity. My attachment to those two clubs, though, comes purely from reason and the reason that the strongest, fastest, and swiftest must prevail or we as a society are collectively strangling them in the worst ways imaginable. The fact that I geographically occupied the same region should not be read as some sort of moral or emotional attachment. Only reason must drive the individual, and the individual’s attachment, or success will be unattainable.

Editor: So, um, with that in mind, do you think the MLS playoffs are okay? Should we just disregard geography entirely like they already sorta do? Or do you think the playoffs need to be tweaked? New York playing LA early on and in a Western conference game is kinda weird, right? But at least you must love the fact that both teams have lots of designated players and therefore have put serous pressure on the concept of a salary cap. Do objectivists dig the direction of the league? Do the “haves” in MLS not “have” enough?

Ayn Rand: The “haves” never “have” enough. The Beckham Rule was just the beginning of the inevitable – be it in Russia, or even now in Cuba. The strong will not be shackled for eternity by the mediocre demands of a weakly collective. The runts of the litter will enjoy their teet of milk for only so long, but they will die as the stronger thrive.

Editor: So you think eventually the designated player rule will swallow the salary cap and the Columbus Crew will cease to exist? Interesting. Now, changing gears, your philosophy of ‘objectivism” was pretty popular stateside but largely ignored by the intellectual elite as stubbornly nativist. The basic problem was that you just kinda assumed an objective reality existed free of language, and then built a philosophy on that. Similarly, MLS has arguably built a single entity-franchise model built on Wal-Mart principles that has failed to attract a whole lot of international attention. What do you have to say for you and MLS’ detractors?

Ayn Rand: Philosophers have always lashed out at me for a simple reason – science and technology have supplanted their importance and threatened their livelihood. The old guard of philosophy was built upon mysticism and faith, yet the industrial revolution improved medicine and extended the length and quality of life. Capitalism has rendered the average man incredibly intelligent and self-sufficient. The 21st century man and I have no time to squabble with ivory tower academics that preach blindness to an objective reality everybody can see but them. And as for MLS, the proper laissez-faire policies could allow the producers of greatness to do what they do best – produce greatness. Attention will then follow greatness – it always does.

Editor: Wow, so you’re for no salary cap? Then more international eyeballs will catch an MLS Game? But surely European debt problems at major clubs show that without any check on competition, the owners will spend themselves to death, right? Surely sport is distinct from other enterprises – in PCs, if we are left with only Microsoft, we’ll survive, but if we are left with only Manchester United in soccer, who the hell will they play?

Ayn Rand: I find your lack of faith disturbing. Where you see a monopoly, I see greatness personified atop a mountain’s peak. Do you really enjoy watching Manchester United play against Norwich on a cold Saturday morning? Regardless, you sound like the most cynical of social workers. Even mid-table teams don’t need coddling. The opposite is in order. For example, in terms of MLS, the elimination of a salary cap would allow the teams to recruit top players to then obtain more profit from people paying to see the improved product that they produce. How would that spell a death knoll? Your condescension and lack of faith in the producers belies your cynicism and is a self-fulfilling prophecy.

Editor: Um, what about the NASL? But that debate is beyond the scope of this interview and you sound like Data from TNG anytime somebody pokes a hole in your libertarian ideals. Thus, here’s a more practical topic: in terms of the actual MLS Cup Final, who did you expect to win – the LA Galaxy or the Houston Dynamo? Why?

Ayn Rand: Based on the past, often a poor rubric for predicting the future and success, one would think LA was more likely to produce the best product. LA also had a significantly higher investment in assets (players) and was playing the game in the comfort of their own designated industrial production zone (stadium).

Editor: Speaking of that “zone”, Los Angeles, I know that you have long argued that air pollution is a “scientific” problem, not a “political” one. However, anybody who’s flown to LAX can see the cloud of smog. I was in LA for a week and didn’t realize there were surrounding mountains. Surely Chad Barrett would be a step faster if he could breath during games, right?

Ayn Rand: Yet Chad Barrett had a good season and has never doubled over from a coughing attack. I do not blame you for imposing your-concerned-social-worker values upon a professional athlete, yet the freedom of labor and movement offer the solution. If one is not happy in their wonderful industrial metropolis, then the world offers many others full of fruitful occupations.

Editor: On that topic, in terms of the mobility of labor, MLS has continued to rely on the college draft to pick-up talent. However, in Europe, they usually sign teenagers and then send them to elite soccer-focused academies. You’ve come down pretty hard on American high schools and colleges – you believe they only confuse young minds and leave them in a state of disbelief. However, many professional athletes who have avoided this “land of disillusion and poor education” and made mad bank are poor within a few years of retirement. Can we agree that education at least teaches people to not be total idiots with their money?

Ayn Rand: No. Once again, your narrow-mindedness attempts to cleverly graft a sense of value upon flawed institutions. Who are you to judge the spending of another? Who are you to say that Mario Balotelli’s iPad does not bring him immeasurable joy? He has worked hard for his wages and has an objective right to spend them as he sees fit. The individual’s right to autonomous decisions, including the spending of wages acquired for production of soccer playing, should never been subject to such naive “altruistic” and “collective” considerations.

Editor: Alright, I figured you’d say as much. Now, and lastly, this is the most important question – now that his contract is up, will David Beckham re-sign with the LA Galaxy?

Ayn Rand: Maybe.

In our never-ending search for truth, we have consulted a preeminent French cultural expert on a stunning phenomenon: American celebrities professing love to a UK-based soccer club which has not won anything for over 6 years. Who? What? Where? When? Why? How? These are the questions that will not be resolved.

So, without further ado, our interview with Jean Baudrillard.

Editor: Bau-dawg, if I may be so frank, your seminal works on critical theory and the media have not been very popular stateside. Thus, a brief intro for our audience. Basically, you have focused on how technology affects communication, with the basic premise that meaning cannot be separated from how words interrelate. Thus, based on this theory, how do you think Chad Ochocino found out about Arsenal FC? Twitter? Cable TV? Tumblr?

JB: Well, first we must clarify the nature of meaning and, sadly, the answer is negative (chuckles to himself). Meaning is the casting away of other meanings, the discarding of other possibilities. When I say “dog,” I am also saying “not cat.” When you say “Chad Ochocinco,” you are also saying “not Chad CuatroUno.” When this celebrity says “Arsenal,” he is also saying “Not Chelsea.”

Editor: And when he focuses on the EPL, he’s also saying “MLS stinks.” I get your point. However, you’ve also posited that an object’s meaning cannot be separated from images of that object, re-creations of that object, and depictions of that object. You posited a theory of a web of meaning, so that I can’t experience my own knowing of Michael Jordan without also experiencing my knowledge of his face gracing cereal boxes. So, Baudrilla-rilla-zilla, ain’t no one illa, do you think that the EPL balls-on marketing campaign has influenced these celebrities? Did that Henry Nike commercial with the cute dog get all caught up in their web of meaning? Or do they all just have the same anglo publicist?

JB: from the onset, I am skeptical of this endeavor you seek to inquire into. It seems as though you desire to explore the minutiae of the subject beyond the signifier of its meaning, yet this search will only lead you to a delusional path of hyperreality. In the 21st century, with the twitter and Facebook and GooglePlus, we have placed the little under the collective magnifying glass so that it now appears bigger than it is or should be.

Editor: Yet your own post-structural brethren would criticize you for ignoring power relationships. As someone who believes in transparency and human solidarity, I find the world’s ability to see and empathize with local suffering as a plus, so we’ll just have to disagree on that Baudie-poo. But, just kinda ignoring that last part about what you said, isn’t it kinda weird that Michael Moore likes Arsenal even though European soccer is a product of a global capitalist mega-sytem which arguably contributes to human trafficking in Africa? It’s like, dude, you should be making a documentary on this, not buying season tickets. Your thoughts?

JB: Well, as you are aware, my focus has always been on “consumption” in our society, not so much “production.” Thus,  I share your curiosity at Mr. Moore and Mr. OchoCinco’s desire to consume the Arsenal, or at least exchange signs of linkage. In attempting to explain this, we must always remember that there is no innate need, but rather our society constructs needs for objects and then imposes this construction upon our consciousness.

Editor: Sorta like snoods? Speaking of which, Arsenal has recently lost Samir Nasri to Manchester City. The Blues are perhaps the sports team epitome of “symbolic” and “sign” value player purchases – they often buy good players from rivals only to sit them on the bench. The players have “symbolic” value because they are relatively good players, and also have “sign” value because they bring prestige to the club. Conversely, Arsenal under Wenger focuses more on Moneyball “functional” and “exchange” purchases. Do you think Michael Moore or Chad Ochocino can even tell the difference between Theirry Henry and Nicklas Bendtner? Or does a bargain bin used pair of underpants look like a solid “symbolic” purchase to them?

JB: There will always exist a tension between sign value and symbolic value, yet even I have my doubts as to whether Mr. Moore, Mr. Ochocino, or Mr. Z has knowledge or seen Arsenal’s new signing Gervinho before this year. However, I must admit, even my Marxist theory cannot escape the web of meaning. That is to say, Arsenal consumes these players and also adds symbolic value to them. Otherwise, Denilson would probably be mopping a floor somewhere.

Editor: Little Baud Wow, I’d also like to take a moment and ask about Arsenal FC and your term “the end of history.” Basically, you assert that contemporary society has so widely utilized the notion of “progress” that progress is now inevitable and thus meaningless. Since the end of the Cold War, you have sharply criticized the lack of a “Utopian dream” in popular thought, media, and philosophy as evidence that we live in a schizophrenic world where we love the world as is because we have rejected progress while accepting no progress as progress. Does this theory also accurately describe why Arsenal hasn’t won anything for six years?

