Let's say that the West re-genders itself ('undresses') in freedom with a spectacle in which it colorfully mixes many things: sport, body art, electronic music, nudity fashion (currently the main representative of fashion without clothes is the female inventory for showing off which is mastered by Kanja Vest, a certain Bianca Censori who should be a copy of Kim Kardashian) - in contrast to the East, which seals itself in the tradition it serves in a submissive and contrite way for postmodernists and moral relativists, while the former speak, therefore, about the inadmissible oppression of human rights (by unyielding natalists, feudal lords and the father of the nation), others put forward the story of current public demonism, public sodomy, one might say 'stage' from the scenes of Bosch's paintings. The meeting of these two civilizations not only cannot find that ultimately so necessary minimum 'common language' which is a condition for negotiations on which the increasingly endangered world peace always depends, on the contrary, it leads to accidents, balancing of armed forces, to extreme escalations in terms of of terrible wars today on the verge of a nuclear epilogue. (One side defends universal democracy with military 'excursions', the other - with a totalitarian system, its own tradition and, as it believes, pristine substance.)
Seen without going into even the most superficial analysis of things that are otherwise constantly (obtrusively) offered to us, the West tries to win and buy our fascination with the spectacle - which is the corpse of the ideology of capitalism. A planetary show in which we have the stars of today's world give us an unforgettable event of the century. We are simply enchanted, because there is something post-Disney, ultra-modern, in the description of the distraction, everything shines and evokes the innocence and youth of the world, a future starred by non-conflicting togetherness.
The East seems to carry some metaphysical (dark) secret, opaque religious message, ontological unfathomable wisdom. All the more, the new-ageers (those youth who are torn between ineffective irony and endless self-promotion, which is, in fact, the successor of the hippie generation or former consumers of freedom without tomorrow), approach it as - a way of healthy organic food, the skill of exercise, achieving positivity. (If we were to call for help the solutions that pop-art always deals with, then we could illustrate these two spiritually opposed worlds like this: Mickey Mouse and the Dalai Lama, which does not mean that the Dalai Lama is not, in his overly simple way, delighted with the cartoon hero who is made in order to educate the youngest on an early attitude towards television.)
We can, why not, go a little further and state: the East is "Icon and the axe", the West, on the other hand, NATO and democracy. The truth seems to be the following: what, then, if values cannot be - defended - except by means that produce death?
In this valley of misery, some are exploited until they are left on a scorched wasteland, others waste away in bacchanalia of vain instinct and death drive. Global execution causes local destruction.
How much can Plato's words in which he says - "Only the dead have seen the end of the war" be of use to us now? Let's pay attention to one thing: war does not only take place at the front - it is carried out bloody there, so: war is a permanent conflict in relation to the understanding of values. For one, the way the West treats freedom is its pure and open abuse (rape of freedom), for the West itself, on the other hand, it is the representative of freedom.
One would say that everything is a matter of interpretation of the great European heritage, however, the matter is somewhat different. In order to defend itself and reproduce itself, capital desperately needs an ideology, so that one side will persistently defend its position, opinion and vision, no less than the other. - Appropriation of values extends to the issue of correctness in actions, thus ethics and freedom.
If we recall the beginning of the book 'The Will to Power', we will say that the philosopher who saw himself as dynamite (with reason, if we consider the style in which he presented the facts, too polemical and bitter), did not rush anywhere; Europe is in a nihilistic phase, since it does not think, but only tries desperately to empty the achieved freedom. If, however, it tries to demonstrate what it has inherited in order to preserve and perfect it, it is not worse to return to the old authorities; Foucault himself in the end - that man of true freedom of thought and life - did it, after all, like Heidegger himself before him, while Derrida dedicated himself to Otherness, which contains a messianic openness.
Dionysus and delirium: every ceremony, spectacle and celebration serves the purpose of closing our eyes (widely). No one is now more invited than Europe to - think peace as the very possibility of the future! As the most experienced continent, knowledge, history and culture (certainly, conservatism freezes, shackles, keeps authority on a pedestal and rebels against progress, however, one show (eroticized musical, let's say so) cannot "unwind" the system of rigid and entrenched attitudes), Europe, in fact, owes it to the world: if it does not find a way to reach peace through negotiations, that is, through wisdom, then all of us, led by it, are lost.
We will certainly not be saved by interactive screens, enchanting entertainment, technology that would be this 'good news', even less - frenetic financing of wars in which capital turns, but thoughtfulness, a policy of truce, not, therefore, a 'hot peace', but a cold one. radio. Otherwise, things will drastically worsen, because the maturity of civilization is not only reflected in the opening ceremonies of the Olympics, which shines like (in this case) an artificial sky, but above all in - a reasonable extinguishing of the burning global reality.
On the other hand, through diversity, openness and hospitality ('universal standard', Heidegger), the world is transformed, the world defeats itself, the world finally 'liberates' itself, but what must really be taken into account is the fact yes - a show is never reality, a dream is never reality. Let's imagine that we are 'playing' the revolution, that we are simply carrying it out for fun, that we are staging it on the streets of Paris, but that we never have the political strength to implement it as a community of differences.
It is not, ultimately, an important message (some interpret it as extremely blasphemous, others, again, as an expression of the level of modernity we have reached), but rather: is it only in the ceremony - the freedom of all is promised and guaranteed? What happens in reality? Don't minorities and the powerless suffer (aren't sexual minorities always an unmistakably hit target?!), and the screenwriters of such a reality don't exercise their wishes like the emperors once did; bread and games while the crisis lasts, to entertain the mob, because the empire is failing. (Let's drop the fantasy of equality, let's get to work making it a reality!)
Finally, but by no means least important: no one has the slightest right(!) to look at the opening ceremony of the games as some kind of ibije mockery, there is quite a lot of extremely successful criticism, above all, of the modern world, which is unpredictably more promiscuous than awake.
Bonus video:
