Share |

Saturday 28 July 2012

Olympian Dreams and Nightmares

Olympic opening ceremonies are intended to send out clear messages to the world about the host nation, its identity and values. As such, it seems that many around the globe last night, including a significant proportion of our own population, must have been left feeling distinctly confused, disorientated and wondering what had happened to Britain. It was not so much a celebration of national identity, as of a post-national notion of Britain as a hyper-globalised space, in which its people were depicted as being displaced by incomers at an ever-accelerating pace.

Even our bucolic and industrial pasts failed to resist colonisation by the present, with recent non-British arrivals partially usurping the role of the nation's forebears, as jarring and unnatural as if China were to have celebrated its history through having Americans assume the role of peasants and emperors. Danny Boyle presented us with his vision of a Britain that is everywhere and nowhere; Britain as the world in microcosm, in which the English in particular, rapidly run the risk of becoming an ethnic minority in their own land. This central theme of ethnic displacement, or what in the mind of Boyle and others of a multiculturalist bent would be viewed as a positive phenomenon of ethnic transcendence, was present in almost every facet of the opening ceremony. Nowhere was this more starkly represented in concrete demographic fashion than in the composition of the children's choir singing Jerusalem, in which the African element was heavily evident, and in Boyle's selection of a fictitious mixed black and white family (indigenous female, black male) and a young couple (daughter of said couple with a non-indigenous boyfriend) to serve as a physical representation of the nation today.

Was the opening ceremony spectacular? Yes. Was it original? Certainly. Was it the product of a talented director? Obviously, yes. Yet, despite all of these positive qualities and the efforts of the performers, it ultimately constituted a national lament, but a gleeful one that saw its central mission as being to rub our noses in diversity. How many viewers in other nations must have looked on in a state of perplexity, puzzling as to why we should be celebrating national suicide with such an exuberant embrace? Bonkers.


  1. I have to admit that I could not bear to watch it.

    I am already cynical enough about the Olympics as it is, plus completely disinterested and detached from what feels to be a wholly alien affair, not just racially but in attitude, identity, sentimentality etc, so I did not bother to tune in to the opening ceremony.

    I had heard about what some of it was going to be about, like windmills, fields, farmers, going through history and stuff like that - I think I read that the "we fought the nazi's" was going to make a feature, etc too, so I kind of had an idea of what they might do with it all.

    As I did not watch it, I can only imagine the distorted and twisted propaganda that was evident.

    That is what the whole games seems to have been about so far, the debasement of the indigenous British, pushing the reality of demographic and cultural "change" that is coming, shoving ethnic minorities into what seems to be every interview, every event, every TV advert, every internet banner.

    "This is the Britain we want, this is the Britain we are making, and you had better learn to jolly well like it and celebrate it" seems to be the message.

    As with all good nation-changing propaganda and societal engineering programmes, it will of course, in the future, be looked back on as part of Britains heritage and how we supposedly once were in history - and how we supposedly once were at the times of these games. It creates a new national narrative for future generations.

    Whilst I was surfing the TV channels the other night looking for something to watch, I did flick over by accident to the games ceremony because the Freeview box controller I have is really slow and sometimes you put channel numbers in and before it reaches 15 it thinks you want 1.

    I don't know what part of the show it was, but I saw top hat and suited blacks in historical garb (maybe Edwardian or part of some historical British situation like the Levellers or Chartists) dancing around. That few seconds was enough for me to know what they were playing at.

    Reading this article only serves to give me the impression that I was right in what it would become.

    I don't think I could have stood to see what has been described above, because it really does jar on me, just like when Asians in the local paper are making comments along the lines about how it is "their country now" and "what are you going to do about it" and that "it's the parents fault for their daughters being gang raped, as they were probably drunk down the pub when it happened"....etc.

    Only this time it is "yeah, London is mostly black now, we are promoting race mixing propaganda and changing your whole country, and what is wrong with that, and what are you going to do about it?"

    It is indeed "rubbing your face in it", that we have completely lost control of our country and the future destiny of it.

    It is annoying precisely because it seems there is nothing we can do about it, it is too far gone and too many people don't care.....but hopefully, there will be a bounce-back one day and the real British people will assert themselves and reclaim this country as their own.

    1. No, there weren't any Nazis in it BA, but the whole affair was very much in line with what I expected. If I remember correctly, the BBC attracted 27.9 million viewers in the UK for the opening ceremony, so it was worth watching just for the sake of seeing what other people were devouring and speculating as to its intent and potential impact.

  2. I knew what to expect of the ceremony in its political message. It was irksome that the BBC's Hugh Jones was on the diversity "rap" in his film report on East London even before the opening ceremony had begun. That it was a sporting event which was being introduced seemed almost forgotten at some points in gthe determination to drive home a political message. It is apparent that the BBC is upping the 'diversity' propaganda quotient of its programme content of late.