JB: Yes.

Editor: Billy Bau-den, we have one last question, from a reader. Nick, of London, wants to know…

When post-structuralists write correspondence, do they refer to their school of thought in initials as P.S.? And, if so, have they ever written a letter and ended it with a P.S., similar to postscript, thereby causing confusion?

JB:Well, as my theory clearly states, meaning comes from interrelatedness. So, no, I have not seen P.S. at the end of a letter and been confused – I normally can tell from the letter if they meant to write a postscript as well. They also usually write more after putting P.S. for a postscript.

This is obviously a work of satire. JB passed away several years ago and may he rest in hyperreal peace.

Soccer is a man’s game. Soccer is a white man’s game. Soccer is a heterosexual white man’s game. These are the messages lurking behind the media, radio, blogs, and newspapers that saturate our universe. Almost out of sight, like a shadow they follow our every footstep.

And they are easily found in that notorious of locations, the “locker room.”

Physical locations both reflect and reinforce our prejudices. White flight in America led to a generation of bored exurb brats afraid of minority panhandlers, city skylines, and nightfall. During the 1950′s, abusive men latched onto the concept of “privacy” to deem marital affairs, ie, domestic violence, relevant to and only to be addressed “within the home” and behind closed doors. And, of course, slave-owners conceptualized entire races of human beings as chattel, not persons. The physical plane and abstract values can merge to horrifying perfection. They feed off one another. They reflect one another. And this truth hides just out of sight, but in plain view.

On a personal and lighter note, when I first arrived at my college in the United States, I was excited to meet my roommates in my dorm. I ever-so-eagerly desired to delve into affluent privilege, to complain about dirty dishes on desks, dirty laundry on floors, loud music, and everything else associated with living with almost total strangers. No separate sleeping quarters? Bah! That was the college experience. And it lived up to my expectations.

However, that summer, a good friend pointed out that, in many other places, university students always live in separate rooms, or at least separate sleeping quarters. Why? Privacy. My friend also pointed out that for individuals with non-majority lifestyles or orientations, such as LGBT, the room and sleeping arrangements at my school would have forced potentially disruptive & embarrassing disclosures. The problem would not have been a disclosure, per se, but rather that the physical structure would force its timing.

Societal pressure exerts everywhere on the underprivileged and yet, ironically, privilege can be invisible to those who have it. Privacy and physical locations can be swords and shields to advance and defend hetero-normative beliefs. And this can be seen clearly in the conventional sports locker room.

One of the unspoken rules of the male locker room is the open-aired suppression and/or marginalization of “abnormal” desires. The locker room isolates those within from society at large, forcing a small group to interact. However, within that group, few walls or barriers to sight exist. It forces a feeling of disingenuous intimacy, of close interaction that must mimic closely the dominant rules of society because everybody else is watching/not watching. In a sense, the locker room is a miniature Panoptic State, to use terminology from Michel Foucault, in which all social interactions can be watched closely and intensely to ensure full compliance.

Ideas, individuals, and others from outside the locker room are foreign and therefore wrong. A few months ago, a Mexican TV reporter experienced sexual harassment while in an NFL locker room. Of course the reporter brushed off the actions and I won’t put any words in her mouth or feelings in her head. But the catcalls and comments point to the idealized heterosexual male myth of the “boys only” room, where “guys can be guys” and a woman is “a chick.”

There is not a very well constructed argument for this locker room as “A Room of One’s Own” for guys. Rather, this locker room behavior eerily imitates the 1950′s domestic violence “household” concept – it’s a pretext to treat women like crap behind closed doors, to let privacy “empower” males and to dis-empower females. The underlying message, that males only act in conformity with feminist ideals in the public sphere, that they only begrudgingly treat women with respect if there’s a risk of being shunned, implies that within males naturally lurks a sexist pig. This sexist pig is the natural state of the male.

Yet is this closed and closely monitored private sphere the truly natural state? Or do the unique pressures exerted force otherwise decent human beings to act like pigs? Does this private quarter function like a town hall for a Southern city during the civil war, a launching pad for racist idiots to seek out their vocal like-minded peers and impose themselves on everyone else?

Privacy can be a sword & shield to advance sexist values. And also hetero-normative ones. If a respected female reporter with credentials cannot be tolerated in the locker room, then how can a homosexual male hope to survive in this toxic place? Take a step back and ponder – is that even the right question? Or is that the wrong way to ask the right question?

Many writers have asked this question: when will a topflight player have the courage to reveal he’s gay while playing? Yet the physical realm reflects and reinforces heterosexual norms, and conspires against any such heroics. My question is – when will we re-make the locker room?

And just to be clear, this “heterosexual normalizing” behavior is not a question of a gay teammate gawking at naked teammates. Rather, it also involves the daily jokes and a sense of humor predicated upon a simple assumption – male/male affection is the abnormal, a punching bag for laughter.

