Dancing with the Devil

I can’t help but make comment on this outrageous display of pop-art we all witnessed during the Paris Olympic Games opening. I am sure most of you have seen this either live or through YouTube clips and have formulated your own opinions. It is quite astounding to me how many people have declared this 2024 ceremony as the “best opening of any Olympic Games ever” and have lauded the artistic approach as a testament to the profound sensibility and depth of modern art.

It was garbage. And dangerous garbage at that.

Those of you who have followed me for a while know what my stance is on the expression of art in our modern times. I would never suggest censoring art in any way as I believe that art is an expression of the current human condition, and even if we do not like it, we have to realize that if the art is “bad” (immoral, crass, ugly, hateful, indecent) that more than likely the culture currently carries and embodies all of those distasteful attributes. Art is our way of calling us out, and hopefully change will ensue.

But, to me, there is a distinct difference between “pop-art” and serious artistic expression. It is a travesty when a public venue, such as the Olympic Games, is hijacked by an agenda-driven “display” that is no more artistic than pornography. Yes, you can argue with me on this one, and I do understand there are grey areas, and maybe what we saw this Friday was “not as bad as it seemed to be” but again to me, it was an obvious presentation of the agenda, and all that the agenda stands for, and not an “artistic expression”—it was no more artistic than a drag queen show at a seedy bar in downtown NYC—or at your local elementary school. Sure, anyone has the right to express such things, but don’t hide behind calling it “art” so you can get away with presenting it in a highly inappropriate, crude, and rude manner.

So, what is the agenda behind such a display? Let me count the ways . . .

First, this idea that sexual orientation defines a person in the same way that ethnic culture or personal character does, is beyond me. I really don’t give a hoot in hell what people do behind closed doors as long as it does not damage the innocent or hurt people in other ways. But I will never understand why certain people within this community believe their sexual orientation and/or behaviour defines them as people.

I cannot help but believe this is not across the board regarding the LGBTQIA+ community. I completely understand why gay people want recognition for being people and not freaks as they have been seen in the past (and yes, in some parts of the world they still are seen as freaks, or worse) but I do not understand why there is such a force out there to cram all this down everyone else’s throats. Being gay, non-binary, trans, bi, or whatever label someone wishes to apply to themselves is not a character attribute, it does not define a person’s values, their “goodness” or “badness” it is simply a sexual orientation, preference, and lifestyle. Am I wrong? If you belong to this community, please inform me. I am definitely confused.

It seems that the agenda’s effort is to “normalize” any sexual “identification” that is not heterosexual. “Normalize” isn’t even the right word, what I am looking for here is beyond “acceptance of a choice” but rather an “acceptance of a norm”—implying that heterosexuality is the “ab-norm”—the deviant—and that anything else should be seen as the preference. There are reasons “why” the agenda is doing this, but I will refrain from opening up that can of worms in this article. (Look at KW Norton’s excellent substack article for more on this.)

Whether you like it or not, the culture at large still believes certain behaviours are indecent, decadent, and unsavoury. Pedophilia is one, sex with more than one partner at the same time is another —maybe not AS deviant as pedophilia, but many still believe in the sanctity of love and lovemaking that is, by its nature, reserved to one person at a time. The culture still does not see “sleeping around with more than one partner” as a positive emotional or spiritual endeavour. We could argue about this one as well (trust me, I am not a prude, but many people out there are offended by such things).

There has been a great effort to “normalize” this sort of behaviour that has been traditionally considered taboo. Look at the strides recently to normalize pedophilia, particularly with the labelling of the “Minor Attracted Person”. As a therapist, I do not believe people with deviant sexual behaviours should be burned at the stake, but normalizing what we have always considered to be a mental illness is also not the way to go. Those of you who watched the opening ceremonies know what I am referring to here.

Satan seemed to make quite an appearance at the Olympic ceremonies this year. The “pale horse of death” that appeared is rather symbolic of Revelations—“And I looked, and behold a pale horse: and the name that sat on him was Death, and Hell followed with him. And power was given unto them over the fourth part of the earth, to kill with sword, and with hunger, and with death, and with the beasts of the earth."

Probably the most disturbing to many was the rendition of DaVinci’s “Last Supper” made up of drag queens. An unidentified Tweeter said, “The Olympics opens by making a demonic mockery of the Christian faith.” Or was it really meant to be the “feast of Dionysus”? That’s a bit more “Greek-ish” . . . Well, the center figure certainly looks to be holy. What is that thing coming out of his/her head? You decide. Regardless, it is still all in bad taste. All this Dionysus talk seems like a backpedal to me.

Then there were scenes of children in tunnels, headless Antoinettes (not just one, but dozens), many scenes focusing on the colour red, red streamers, and other dark Satanic symbols. A quote from an article in the New Zealand “Daily Telegraph”:

The ceremony was also criticized for featuring motifs of death, satanic red lighting, and children in tunnels, which some viewers interpreted as dark and demonic imagery. The backlash was swift and intense, with one user summarising the sentiment: “The 2024 Olympics Ceremony looks like a Celebration of Satanism and Pedophilia.

This viewer felt the whole thing was just outright strange. There was a feeling of coercion, at least to me, with nearly every performance—a darkness and decadence did indeed permeate many of the dramatic vignettes. Am I crazy? At the time I was viewing it, I thought my feelings were odd. After all, this is the Olympics for crying out loud! It should be wholesome family entertainment honoring the dedication of a group of talented athletes—not some statement from the “woke culture” about sexual orientation, trans-life, or Satan. Give me a break.

I have to say, however, more disturbing than the event itself was the positive response. I can’t tell you the number of glowing reports on my FB feed extolling the brilliant talent of the ceremony’s creator (Thomas Jolly). “It’s about time the Olympic Ceremony truly embraced the diversity of the world”- “It made me proud to be a human being.” How can such a blatant display as I have explained (and don’t take my word for it, watch the videos yourself) garner such a positive response? Are people truly blind?

Are we all being brainwashed into complacency? Where a rude and distasteful disregard for a group of people in our “diverse” global family is “fine?” And a “who cares about them” attitude reigns? There are a bit more than 2 billion Christians worldwide. And at least 80% of the world’s population are heterosexual—was this Olympic opening ceremony really well balanced? With the “woke culture” continuously screaming “inclusivity, diversity, and equity!” you would think they would be a bit more sensitive. It certainly seemed the Olympic opening ceremony was exclusive, nondiverse, and inequitable—it appeared to focus on only one worldview. 

In Jolly’s defense, however, there were some segments of the show that were done in good taste and actually had a positive bearing on the spirit of the Olympic Games, but in my opinion, not enough of this decent conveyance to erase the horrendous impression the rest of it generated.