Olympic Bullshit

IdleRich

IdleRich
Anyway, enough of that, time for some real analysis

http://www.goroadachi.com/etemenanki/martian_resurrection.html

It was pretty good stuff we saw at the London Olympics Opening Ceremony on July 27. Perhaps not the most elegant opening ceremony we've seen as far as artistry and drama (that honor goes to Athens 2004), but more than adequate in terms of "whispering secrets" Enki-Prometheus style. Around here we weren't just watching, we were more actively engaged, anticipating pattern fulfillment. And boy did we ever get one!
Our multicontextual pattern assessment - most recently (re-)done in Aurora Code 2012 (July 21) - had indicated the following set of powerful themes to be in play during this period:

1. Royal & Martian pregnancy/baby, Arthurian/Grail bloodline
* Intertwined issues of Mars (missions, life, panspermia, resurrection) & baby of Prince William & Kate Middleton
2. Babylon/Tower of Babel
3. Venus/Morning Star/Lucifer
4. Sun (solar cycle, solar wind/flares/CMEs, aurora)
5. And more...

If you watched the opening ceremony, you know how they turned out. Or maybe not. While some of the confirmations were fairly obvious, in your face even, like the "Tower of Babel" and the "Babylon Baby," there were other parts probably too cryptic for the average observer to discern. Especially the "Martian panspermia" segment. I am writing this article to elucidate what "really" happened at the Olympics opening ceremony, what was whispered by "Enki" from behind the wall, so everyone can get on the same page with regard to the true level of pattern fulfillment witnessed there, and what it could mean for the future.
The situation is that we have hidden patterns converging, uniting past, present and future... for a Total Recall of Martian Genesis.
Let the Games Begin.
 

e/y

Well-known member
^

McCartney-KingArthur.jpg


..i.e. descendant of King Arthur, Grail bloodline... Diana, William-Kate... baby.

bahaha, what.
 

Mr. Tea

Let's Talk About Ceps
Brilliant finds there, guys!

So I finally watched the opening ceremony yesterday while back in England for a couple of days. Actually I think for the most part it was pretty good, as far as anything that inherently ludicrous can be. Great choreography and sets. Mr. Bean. Dizzee. Yeah, it was cool. Though I wasn't entirely convinced by the segment that seemed to make a big deal of the fact that people have, like, mobile phones and stuff, as if that was meant to be some kind of national achievement.

The rings of fire rising out of the middle of the stadium were awesome.
 

vimothy

yurp
I'd like to ask a question about the opening ceremony. It seems to have elicited strong reactions across the board--or at any rate, stronger than I would have predicted. Strong reactions suggests that there is something at stake, and I'd like to know what.

The general tenor here seems to have been positive, with some hints at more cynical attitudes (link to MKP, eg). Presumably, this reflects the way people related to the content of the ceremony and how they view London 2012 itself as well as their enjoyment of the spectacle. In a narrow sense, the ceremony opened the games, but there is obviously more to it than that--perhaps the ceremony represented Britain to itself and the rest of the world. Some like what they see, and others do not.

So, if it was a celebration, what was being celebrated? Was it a progressive reading of British culture or history? Some people--e.g., various Labour MPs, that Tory MP Cameron called a twat, Rowan Atkinson's brother, the Guardian--seem to think it was, while other people--e.g., Boris Johnson, Mark K-Punk, Richard Seymour--seem to think otherwise. They can't both be right, though. What do you think? Did you relate to it? Did the ceremony represent the country as a whole or just London? Was it just a silly musical? Am I reading too much into this?
 
Last edited:

you

Well-known member
vim - my initial feeling after watching the ceremony was that is was good, pretty engaging and fun to watch. However, for me it did not represent the UK. I felt it was more like a tourism video, a bunch of cultural brands thrown together by two dozen media yes men. The feeling that this is how the country is to be portrayed to the rest of the world on the biggest stage is a touch irksome. Britain is not really about Corgis, Tea, The Bond Franchise, Dizzee Rascal and Coldplay - it is about so much more, things that cannot be packaged and branded up. The issue at stake is that this belief is at odds many in power, and almost every new landmark or endeavour seems to be about business and not people now - figures, I think £ have some voting powers nowadays, albeit without ballot boxes.


Where did mark comment on the opening ceremony? Twitter?
 

vimothy

yurp
Interesting answer though, you. I suppose that I might disagree in one respect: I don't think that it's impossible to represent some of the essential characteristics of a community of people. On the other hand, I agree that it seemed a bit corporate and vacuous.