Last week, a lot of amateurs dragged my good name through the mud. Basically, a handful of loons got on internet forums and felt the need to inaccurately predict the end of the world. And who pays the price? Sports-following clairvoyants like me, that’s who.

And intellectuals. Luckily, last week noted Psychoanalytic scholar Jacques Lacan spread some truth on Manchester United’s record-setting 19th title winning season. Now, we once against seek help from the world of academic all-stars: noted Postmodern educational scholar Paulo Freire gives us a peek at what to expect in the Champions League final.

You are widely credited as one of the fathers of “liberation theology”, summarized as an attempt to return the Catholic Church to a decentralized entity as envisioned in the gospel of the early Church. Will United be able to exploit Barcelona’s centralized reliance on Xavi and Messi?

Liberation theology, before anything else, is an attempt to apply a Marxist lens to Christianity by focusing on the suffering of the poor and their perspective. In this sense, Christ forces us to look at the larger structures of the world to ask – how and why do they create such unequal results? While Messi has scored lots of Barcelona’s goals, one can never underestimate the power of Xavi to fairly redistribute the ball to other teammates. This is the fundamental tension between centralization and decentralization, no?

Some of the key tenets of liberation theology, grass roots meetings and build-up theological interpretation, have been criticized by the current Pope. Will Barcelona’s attempt to slowly build from the back also be repressed by United’s pressure?

Many theological scholars misinterpret the criticisms of then-Cardinal Ratzinger. Rather than tossing the baby out with the bathwater, his concern was that Marxist and political lenses had supplanted, not enhanced, the fundamental message of the Bible: Jesus’ love and sacrifice for humanity, and our own potential to attempt to imitate this act. As such, Barcelona’s intricate buildup will surely face an initial wave of pressure from the light-footed Chicharito and tireless Park Ji-Sung. However, we cannot conflate such specific points with the broader picture.

Your obra maestra, “Pedagogy of the Oppressed,” has been summarized in unflattering terms as “Students prefer seminars to lectures – no shit.” Similarly, Barcelona’s approach has been called “Monkey in the middle ’til Messi gets open.” How do you respond to such characterizations?

A superficial and functional observation can always lead to unflattering summaries, even if they do have a shred of accuracy. However, these characterizations reveal a critical eye but a closed heart; only by fully rejecting the “top down/banker deposits knowledge” pedagogy and the “run-and-kick” offense can one accept the amazing power of transformation. On a spiritual level, you must accept this concept before the intellect can follow. Not vice-versa.

Your book “the Pedagogy of the Oppressed” has been banned in several totalitarian states, including Arizona (zing). As such, how can we reconcile Sir Alex’s iron-clad clasp on power and United’s success?

Well, for starters, one must clearly define success. Is power alone the definition of success? If so, then some authoritarian states, such as Cuba, must be deemed “success.” However, this is a self-serving criteria. Similarly, oftentimes the iron-clad SAF image and reality diverge. His assistant, Carlos Quieroz, actually runs a large share of United’s day-to-day operations. Also, SAF has shown a democratic and meritocratic approach to players – blooding, developing, and incorporating several different generations over the years. In this sense, SAF has the final say, but the players run the show. Is that not democracy?

Literacy programs for impoverished adults played a large part in both your personal and professional life & development. Do you believe that Barca’s cultured reading of the game gives them a slight edge as compared to United’s counterattacking 4-4-2?

Knowledge and power form a symbiotic bond. One inevitably influences the other. At moments this season, Manchester United has launched counters which go beyond functional literacy to collective telepathy – an understanding and coordination among persons that extends beyond top-down models. However, ultimately, in any society individuals are frightened by their freedom, yet freedom can only be attained by conquest. This is the paradox. We must rightly ask – will fear dominate? Thus, as always, human praxis will rule the day. If one side’s defense fails in its dialogical pursuits, the antidialogical temptation by either Pep or SAF, manifested in a defender for winger/forward sub, could undermine the entire enterprise. And leave them exposed to a counter.

In light of United’s historic 19th title, we decided to revive our special series on interviews with famous intellectuals. We were delighted that dearly departed Jacques Lacan took an hour from his busy day to answer a few questions on Sir Alex Ferguson, the Mirror Stage, the Imaginary Order, Nani, and the ahistorical implications of subjectivity. And United’s 19th title.

Would you classify the reign of Sir Alex as a “Return to Freud” or a “Return to Busby”?

For several decades, the epistemology of psychoanalysis & professional football lay upon a rotten foundation: the unquestioned understanding that secondary Freudian texts should be studied first, often supplanting Freud’s words for these later works. In a sense, Sir Alex has succeeded more on a conceptual level than a material plane – he has pierced the fog of the Atkinsons, the Sextons, and the O’Farrels to offer a fresh yet accurate interpretation of Busby. For that he deserves praise.

