Since my kids were very young, I would make a tradition of watching the Olympics. This generally involved unplugging a TV and moving it to the kitchen where it would be on for most of the day for two weeks. It has always been a major time commitment, but I’ve always thoroughly enjoyed it, both Winter and Summer Olympics. There is something special about seeing the world’s best athletes perform. I’ve always felt that such excellence inherently glorifies the Creator God.
This weekend three different members of the family asked me why I wasn’t watching the Olympics. I asked them if they really wanted to know. They insisted, so I showed them.
Three months ago in the city of Paris, the Olympic organizers performed a prayer ceremony to Apollo, God of the Sun. Then in the opening ceremony, the pagan worship continued with a drag Dionysus and crew (including drag Jesus, see below, standing behind Dionysus).
For those who do not know, the Athlete’s Commission of the International Olympic Committee has this policy: Rule 50:
Rules for thee, but not for me. For the IOC was not yet finished, for it would not merely promote paganism, but it was also to attack the very foundation of the worship of the One True God.
If you watched the opening ceremony, did you notice the prominently displayed “golden bull?” For those who do not know, it was the pagan sacred symbol of the ancient Canaanites, out of which the Israelites arose. The story is told in Exodus 23 how the people made an image of a gold calf and worshiped it, turning away from the One God to pagan idolatry.
But, of course, what has really angered Christians was not any of these things, but rather it was the sacrilegious depiction of Christ’s Last Supper:
This rather speaks for itself, does it not?
The Pale Horse of Revelation also made an appearance:
Is this mockery, a foretelling, or an acknowledgment of who they serve? Perhaps it is all of these.
I will not be supporting them this year.
For a more in-depth take on the rot underlying the Olympics, see Rock Kitaro’s “Why Did they Mock Christianity in the Olympic Opening Ceremony?”
For more on the modern proliferation of the ancient pagan symbology (including sun worship), see diosescucha, “Debunking the Roman Catholic Church, Part II.”
I grew up a few miles away from the 1980 Winter Games in lake Placid.
I was about ten when they were held. My parents (as did most) from the local village and surrounding hamlets volunteered to make athletes, tourists, the press and other visitors “welcome” to our corner of the world during these games.
The 1980 winter games were indeed the last “small venue” for the games. The stadium only held a paltry 5,000 people. The speed skating rink was the local high school soccer field flooded and made into this venue. Whiteface mountain did not have the capacity to handle the events. The Mt Van Hoovenburg bobsled / lunge run barely passed safety qualifications for 1980, despite a few million in retrofitting (it was built for the 1932 Games which were held also in Lake Placid).
The Olympic Village was barebones and you could walk right in and meet athletes. The road systems were clogged with traffic for well over two weeks. I remember dad taking me to school on a snowmobile through back trails in the forest for many days because the school buses were not running.
Telephone services were cut for most residents because all lines were needed for the press, and the like. The local bulletins “check on your neighbors daily to see if they are okay”
It was a logistical nightmare for the village and surrounding Adirondack communities.
Tickets to events were sold out before any local of the area could get any. It was said for the “miracle on ice” game…..less than 100 people from the local area got to see it.
Hotel accommodations could not handle the massive amount of people. Trash and garbage piled up all over the place. Deliveries to businesses, food and like were delayed. Tourists from Europe called us “backward” and “unsophisticated” because we didnt have five star restaurants nor the things they in Europe took for granted.
When the games were indeed over, and gone. Lake Placid was left bankrupt. Everyone was happy for the US Hockey team, and we knew history had indeed been made….but everyone was glad everyone was gone and went home.
It took fifteen years for Lake Placid to emerge from bankruptcy. The locals in the Adirondack Park said “never again” and the massive cost to the area was not worth the investment.
I did get to see Erik Heiden race (speed skating) and take gold!
It was so long ago….and the venues now a city has to build are even more grandious and the IOC does little or nothing to help.
I like the games overall…..but I saw firsthand the local cost and wreckage they leave in an area…..and we were so far from airports, larger cities, and just did not have the infrastructure to handle them. It was the “last” small venue for the games. Winter and summer.
Not watching them in Paris for the thigs you mentioned Derek, but also……it has become an “agenda” over sport as well.
USA defeats USSR 1980 Winter Games.
I remember it was a cold day, it did snow that morning. Dad had the fireplace going and we did get to see the game live on TV. We didnt have a color TV yet. We watched it on a 20″ black and white 1976 GE television!
The rest of the country saw it on a delay. The local station in Plattsburgh had “rights” to carry it live, so we knew the USA had beat the USSR a few hours before the rest of the country got to see it.