Maybe that's to be expected though--and not just because the games themselves are corporate...
 

you

Well-known member
to respond further - when you ask "... if it was a celebration, what was being celebrated?" then to my eyes our cultural export business was very much the focus, or even reason for the celebration. It is this premise of presenting a country that comes from a pretty horrid place. There was very little celebration of people, just music, film and icons.
 

vimothy

yurp
Yes, that's a good point. I remember being struck by how much of the ceremony was devoted to music. This is drifting a bit, but does our obsession with music ever strike you as odd? It seems so unprecedented, a genuinely new phenomenon.
 

you

Well-known member
I can't really go into that point in detail, I have been tracking musics relationship to metaphysics and/or religion a lot, inadvertently, in my research into voice. Music was very very politicized for years, like, uh, since JC and that... logoscentricism has played a big role, as has a repression of the more corporeal and/or politcally dangerous phenomena (read music)..... recently though, music has become ubiquitous, amazingly so - Morrissey often comments about how LITTLE music there was in Manc in the 70's, how it was tough to find music, if you were into music that was unusual, whereas nowadays everyone is either into music OR THEY ARE MAKING IT!!! Now I know music has been culturally widespread and enjoyed before the 70's pre beatles, and WW eras had music for everyone to enjoy too -- - but somewhere is became a personal indulgence or past time - rather than a strictly social entity (thinking bit further back).This could be because music was reserved for kings as a luxury to enjoy for arts sake whereas now we can all get spotify or buy a 12 or a cassett or cd..... this is like itunes as salon.....

but this is straying off point (vim if you want stuff on the metaphysical tip pm me and I'll email you some nice books).

Perhaps - to tie things up a little, I could say that the international wholesale of something very personal and culturally loaded (e.g. - happy mondays) feels wrong, on some level, seems cold. Like your dad pimping your ex gf. There is no scene, society or people behind these things, just the memories. Again, raising its head is the detachment of people to the actual content - instead we are just left gazing at a parade of vacuous avatars of the past - end of history, no prsent shit innit?
 

vimothy

yurp
I suppose that one way to make sense of it—and hopefully relate the two ideas—would be to say, in the modern world, people don’t really have meaningful roles to play within the community, because the community itself doesn’t exist in a substantive sense—that’s thought too old-fashioned, oppressive and divisive. So if life isn’t about fulfilling a role that you are in a sense born into, that is much bigger than you, that helps you relate to the world at large and understand your place in it, what is it about?

Well, life is really about realising yourself as an autonomous individual. That means that the only institutions that can have a material impact on the way society is ordered are the market and government bureaucracies. These institutions are ordered towards goals that are empty of content. For instance, we want to promote freedom, because everyone is equally an individual, and so should be allowed to realise themselves equally as such. This says nothing about what the Good in life actually is—since that is the sovereign choice of the individual.

Music is an ideal dimension across which this process can occur. Like consumerism more generally, music is a choice that doesn’t give rise to claims that conflict. Religion: potential source of conflict. Politics: potential source of conflict. Music is different. Music can be enjoyed alone, in groups. Of course, groups can always use music to differentiate themselves from other groups, and this can give rise to conflict. But anything in principle can be used to this end. Music qua music doesn’t have this property any more than cooking does, or extreme sports, or any other hobby.

But music is something that appeals to everyone across the board. It's empty, but it's inclusive--so it's the perfect thing to celebrate if what you want to celebrate is the ability of people to satisfy their desires, but you to ensure that conflict, the obvious result of a society of autonomous individuals, is never realised.
 
Last edited:

you

Well-known member
Music is an ideal dimension across which this process can occur. Like consumerism more generally, music is a choice that doesn’t give rise to claims that conflict. Religion: potential source of conflict. Politics: potential source of conflict. Music is different. Music can be enjoyed alone, in groups. Of course, groups can always use music to differentiate themselves from other groups, and this can give rise to conflict. But anything in principle can be used to this end. Music qua music doesn’t have this property any more than cooking does, or extreme sports, or any other hobby.

But music is something that appeals to everyone across the board. It's empty, but it's inclusive--so it's the perfect thing to celebrate if what you want to celebrate is the ability of people to satisfy their desires, but you to ensure that conflict, the obvious result of a society of autonomous individuals, is never realised.

Vim - expand on the last point if you can. please.

Your last sentence - I would disagree with this, by being so isolated by meaningless (pop) autonomy and lack of potential to engage with more traditional systems I would say that this is realised.

I would also say (in response to the 2nd pg) that the task is to realise oneself as a non-autonomous individual and to understand that such autonomy is strictly under the bracket of a particularly vile system (modern caps)
 

vimothy

yurp
I take the modern ideal to be the rational organisation of society around the freedom of the individual. Society promotes the ability of people to set their own goals and realise them. At the same time, society tries not to take a position on what the Good is. Since everyone is equally a free individual, everyone’s goals are equally valid.

That’s all well and good, but there’s a problem. What happens when these goals conflict? It’s obvious that the principle of equal freedom won’t help you resolve conflicts. But given that we’re promoting individual desire as the only good, without reference to the particular content of those desires, conflict should be inevitable.

One idea would be to say that in the war of all against all whoever is strongest wins. That seems too brutal though, so another approach is preferable. To prevent the Triumph of the Will scenario from occurring, society restricts the domain over which choices can be exercised. If people were to only make choices over, say, a set of consumption bundles, then we could avoid conflict over more substantive goods altogether. Promotion of equal freedom becomes a narrow technical problem of maximising consumption through whatever means are most effective.

Music is like any other consumption good. Some people collect CDs, some people collect little painted figurines. But the appeal of music is much wider than little painted figurines. Everyone in society can express their individuality and autonomy by choosing particular types of music to listen to. (And beyond simply listening, there are whole subcultures to become immersed in.) Since everyone can enjoy music in principle, music includes everyone. The inclusivity of music consumption as the expression of individuality recapitulates society’s basic commitment to valuing every individual's goals equally.
 
Last edited:

you

Well-known member
One idea would be to say that in the war of all against all whoever is strongest wins. That seems too brutal though, so another approach is preferable. To prevent the Triumph of the Will scenario from occurring, (1)society restricts the domain over which choices can be exercised. If people were to only make choices over, say, a set of consumption bundles, then we could avoid conflict over more substantive goods altogether. Promotion of equal freedom becomes a narrow technical problem of maximising consumption through whatever means are most effective.

Music is like any other consumption good. Some people collect CDs, some people collect little painted figurines. But the appeal of music is much wider than little painted figurines. (2)Everyone in society can express their individuality and autonomy by choosing particular types of music to listen to. (And beyond simply listening, there are whole subcultures to become immersed in.) Since everyone can enjoy music in principle, music includes everyone. The inclusivity of music consumption as the expression of individuality recapitulates society’s basic commitment to valuing every individual's goals equally.

1 - yes, I feel we are on the same frequency here, this is what I was implying when I said "to understand that such autonomy is strictly under the bracket of a particularly vile system (modern caps)"

2 - This is a fascinating observation, the idea that music is the most socially engaging, group affording, almost politically aligning form of innocuous modern product. In that it is - a) a consumable. And b) an utterly autonomous choice stemming from the ideal of freedom of the individual BUT c) intrinsically tied to socio-political vectors, geographies and histories (though diluted compared to traditional deployments of music granted - see metaphysics rant).
 

mistersloane

heavy heavy monster sound
For me the most interesting part of the opening ceremony was its producer, who used to work at the ICA and was responsible for putting on radical performances by Franko B, Ron Athey and really quite extreme work at the time, and now. Because of this I just thought it was what they thought they could get away with really, in context, which I think says more about the UK than any of the actual content. The getting away with it. That just seemed to sum it all up for me.
 

Mr. Tea

Let's Talk About Ceps
It struck me the other day that it would have been pretty cool if Bill Drummond had been in charge...

Mister S, does the ICA in particular have a real tradition of transgressive performances, then? Was the director you're talking about in charge when COUM/TG did their PROSTITUTION show?
 
Last edited:

you

Well-known member
utter bullshit
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/olympics/19226099

why does rowing get so much? I know Henley, Sonning and Caversham Warren all have Lottery funded rowing stations for the private school kids already!?!?!!? I would've thought that last place to receive lottery funding would be an area where you can't get a family house for under half a mil!?!?! Was there even a state school rower in the GB team?
 

paolo

Mechanical phantoms
Mo Farah getting the 5000m last night was absolutely fantastic, but it seems most people are still a bit negative about immigrants :(

On the other hand, after being reminded of the success of minority ethnic Britons such as the Somali-born 10,000m champion, Mo Farah, voters remain inclined to doubt that most newcomers do anything positive for Britain.

By a narrow 53%-47% margin, the survey finds agreement for the suggestion that "More often than not immigrants … do not bring anything positive, and the likes of the Olympic-winning athletes are an exception".

http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2012/aug/10/london-2012-team-gb-success-feelgood-factor?INTCMP=SRCH
 

mistersloane

heavy heavy monster sound
It struck me the other day that it would have been pretty cool if Bill Drummond had been in charge...

Mister S, does the ICA in particular have a real tradition of transgressive performances, then? Was the director you're talking about in charge when COUM/TG did their PROSTITUTION show?

Yeah from the 60s to the early 90s the ICA was kinda essential to transgressive art in the UK. The COUM show was earlier than when Catherine was there, she would have been 80s/90s.
 
Top