    I would like to know who had chosen the group of people to hold the hem of the Olympic flag to bring it into the stadium; Lakri Chakraborty from Liberty, Doreen Lawrence(mother of Stephen Lawrence) - and we'd already been treated to human chain to form the CND symbol in the ceremony! I enjoyed certain aspects of the Ceremony but it was an opening ceromony which, as far as the quotient of ideology on display is concerned, was on a par with Berlin 1936.

    Salford Nationalist

    1. The build-up to the event was just as you mention not only on the BBC, but also on Channel 4. Although I had expected the enforced multicultural slant of the opening ceremony, the extent to which it was so overtly politicised nonetheless still came as quite a surprise, particularly when considering that an alleged 'conservative' party forms the larger element of the coalition government.

  3. 'recent non British arrivals partially usurping the role of the nation's forebears.....history being re-written? It was at that point I turned it off.

    1. Yes, this was one of the most blatant pieces of historical manipulation that I have ever witnessed.

  4. I didn't watch this opening ceremony just as I won't be watching anything at all to do with the London Olympics. This relentless muticulti propagandising is as predictable as it is repugnant. In fact the London 2012 Olympics are the cultural marxist equivalent of the 1936 Berlin Olymic games. Just as racist in their design, the difference lies in the colour of the races being promoted.

    Sadly, these infuriating and obvious propaganda fests will increase in the future until such point as indigenous Brits decide to work as an organised group to counter them. At the moment most are too busy bobbing along with this patent b***ox.(met one yesterday at a barbecue) Moreover, this whole gut-wrenching spectacle will have been orchestrated by overwhelming white people.

    I ask you - would Blacks, Asians or Orientals be dumb enough to behave in this way?

    1. As both you and SN point out, the 2012 Olympics are in their own way as obsessed with race as those of 1936 were. Although obviously Communist, the Beijing opening ceremony was at least certainly Chinese, just as that in Athens was Greek, and yet ours was . . . someone else's. Oh well, we'll just have to look back to the 1948 and 1908 Olympics as being genuinely British in the manner in which they were hosted, and look upon the current games as being an essentially globalist and transnational corporatist undertaking.

  5. The entire spectacle was a sickening, if not grimly compulsive experience and nothing less than I expected. We were subjected to every PC cliche in the book. Blacks dancing around a Maypole, Black peasants, Black industrialists (snigger) etc. I was under the impression we were being instructed to believe they've always been here until Windrush docked and in a rare exposition of ethnically correct casting, the first Blacks ambled into England.
    As for the typical 'British' family, I consider myself and mates as pretty typical and none of us are part of a family like the one depicted. Or was this supposedly the typical British family of the future ? Bonkers indeed. And scary.

    Hebburn Lad.

    1. Just imagine if Zimbabwe were to host the Olympics: would there be paeans to Cecil Rhodes and white cast members portraying pre-colonial Shona and Matabele? I don't think so.

    2. I'm sure the Zimbabwean Danny Boyle is out there somewhere, wearing his arse below his pants, smiling as he goes and organising orderly lines in the food queues of the former Bread Basket of Africa.

      Nah. Me neither.

      Hebburn Lad.

  6. The most amazing thing is, the obvious multicult slant went clear over most peoples heads. Its as if through years of political correctness people have been conditioned into accepting what the left portrays as normal without question.

    1. It does seem that a lot of people have become inured to it over the years given that it is now everywhere not only in the mass media, but also in standard marketing material as well as in promotional publications for councils and public services generally. It is a strange phenomenon, and would never have occurred if legislation did not insist that we be forced to "embrace diversity" [sic].

  7. I really enjoyed the multicultural element of it, especially the over representation of the ethnics.

    I am of course lying. It was complete propaganda and made me want to puke.

  8. I did'nt watch it and from what i have heard would have little to applaud and identify with. Cheers to the MP who said it was multi-cultural rubbish - by that man a Ceegar!

    More importantly, 2 days in and still NO fucking meddling....Even our favourite trick cyclist who was favourite to win the cycling road-rage came 27th out of 70-odd. How much taxpayers money has been wasted subsidising these pampered twats?

    1. When it comes to our team, it seems best to expect but little. Even when considering such a brilliant athlete as Paula Radcliffe, she seems to have been beset by injuries whenever the Olympics have rolled around, with the consequence that she has never won a medal in the games.

  9. DP111 wrote..

    I will take a view contrary to what is on the blogshere.

    Considering the contributions of Britain to civilisation, it would take a month to put it all on camera and celebrate. And if we did, then we would be accused of being proud and boastful.