I remember my parents (especially my father) so happy to see “the communists” defeated.
Meanwhile, the socialists have just “won” in Venezuela. Here is what Feeriker’s wife said:
“Maduro and his henchmen have stolen the votes of Venezuelans, and they’ve committed fraud, love! But the people are fighting for Maduro to hand over power, in the name of Jesus, amen.
“I haven’t been able to send you any emails because the situation has been difficult. They didn’t cut off the network here, and the criminals from the buses [“colectivos” who have been bussed in from other parts of the country] are killing Venezuelans! The situation is ugly in Caracas [she’s not in Caracas, thank God]!
“These evil people don’t want to hand over power
“The biggest fraud ever seen in the history of Venezuela!”
I’d love to get Malcom Reynold’s commentary. Is he going to blame Paris’ anti-Christian performance on American Evangelical Puritans? He has yet to show that Europe has any advantage at all over America.
IMO, Europe and America are both competing in a race to the bottom.
Per usual, like most Europeans who gripe about American “imperialism” and being a “warmonger” and “we Europeans have free everything”
Now that Americans want to “take it all home”
“How dare you leave us defenseless!”
I’d love to get Malcom Reynold’s commentary. Is he going to blame Paris’ anti-Christian performance on American Evangelical Puritans? He has yet to show that Europe has any advantage at all over America.
IMO, Europe and America are both competing in a race to the bottom.
As has been said by more honest feminists is that American feminism always focused more on lesbians than euro-feminism as the biggest difference between the two sects(as ”Jack” would say) like here by Sylvia Hewlett in ’86:
A LESSER LIFE: THE MYTH OF WOMEN’S LIBERATION IN AMERICA. By Sylvia Ann Hewlett. I New York:
William Morrow. 1986. Pp. 461. $17.95.
Florence A. Ruderman 2
It is now generally conceded that the feminist movement is in
disarray. An argument could be made, I think, that this is nothing
new; feminism always managed to paper over deep splits within its
ranks, and an absence of really compelling thought about whom it
represents, and what it wants (beyond abstractions such as “equality” or “freedom”). Perhaps this is another way of saying that it
was, and is, a movement; its momentum was always greater than its
sense of direction, its emotional fervor always greater than its intellectual clarity. But now it is losing momentum, and as it slows
down, even adherents are beginning to ask questions about its purpose and ideology. As yet, however, the questioning remains shallow; it avoids probing very deeply into the basis of feminist beliefs.
A number of books have recently appeared that reflect this new
sobriety, and the, as yet not very penetrating, reappraisal. Sylvia
Ann Hewlett’s is one of the more interesting ones. It is, up to a
point at least, scholarly, and there is a refreshing absence of rhetoric
and abstraction. Hewlett goes into some detail on the history of
American feminism, comparing it unfavorably with feminism in
other Western nations. For reasons which she never examines,
feminism in the United States developed quite aberrantly. Elsewhere, the movement had a practical, materialistic focus; it was
family-oriented; and organizationally it was tied to labor unions and
mainstream political parties. The goal was to make life easier for
women, to provide them with protections and benefits at home and
on the job. Today, all of these countries have comprehensive family
policies, which include such benefits as income supplements to
families with young children (“family allowances”), parental leaves
I. Vice-President for Economic Studies, United Nations Association.
2. Associate Professor of Sociology, Brooklyn College.
155
156 CONSTITUTIONAL COMMENTARY [Vol. 4:155
with full or part pay, and networks of publicly funded child-care
facilities.
By contrast, American feminism has, from the beginning, been
dominated by abstract, visionary goals, such as “equality” and “liberation.” It has had a distinctly anti-family cast, seeking to “free”
women from their traditional roles. And organizationally, it has
chosen separatism, and even isolation. Thus, in recent years the
movement has been chiefly engaged in fighting for the Equal Rights
Amendment, for abortion-on-demand, and for lesbian rights. Far
from advocating measures that provide special protection or benefits for women, it has, at least on occasion, actively opposed such
measures, as serving to perpetuate ideas of women’s inferiority or
special handicaps, and justifying discrimination against them. And
so, Hewlett argues, American feminism has only lukewarm support
from the majority of American women, or has actually alienated
them, for most continue to identify with their roles as wives and
mothers, even as they increasingly take on new roles outside the
home. And so too, she argues, the movement has produced little of
practical benefit for these women. The United States has no coherent family policy; no system of family allowances; no federally assured right to parental leaves (only forty percent of working women
have some form of guaranteed leave through union contracts); and
there are no federally sponsored-indeed, almost no publicly sponsored-child-care facilities. Thus the average American woman is,
in Hewlett’s view, worse off than her European counterpart.