Will Nani ever progress beyond the “mirror stage” and stop throwing himself to the ground at every gust of wind?

I would just like to clarify that the “mirror stage” is an essential moment in human development, but really is much more than a single moment per se. Rather, as Freud reflected upon the lingering nature of post-partem attachment between young children and their mother, the mirror phase can last for years, even a decade. Basically, at six months, a child may recognize him or herself in a mirror, yet they lack the ability to fully control their body. While Nani has full control over his hands, as evidenced by the hours he spends in front of the mirror doing his hair each morning, I do not anticipate the mirror stage ending for him anytime soon.

You have posited that “speech originates from beyond our control” and lays in the realm of The Other. Thus, is it fair for Sir Alex to get banned for speaking about referees?

First, we must clarify the glaring difference between “the other” and, of course, “The Other.” The other, referred to as “a”, is but a reflection of our ego, like those Lil Penny commercials from a decade ago. Conversely, “the Other” refers to radical alterity, the symbolic order that is separate from each and every one of us. Only in the “Other” can speech be constituted. Speech is never constituted in the individual, not even Sir Alex Ferguson. Thus, a two match ban would have been less harsh.

You’ve written extensively on the “Symbolic Order,” namely the tension between an object’s simultaneous presence/absence. Would you place Anderson’s performances this year in that category?

What the layperson refers to as “realty” can be broken down into three separate realms: the Imaginary Order, the Symbolic Order, and the Real. The Imaginary is the world before language mutates it – you see Anderson heaving & lumbering about the field, but the words don’t yet form in your head. The Symbolic Order is the wall of language which transforms the world as we perceive it into words and sentences. You see Anderson walk. You think “unfit” or “lazy.” Then, the Real is reality beyond perception, with no margin for error or mistake. Absence/presence only exists in the Imaginary and Symbolic realms, where a reality lurks behind the things our eyes see. Anderson similarly stalked this realm in the last Champions League final, when he simultaneously existed on the same field as Andres Iniesta yet disappeared in key moments. This year has been no different.

Your writings focus on unlocking intimate desires – for example, you claim that only by “articulating a desire” can it be fulfilled. Was this the case in Cristiano Ronaldo’s move to Real Madrid?

Desire exists first in the Imaginary Order. Our lusts, our yearnings – these manifest themselves before language can map them into a Symbolic Order. The summer before Cristiano’s move to Real, the entire world could feel the intense Imaginary Order emanating from his actions & gestures. Yet he stayed at United. I assert that only when his desire was fully articulated and began to occupy the Symbolic Order could it be attained. Plus Real offered a huge transfer fee.

Gareth Bale’s short-popping runs bring to mind your work “The Signification of the Phallus.” Do United “need” a new left back to replace the aging Patrice Evra, or is this just a “desire”?

First, we must classify “desire appropriately.” There is desire as a need – a biological impulse that must be fulfilled. Every team needs a left back. However, there is also demand – which both articulates that need and also is a demand for love. Even if we fulfill our “need”, thus satiating the pressing “demand,” the demand for love will always be unfulfilled. United can fulfill their need for younger legs at left back by signing Bale, but the need for love is omnipresent. And Evra is pretty needy as is.

Professional coaches are funny people. For those at the top, redundant discourses emerge to explain defeat. They seldom involve the coaches. Or the players. Often, the blame rests solely on the referee. For Sir Alex, a post-game press conference involves either post-victory gloating or a treatise on the fallibility of man. And by man, I mean the man who was unlucky to ref the match. Yet Sir Alex’s discourse points to a reasonable problem: a single ref in charge of 22 professional athletes. His claims could easily spur reform such as video replay technology or more assistants.

Yet Jose Mourinho paints a much darker picture. Everywhere he walks, they stalk him. Referees do not make honest mistakes. They seek to destroy him and his livelihood: winning soccer games. Every errant call, every mistake, every penalty kick – they are sheathed daggers stuck into his back, products of malfeasance, not misfeasance. In Italy, he spoke of conspiracies. After losing to Barca, with a red card issued to red card-magnet Pepe (playing out of position), Mourinho re-opened his favorite can of worms.

So, why do we love this character? Let’s let Slavoj Zizek be our guide.

First, Mourinho explained.

I won’t try to cite too many ho-hum films like Mr. Zizek, but one gets the impression that Mourinho feels like Jim Carrey’s character in the Truman Show: he’s reached the edge of the soccer universe. From a humble beginning as a translator, he has conquered European club football twice and now coaches the most storied club. Brian Clough approached similar manic heights while at Nottingham Forest, his genius reaching the limits of knowledge and then slowly eating away at itself.

Yet, like Clough before him, Mourino has stared too closely at the stage upon which he stands. The knee-jerk reaction is to laugh at Mourinho’s conspiracy theories. Ha-ha, this guy is either paranoid or getting a laugh (or protecting his players from an embarrassing home loss in a critical game). Until we realize that the “sporting” world in which he lives truly is a virtual reality land of easy creation & subtle manipulation.