    To take an example, a truly great genius, of the calibre of Newton, exhibits humility. Combine that with British self-deprecation and self-deprecating humour, and we have the Olympic ceremony. It is a mark of confidence rather then lack of it.

    The satisfying outcome is that from America to Australia, the lament is, how has it come to pass, that Britain so debases itself, considering what it has done for the world.

    1. Self-deprecation is a good thing and is certainly part of what defines us. However, there is a difference between self-deprecation and the unhealthy national masochism that was evident in the opening ceremony.

  10. DP111 wrote..

    Watching the Olympics opening ceremony, I was shocked, nay blown out of my socks to hear not one but 3 Christian hymns as part of the ceremony.

    1. Abide with me; fast falls the eventide;
    The darkness deepens; Lord with me abide.
    When other helpers fail and comforts flee,
    Help of the helpless, O abide with me..

    2. Guide me, O thou great redeemer,
    Pilgrim through this barren land;
    I am weak, but thou art mighty,
    Hold me with thy powerful hand;
    Bread of heaven, bread of heaven
    Feed me till I want no more;
    Feed me till I want no more.

    3. And did those feet in ancient time
    Walk upon England’s mountains green?
    And was the Holy Lamb of God
    On England’s pleasant pastures seen?
    And did the countenance divine
    Shine forth upon our clouded hills?
    And was Jerusalem builded here
    Among these dark satanic mills?

    Bring me my bow of burning gold!
    Bring me my arrows of desire!
    Bring me my spear! O clouds, unfold!
    Bring me my chariot of fire!
    I will not cease from mental fight,
    Nor shall my sword sleep in my hand,
    Till we have built Jerusalem
    In England’s green and pleasant land

    I have never ever heard of such a thing. How did this happen? I suppose the London committee proposed it. But how did it get passed by the Olympic committee though?

    The strange thing is that all three hymns evoke a person in distress (Abide with me), then praying for God's help and guidance (Guide me oh thou great Redeemer..). Finally, to re-build Jerusalem as a duty to God and country (I will not cease from mental fight, Nor shall my sword sleep in my hand..)

    What is going on?

    Now with this in mind, does the rest of the Olympic ceremony, with the NHS and exaggerated multiculturalism displayed in colour, have a different message? I just wonder.

  11. The second hymm in your list 'Guide me, O thou great redeemer,' was included for one very simple reason. At that particular point in the opening ceremony the 'National Anthems' of the various 'Regions' of the United Kingdom were being sung (yes I know what I have just typed looks like the work of a drunkard but I am sober !). 'Bread of Heaven' had to be included as it is the Welsh National Anthem.

    As for the question of the flag bearers who carried the Olympic flag how the hell did UN Secretary, Ban Ki-Moon, get included ? He is not British he is a (South) Korean.

    Ivan Winters

    1. Look on the bright side Ivan, for given the likely background of any individual who would have been chosen to represent Britain in such a capacity, I am sure that in comparison Ki-Moon probably possesses some rather more positive, civil and traditionally British personal qualities. After all, it could have been Dizzee Rascal instead.

  12. DP111 wrote

    OTH we have this

    Olympic Opening Ceremony Hijacked by Far-Left : Paul Weston

    Labour Party MPs are already boasting that the opening ceremony was a socialist event and the “best advert for the party in years”. Conservative MPs are privately muttering about the very obvious left-wing bias – as well they might.

    Danny Boyle worked with one scriptwriter and four selected assistant directors to stage the opening and closing ceremonies. The five are:

    Frank Cottrell Boyce: Scriptwriter for the opening ceremony and a personal friend of Danny Boyle. Cottrell Boyce started his career writing for the far-left magazine Living Marxism which had initially been launched in 1988 as The Journal of the British Revolutionary Communist Party.

    Stephen Daldry: Theatre and film director, producer, and three-time Academy Award nominated director; his films include Billy Elliott. Daldry was also a member of the Socialist Workers Party (SWP) at Sheffield University in the 1980s, something he has said gave him a “political education”. The SWP describes itself as Anti-Capitalist and Revolutionary.

    Catherine Ugwu: Creative Director and theatrical producer. Author of Lets Get It on: The Politics of Black Performance and Enigmas of race, Difference and Desire. Her work is quoted on reading lists centred on Marxism and Black Liberation Theology.


Comments that call for or threaten violence will not be published. Anyone is entitled to criticise the arguments presented here, or to highlight what they believe to be factual error(s); ad hominem attacks do not constitute comment or debate. Although at times others' points of view may be exasperating, please attempt to be civil in your responses. If you wish to communicate with me confidentially, please preface your comment with "Not for publication". This is why all comments are moderated.