Besides the feminist movement with its anti-family stance,
Hewlett sees another culprit in the plight of American women.
This is “ultradomesticity”: the cult of hearth and home. For years
psychologists, pediatricians, and special interest groups of all sorts
have bombarded American women with the message that it is their
duty to maintain a perfect home, to have a perfect marriage, to raise
perfect children. They have been taught that true motherhood entails “natural” childbirth, breastfeeding, the continuous physical
“bonding” of mother and child. They have been filled with fears of
the dire consequences of even short-term separation from babies
and young children, and inculcated with the notion that everything
in their children’s lives-their physical and psychological health,
their IQs, their future-depends on the closeness and intensity of
their maternal care.
On this score, too, Hewlett draws an unfavorable comparison
with European societies, where the attitude toward marriage and
domestic roles has always been more practical, less starry-eyed; and
where the care of children by surrogates-in or outside the home-
1987] BOOK REVIEWS 157
has always been taken for granted. (For hundreds of years many
middle- and upper-class parents sent infants away to farm families
to be nursed and raised; others employed nannies, governesses; children were, and are, sent off early to boarding schools; working class
families sent children away at early ages as apprentices, and so on.)
Today, then, European mothers feel less compelled to live up to
impossible standards of homemaking, and they view organized, outof-home child care facilities as accoutrements of normal family life.
In short, says Hewlett, American women, more than any
others, have been victimized by two sets of messages which are not
only incompatible, but individually unrealistic. The feminist
messages denies that there are significant differences between the
sexes and tells women to work and compete in all public spheres
like men; the “ultradomesticity” message makes a cult of women’s
domestic and reproductive functions and tells them that any diminution of their devotion to home and child care means that they are
cheating themselves and their children.
Many women, particularly those who came of age in the
1950’s and later, internalized both messages, and set out to be
Superwomen. Hewlett supports this claim with her own story. An
economics professor at Barnard in the 1970’s, she was imbued with
the standard ideals and dogmas of both feminism and “ultradomesticity.” She was convinced that she could combine her professional
career with the roles of wife and mother: she could be a dedicated,
productive scholar, or scientist, and teacher as well as an everpresent, completely devoted mother. Neither sphere need impinge
on, or complicate, the other; no role need hinder or detract from the
rest. To no one’s surprise (except Hewlett’s, apparently), this
turned out not to be the case; and she recounts-affectingly, and at
points, insightfully-how the attempt failed. Barnard at the time
had no provision for maternity leave, and when she became pregnant (and determined on “natural” childbirth, and all the rest of it),
she found her colleagues, and the administration, unsupportive.
(Very much later, when she brought her nursing infant to the office,
and to departmental meetings, she again found them unsupportive:
for example, they were “not amused if Lisa started to wail or filled
her diaper in the middle of a meeting.”) She was eventually denied
tenure at Barnard because, she believes, while pregnant, nursing,
and toting around a small child, she found it impossible to keep up
with her research; she also withdrew, to some extent, from other
professional responsibilities, such as committee work. At the same
time, however, the strain of trying to maintain even a reduced level
of professional activity while still trying to reach the “ultradomes-
158 CONSTITUTIONAL COMMENTARY [Vol. 4:155
ticity” goals (natural childbirth, breastfeeding, avoiding any separation from the baby) took a toll of her physical and emotional health:
she ascribes to this attempt-to live up to two sets of unyielding,
unrealistic demands-years of fatigue and illness; a miscarriage,
and in its wake, depression; and later, after two successful
pregnancies, persistent feelings of guilt and anxiety.
Repeatedly, Hewlett compares her experience, and the experiences of other American women, with those of European women.
This is done by means of reminiscences, anecdotes, and interviews,
which make no pretense of being systematic or rigorous. Invariably, the American experiences are grim, the European ones joyous.
European mothers have family allowances that permit them to remain at home for long periods, if they choose; they have leaves during pregnancy and after childbirth that safeguard their health and
the health of their babies; when they return to work, they have the
option of part-time, flexible schedules; “excellent” nurseries and
day-care centers are everywhere. In short, American women have
been misled and swindled. What they need, and want, is not what
“ultradomesticity” demands of them, and not what feminists are
fighting for, but what European women already have: parental
leaves, day-care centers, and family income supplements-a liberal,
comprehensive, national family policy.
I
Superficially, it seems hard to quarrel with the case Hewlett
makes. Other countries have programs that ease the lot of women
who are combining domestic and employment responsibilities; why
shouldn’t we? But as one looks more closely at Hewlett’s story and
arguments, questions emerge and some reservations must be voiced.