For starters, all sports rely on superficial made-up rules. Players kick ball. Players kick ball on field. Players do not run off field with ball in hand, singing Joni Mitchell. Normally. Off the field, a thin and worn down curtain barely drapes an incompetent wizard. The Associations which determine the rules have changed the off-sides rule a few times, invented the back pass rule, and are only now finally taking seriously video replay technology.

So, in a sense, if the rules are so easily made up by a small group of individuals, is a conspiracy so far-fetched? Is Mourinho really so delusional? Should we scan the floor for briefcases next time we see Pep sitting next to Platini at an event? But then we realize that the real world also works this way. A small elite also makes a handful of very important decisions. And surely we ourselves couldn’t fall prey to such a conspiracy? Or could we?

Second, Matrix’s love of Mourinho explained.

Looking beyond Mourinho himself – one must ask: how do players come to love a coach? In the binge-drinking days of yesteryear, Brian Clough preyed on substance abuse and other psychological flaws to recruit and mold his players. Mourinho plays on the psyche of the contemporary player: megalomaniac insecurity. On the one hand, players are celebrities and millionaires. On the other hand, their careers are short, demanding, and their education limited.

The prime example is the mutual love between Marco Materazzi “Matrix” and Jose. Mou arrived at Inter well past Materazzi’s peak, yet the Portuguese player found a way to simultaneously bench yet empower Matrix. Marco reveled in the role of sub, wearing goofy masks for important games (distracting himself from the fact he was not playing). And when Mou left for Madrid, Marco wanted him to stay. Please, stay and keep me on the bench! How?

Mou is decisive. He runs off the castaways early, but then finds ways to include every member of his squad. The locker room is part meritocratic and part democratic – superstars draw the media’s glare, but behind closed doors every voice counts. And having a majority’s backing when a superstar cries about defense comes in handy.

Third, our love of Mourinho explained.

To recap – Mou views the soccer world as a game of checkers where his intellectual rigors are only undone by a nebulous conspiracy. Yet he also manages to forge a strong emotional attachment to his players, both great and not great. So where does that leave us, the outsiders? Perverted. That’s where.

Zizek ultimately rejected the superficial analysis of the feature film “The Matrix” articulated earlier, basically that reality has a neat order until we reach a certain point & get swallowed into a black hole. Why feed ourselves lies? Well, the desire to paint our own reality as “ordered” reflects a simplistic cognitive assumption necessary for daily survival yet categorically false. Every day, our knowledge of the daily products we consume and use changes. Asbestos used to be the rage in construction, after all. And 20 years who knew about transfats? But we still gotta eat. And live in houses. normally.

Thus, if we look closer at our own reality, we see inconsistencies. These discrepancies were due to computer glitches in “the Matrix.” We love Mourinho because these “inconsistencies” fit into his narrative of the conspiracy. And love conspiracies because of our own feelings of guilty and inadequacy. We still cling to free will, yet don’t want the blame for our mistakes. The conspiracy gives us an outlet: fault is not our own, but that of a shady syndicate who sole purpose is to make us make mistakes. But why would a conspiracy exist?

Explanations abound. In “the Matrix,” the machines wanted to run the world. In Mourinho’s land, they want him to lose soccer games. And in our own heads, we would love to ascribe our failings to an external source (but the victories are ours, of course).

So, that leaves us with this: where the world will turn next. Mou is a master tactician who is growing bored with his chess set, yet also has a knack for developing loyalty among players. Until he can turn his focus from the cerebral-challenge-win mode to fully appreciate and ferment longstanding relationships, his renegade-remake-ceo shifts will continue to sprinkle themselves among Europe’s finest clubs.

And as long as conspiracy talk fills his press conferences, our eyes will be glued to the television. We dare not stare with a magnifying glass at the inconsistencies that plague our own daily lives and concept of knowledge – we’d probably trip over our own feet and hurt ourselves.

The specter of “cheating” has once again reared its ugly head in soccer. No, I do not refer to dubious Real Madrid yellow cards. Nor FIFA vote-swapping. Instead, I refer to the curious case of Equatorial Guinea. In the African Women’s Soccer scene, the Nigeria team has ran rampant since forever. At least until 2008, when they were upset by the tiny nation of Equatorial Guinea. Upset being the key word. Many suspected that Mrs. Doubtfire graced the field for Equatorial Guinea.

Flash forward two years – the Nigerians beat Equatorial Guinea in the final of the African Women’s Championship. But, despite winning, the Nigerians lodge a formal complaint with the Confederation of African Football -the same Ladybugs accusations.

I will forgo the usual philosophy “gender as performance” blah blah to focus on a practical reality – a women’s league exists, a men’s league exists, but no league exists for those in-between. Thus, the black/white binary underlying 19th century gender assumptions pervades structures for 21st century athletes. If you were a hermaphrodite athlete, which league would you play for? Why?

