By Rain Cloud
Rain rejects the notion of harmless competition and contemplates what pro-Olympic attitudes signify for society
Within the tide of administered culture there is no chasm from which one can avoid the Olympics, especially at high tide, which is every four years. In an advanced global etc etc marketplace it is impossible to avoid contamination from what I call the Olympic principle (the notion of hysterical competition that demands winning, uncritically, on behalf of something other, but only for personal gain), thus a total negation of the Olympic experience must take place if one is to avoid paying too much money for compression pants.
The negation can only take place with a deep awareness of both the subtle and the incoherent ecological implications of pro-Olympic attitudes. I will outline a few and leave you with a 2-dimensional space in which you can develop all the others.
Firstly, the world currently finds itself in a particular configuration and on the seemingly indefinite threshold of another configuration, due to global tension surrounding collective difference. The upcoming configurations will have enormous ecological consequence. Thus I think it is a particularly dangerous time to attempt to summon the amount of identification required to allow such a large exercise in segmentation to take place. Such an exercise creates a bubbling atmosphere of nation state narratives, which differ in the best case on a superficial level and in the worst case on an ideological level. Most importantly, these narratives have nothing do with sport but have everything to do with the Olympics, which in turn celebrates borders and the flagpoles that draw them. Here the Olympic spirit presents a great opportunity for people to orient themselves according to what is and not what ought to be.
The 'athletes village' will be a disaster for evolution and is a melting pot for masculine adaptationism*.
Any romantic notion of sport has now been completely enveloped by the commodity principle and brings people together for all the wrong reasons. Something that is interesting; the Olympics don’t allow athletes to profit from sponsorship yet they exploit professional athletes (such as Serena Williams), through traditionally non-Olympic sports (basketball, tennis), in pursuit of their own sponsorship revenue.
The hierarchy of precious metals needs to be dissolved.
I don’t like the idea that the Olympics, or sport, is harmless (a position The New York Times takes describing the Olympics as "a peaceful celebration of our warlike nature"). I think these reductions misunderstand ecology and need to be put into a rubbish bin.
The idea of the host nation is interesting.