First, it should be noted that many feminists have denied that
the movement has been anti-family, or that it has given familyoriented measures such as parental leaves or day care centers low
priority. As noted, the movement is not monolithic, and there have
been voices within it (most notably, Betty Friedan’s) that have argued somewhat along Hewlett’s lines. Nevertheless, I think
Hewlett’s point is undeniable: the most audible voices in the movement, and organizationally its major thrust, have not been for measures of the sort Hewlett is urging. They have been for ERA,
“reproductive freedom,” lesbian rights-essentially, freedom from
the traditional roles of wife and mother, rather than support for
women in these roles. And there has also been an unmistakable
animus against existing political and economic structures, which are
seen as part of an oppressive, enslaving male establishment. ”
”Today, then, European mothers feel less compelled to live up to
impossible standards of homemaking, and they view organized, outof-home child care facilities as accoutrements of normal family life.
In short, says Hewlett, American women, more than any
others, have been victimized by two sets of messages which are not
only incompatible, but individually unrealistic. The feminist
messages denies that there are significant differences between the
sexes and tells women to work and compete in all public spheres
like men; the “ultradomesticity” message makes a cult of women’s
domestic and reproductive functions and tells them that any diminution of their devotion to home and child care means that they are
cheating themselves and their children.
Many women, particularly those who came of age in the
1950’s and later, internalized both messages, and set out to be
Superwomen. Hewlett supports this claim with her own story. An
economics professor at Barnard in the 1970’s, she was imbued with
the standard ideals and dogmas of both feminism and “ultradomesticity.” She was convinced that she could combine her professional
career with the roles of wife and mother: she could be a dedicated,
productive scholar, or scientist, and teacher as well as an everpresent, completely devoted mother. Neither sphere need impinge
on, or complicate, the other; no role need hinder or detract from the
rest. To no one’s surprise (except Hewlett’s, apparently), this
turned out not to be the case; and she recounts-affectingly, and at
points, insightfully-how the attempt failed. Barnard at the time
had no provision for maternity leave, and when she became pregnant (and determined on “natural” childbirth, and all the rest of it),
she found her colleagues, and the administration, unsupportive.
(Very much later, when she brought her nursing infant to the office,
and to departmental meetings, she again found them unsupportive:
for example, they were “not amused if Lisa started to wail or filled
her diaper in the middle of a meeting.”) She was eventually denied
tenure at Barnard because, she believes, while pregnant, nursing,
and toting around a small child, she found it impossible to keep up
with her research; she also withdrew, to some extent, from other
professional responsibilities, such as committee work. At the same
time, however, the strain of trying to maintain even a reduced level
of professional activity while still trying to reach the “ultradomes-
158 CONSTITUTIONAL COMMENTARY [Vol. 4:155
ticity” goals (natural childbirth, breastfeeding, avoiding any separation from the baby) took a toll of her physical and emotional health:
she ascribes to this attempt-to live up to two sets of unyielding,
unrealistic demands-years of fatigue and illness; a miscarriage,
and in its wake, depression; and later, after two successful
pregnancies, persistent feelings of guilt and anxiety.
Repeatedly, Hewlett compares her experience, and the experiences of other American women, with those of European women.
This is done by means of reminiscences, anecdotes, and interviews,
which make no pretense of being systematic or rigorous. Invariably, the American experiences are grim, the European ones joyous.
European mothers have family allowances that permit them to remain at home for long periods, if they choose; they have leaves during pregnancy and after childbirth that safeguard their health and
the health of their babies; when they return to work, they have the
option of part-time, flexible schedules; “excellent” nurseries and
day-care centers are everywhere. In short, American women have
been misled and swindled. What they need, and want, is not what
“ultradomesticity” demands of them”
SEE how so-called ””ultradomestic” ”perfect” ”red pill” ”genius”” failures oft parrell feminists in their ”redpill” thinking?
> I’d love to get Malcom Reynold’s commentary.
That’s rather simple: Olympic games were born from a pagan tradition and will cease as pagan tradition. They were held at the Panhellenic religious sanctuary of Olympia, in honor of Zeus, and the Greeks gave them a mythological origin.
It’s a custom to for all traditions based on the Hebrew bible to boycott such idolatry. The Olympic games started as pure idolatry and it’s obvious that the latest installment still is.
While I like sports, I have never been drawn to the TV mass events, because they are not about sports. They are about cult worship, glad you noticed.
MR,
Your response borders on the tautological.
You’ve failed to note that despite the Olympic origin, not even Greece had such a showing of cultic devotion—of literal worship—let alone being explicitly and specifically anti-Christian. The latter is not implied by the former. Nor has any of the previous cultic symbology in years past been aimed at modern du jour social ideologies, such as promoting gay/lesbian/trans lifestyles and sexualizing children (specifically).
No, rather than being merely cultic, this year the Olympics are openly Satanic.
No, rather than being merely historical, this year the Olympics are culturally moderm.
The actions of the Paris Olympics can be described rather simply: a reflection of the current worldwide cultural movements. Specifically, it mirrors America’s cultural movements.
The problem I have with your response here (and elsewhere on the blog) is your failure to acknowledge this basic fact: Western Europe, Canada, and the United States generally move in cultural lockstep, and I can’t figure out why you seem to have such a big problem acknowledging and emphasizing that. For example, much of what you attribute causally to Evangelical Protestants isn’t actually causally related. What gives?
Peace,
DR
When talking about outcomes of the 19th century Evangelical awakening movements, it’s about the contemporary fruit of these movements. While hypocritical people pretty much oppose the fruits of their own traditions playing innocent, in my understanding everything of what they criticize was already present in these seeds.
The modern Olympic games were founded by a French noble, whose Roman-Catholic parents let him raise by Jesuits. When the outcome (fruit) of this tradition is open satanism, it was already present in that seed.
I don’t care about convoluted conspiracy theories like Bruce does, because I prefer the historical approach for its better predictive value.
“I don’t care about convoluted conspiracy theories…”
…yet here you are speaking just like an American politician. Unless you can substantiate your claim, I suggest that you lay off the ad hominem, at least if you want to be taken seriously.
“The modern Olympic games were founded by a French noble, whose Roman-Catholic parents let him raise by Jesuits. When the outcome (fruit) of this tradition is open satanism, it was already present in that seed. [..] I prefer the historical approach for its better predictive value.”
What, exactly, have you predicted that has come true? I can point to a number of specific predictions that I’ve made over the last few years that have come true. Can you do the same?
This is especially pertinent, because that laughably described “convoluted conspiracy theory” led me to publicly predict the correct C19 numbers even as the entire media, most pundits, and every politician got it wrong.
Knowing who founded the modern Olympic games tells you nothing about the people who are currently running it. Are they Jesuits? No, they are not. Your pseudo-historical method is vacuous. Consider this hypothetical example:
“The modern Olympic games are run by atheists and agnostics. The outcome (fruit) of this tradition is open satanism, it was already present in that seed.”
How is your statement better than this one? “Curve fitting” your mental model to the data is neither prediction nor an explanation, especially because your explanation is overgeneralized. Do you have anything more than vague generalities?
“I don’t care about convoluted conspiracy theories … because I prefer the historical approach for its better predictive value.”
Perhaps, it is because you are ignorant of the forces at play in modern politics and culture and so you fall back on the one thing you know: historical analysis. This is fine, but when used exclusively is just a self-limiting form of selection bias.
Pingback: Gunner Q on the Olympics
Zlollzzlolzzzz
How this ”Saint” describes how women are supposedly ”twicked” by MEN is similar to how most ”redpillers” were ”twicked” as ”bluepillers”i.e. lots of weed, feel-good lies & sex fantasies unlimited!
thedeti says:
30 July, 2024 at 4:40 pm
What I wrote up there is the real reason women do this. But you’d never get that articulate an answer from them on this because they never think any of this through to the extent men do. The most honest they can be is something like this(similar to usth ”redpillers” in our lustz for bluepill delights that WE now claim WE were ”twicked” into wanting):
“I mean, I dunno. I just like those guys. I like how they make me feel. I have fun with them. They make me feel special, most of the time. That’s the most important thing, is that whenever I’m with them, I feel good, I feel special, and I have fun. All that makes me happy.”
&
Farm Boy says:
30 July, 2024 at 4:46 pm
So being treated like crap by a bad boy is fun?
Cheque d’Out says:
30 July, 2024 at 4:47 pm
…and anyway, if the fun doesn’t work out, I’ll just grab a sucker to step in and serve me.
Cheque d’Out says:
30 July, 2024 at 4:48 pm
So being treated like crap by a bad boy is fun?
Yes. Until it, surprisingly, doesn’t work. But that’s okay as there’s an unlimited supply of suckers to serve.
thedeti says:
30 July, 2024 at 4:49 pm
So being treated like crap by a bad boy is fun?
No. Getting their backs blown out is fun. Going out to parties is fun. Him bringing the great weed and drugs is fun. Hanging out is fun.
The crap treatment is drama. Girls put up with the drama from bad boys because the fun and sex is worth it, until it no longer is.”
Most ”twicked” supposedly former bluepillers say similar things as ”redpillers” later yes!?
Pingback: Fleeing Evil