The CAF has promised that the gender tests will be all inclusive – focusing beyond biology to also include psychological evaluations and other indicia of gender. But such a “thorough” analysis cut 11 months off the career of Caster Semenya, the 800 meter runner for South Africa. And for an athlete in their prime, with such a short window for success, 11 months might as well be 11 years.

I also have doubts as to whether this “test” will overcome preconceived gender prejudices. Let’s take a look at some “finger in the wound” topics that should be avoided….

First, society presumes that women cook food. Well, at least 18th century Puritan society. We are now living the reverse wave, where young people put off marriage, guys learn how to cook pasta, and females with their hard earned success winning bread rightly don’t expect pantry duty after a 12 hour workday. Thus, a psychological evaluation must take this into account. If the individual is seated at a table and presented with a sharp metal object, a thin, fragile round object, and a four pronged silver item, then quite obviously they form part of a neat drum/beatmaster kit. Scout’s honor.

Second, society presumes that females with their wide hips for birthing have a more graceful air to their movement. In sum, some assert that they dance better, Michael Jackson aside. However, Justin Timberlake has led a recent revolution in which white guys no longer stand at bars, but rather wait for annoying flashing lights to cover up their horrendously off-beat (and violent) hipshakes. A gender evaluation must take this into account. Here would be a passing “capable dance” score.

An example of a non-passing score would be standing by the bar, looking at the dance floor but only nodding your head on occasion to the beat. If you can do the dance move with drink in hand, it is not a dance move, and you should get points deducted.

Third, many in society find the female falsetto to be beautiful and alluring. However, Thom Yorke of Radio has a similarly haunting high note. The CAF must closely monitor the sound decibel when forcing test subjects to belt out the respective song. For example.

Would that song pass muster? Well, I’ll defer to the experts at CAF. But I hope this post, in addition to rehashing early 90′s films you have forgotten, helped to dispel the concept of the black/white male/female gender roles peddled by the soccer elites. The current football structure reflects this binary, and sadly will continue to do so for the foreseeable future.

And what will happen to the super competitive athlete whose gender skirts the line? Or the underfunded national team that lusts for trophies? They will face the label of “cheater.” But who is cheating who?

Last week, I was wrong. I assumed that Mirkvo Vucinic’s goalscoring celebration against Inter Milan revealed a Marxist streak in his thinking. However, I couldn’t have been more mistaken about the Montenegrin striker’s etymological proclivities. Just glance at his goal and ensuing celebration vs. Switzerland….

So if he’s not a Marxist, does that make Vucinic a cutthroat capitalist? No. Rather, his underwear flaunting festivities can be ascribed to a myriad of interpretations. So let’s begin.

1) Judith Butler “Gender as Performance”

Judith Butler, a professor at UC-Berkeley, has articulated an intellectual affront to the “gender as biology” method of thinking. Rather than counting estrogen and testosterone levels, Judy believes that we are sentient beings that act out gender roles, roles we learn from societal influences. Young boys see male soldiers on Army recruitment videos, and therefore like to play soldiers. Little girls see flush hair on Avon commercials, and thus like to brush their dolls’ hair. And of course Vucinic is down with this.

However, the internet has exposed the subversion of traditional gender roles in the twenty first century. As women bring home the bread and more men help around the house, the gender script has been subtly and not so subtly rewritten. Judy critiques the “male gaze,” the tendency to reduce women to mere objects. Yet the expansion of websites dedicated to female fetishization of athletes shows an omnipresent “female gaze.” Males are objects. Including Vucinic.

Vucinic’s goal celebration was a vicious satire and social commentary – he tugged down his shorts to say “Hey, these are tighty whities, enjoy this view of my pulsating masculinity.” The bulge, a biological difference between the sexes, both exemplified and vilified the deeply held biological understanding of gender that pollutes our thought. On the one hand, Vucinic has a penis. On the other hand, is that really a big deal? Should it be?

2) Jon Belushi “Animal House Bender”

An alternative theorist may depict the “Judy reading” as overly cerebral. Rather, Vucinic was totally happy with the neat give-and-go followed by a delicate chip finish. He lost all inhibitions, like a frat boy pretending to be too drunk in order to gauge the state of inebriation of his sorority sister prey. Dude, did you take a shot of Patron each time I did? Nooooo way. Hey I scored a goal!

While this epicurean argument may have some basis in reality, I doubt Vucinic was inebriated by anything other than joy.

3) Michael Jordan “Satire as Self”

The lingering and annoying Marxist points out the athlete-underwear-model dynamic. The Marxist espouses that this celebration was a continuing protest against the capitalist industrial complex, with its grip on the players both on and off the field. Vucinic tugged down his pants for free to mock the undie flaunting antics of Michael Jordan and David Beckham. Vucinic’s lack of pants made the bold statement – “I do not care to participate in the sale of my image and immortal soul for a nice pair of silky undies.”

4) NYC Naked Cowboy Replacement

Lastly, for those of you not in the States, we have congressional elections coming up and a new third party has put both Republics and Democrats on edge. How serious is the tea party? Well, one of their candidates used to parade around Times Square in New York City in a cowboy hat, underwear, and a guitar in hand. Very serious.

Vucinic, sensing that his time as a footballer may soon come to an end, didn’t want to turn up any potential career opportunities. Thus, he auditioned on live TV as a potential “Naked Footballer” that tentatively plans to loiter around St. Peter’s Square and sign autographs. Good luck!

Check out this goal video of Vucinic, courtesy of DirtyTackle…

You saw the well-timed run. You saw the diving header. And you saw the fiery celebration. But what you didn’t see was….

The simmering tensions amid the eternal struggle between proletariat and owner. First, read John Foot’s excellent piece at Goal on the history of the infamous “Sindacato Miliardari”, the Serie A players’ union. Up to speed on the current crisis? Basically, the players don’t want forced transfers or to play on Christmas. As a fellow human being that is employed, I also don’t like working on Christmas and would not like my boss to be able to ship me out without my consent or the option of resigning.

But let’s not confuse the true issue – can Vucinic’s actions be ascribed to dialectical or historical materialism?

The temptation to view Vucinic’s goal in terms of historical materialism is quite seductive. After all, Karl Marx’s own words seem to perfectly depict Roma’s build-up play and the resulting rebellion.

In the social production of their existence, men inevitably enter into definite relations, which are independent of their will, namely relations of production appropriate to a given stage in the development of their material forces of production.

Vucinic entered the game as a late substitution for Totti. His definite role was the point of the attack. Necessarily, this depended upon the creation of service from the flanks. Vucinic was a cog in the assembly line, he did not control the means of production. When the ball came his way, when the assembly line churned and placed materials in his hands, he assembled his part and the line kept churning.

However, this historical perspective fails to explain the celebration. Why did Vucinic feverishly and furiously stomp the advertising board? He has a mortgage, a car; he needs euros for food, gas, basic needs. Why bite the hand that feeds? The irony is apparent – his quality of foot attracts the sponsors to be associated with that foot, yet he then turns that foot against the very same sponsors. Only dialectical materialism can deal with such cognitive dissonance.

Let’s recall Engels’ first law in the Dialectics of Nature: “The law of the unity and conflict of opposites.” Yen needs Yang. Grouch requires Marx (not Karl). It is precisely because Vucinic depends upon the sponsors, the means of material reward for his on field production, that he hates them. Dependence breeds love and hate, in equal doses. That is why the revolution is possible. That is why the Serie A Sindicati possess the power to fight the encroaching power of capital in forcing them to run around a field for 90 minutes on December 25th.

Thus, dialectical materialism more accurately explains Vucinic’s actions. I”m sure the frustration had nothing to do with being benched behind a 50% fit Totti while his team struggled to score goals.

I know what you’re thinking. Swallow your prejudices and watch this clip.

Now, really swallow your prejudices and watch this clip.

Now, collect your breath, wipe the drool off your mouth from the CRon ab closeups, and let’s take a closer look at these seemingly interrelated surrealist films.

Let’s begin with the basics. The initial film, Un Chien Andalou, was the product of Salvador Dahli, the Spanish surrealist painter, and Spanish director Luis Bunuel. The idea emerged in a restaurant discussion as the two discussed dreams and suppressed human emotions. The short film is silent, with only cards to indicate the passage of time.

The Cristiano Ronaldo commercial was the product of Timeforce Watches, a multi-national corporation that has also plugged other Spanish athletes like Rafa Nadal for ads. I don’t care to speculate too much on the commercial’s origins, but I do not believe the genesis occurred in a Parisian cafe between two avant-garde intellectuals. Rather, some CEO cut a check for a “social media” new age marketing company, who then hired an NYU film drop-out that grew up on Amores Perros, 21 Grams & Pulp Fiction.

The first film is a hazy collection of emotions as we travel through the convoluted norms of gender. The woman, the man, and the boy play interchangeable role as mother, father, lover, son, and daughter. The razor acts a metaphor for the interlocking and superficial construct of time – this funny concept that forces linearity onto subjects yet can easily be cut into shreds by the power of imagination.

In the second film, Cristiano Ronaldo and the Spanish actress obviously portray a vicious satire of the 21st century’s inverted gender roles. CRo, the young athlete, is lured into the den of the waiting Espanola cougar. While the heteronormativity of the gender roles fails to, like, problematize anything, like, or something, it should be noted how easily C Ron goes from predator to prey, as if the matrimonial bed were a field of grass and a defender’s boot had just grazed his ankle.

The uniting metaphor is the watch, yet rather then represent a continuous stream of time, it is a metaphor for the concept of “singularity.” As in, you will watch this commercial all of one time, say what the fuck, and never think of it again.