Bread and games - and he ****** your granddaughter, too!

There is a terrible scandal(et) rocking BBC-bound Britain (and merry onlookers worldwide).
Its highest paid star said - yelled - a jocular comment about another radio star doing ungodly things to a beloved elderly actor's kin.

He said it - very ***** explicitly - on the phone.
And he said it on the air, for all to hear.

Just to be clear (because one is inevitably and unjustly judged on the basis of one's personal feelings towards those involved, rather than one's thoughts, however coherent or valid they may be), I hereby state that I actually like the person who uttered the offending blurp - very much so.

His offending blurp(s), however, I dislike - very much so.

But what I dislike most of all is the hypocritical outcry of those who decry the "hypocrisy" of the BBC (and of those members of the public who wrote in to complain about the incident), because said institution decided to punish the offender by suspending him. (The other offender, the radio star, resigned himself.)

What surprisingly many people don't seem to realise is that, if you let the standard of what is acceptable and what not slip, one day we will, once again, think that gladiator games are FUN.

As a matter of fact, we DO think they are fun - only, today they are not called "gladiator games".
They are called "reality TV".

It just shows how fragile human beings – most especially their »morals«, whatever its level or definition of the moment may be - are.

We all know – or should know – how much the society has changed since, say, the Roman empire or the so-called »Middle ages«.

We all know – or should know – how »entertainment« looked in the times of Nero, to pick just one example. People found it entertaining to see people kill each other, or fight wild animals with their bare hands and, most often, being devoured by them. (And these are just some of the more sedate »numbers« that were on offer.)

In the 20th century – and long before that (although not as long as you might think) – such behaviour came to be seen as ghastly, the absolute low point of human behaviour.
(Of course this was the same world that forbade the use of "explicit" terms, such as "menstruation", "sex", even "pregnant" - oh yes! - to be uttered in public media, such as TV.)

So, what happened?
What caused the change?

Do you think the human psyche really changes through the ages?
And if not, what do you think drives »history«?

Nothing in the human psyche itself has changed.
It's just that the imitative streak (»monkey does as monkey sees«) is – was, until recently - no longer fed blood and gore.

It was fed different moral standards, much more restrained - constrained - in matters of public conduct, especially regarding sexuality.

But hypocritical and often ridiculously prudish as it may have been, at least the ban against public obscenity gave some air, some breathing space to those who do not want to revel in the blood (literally or figuratively) of others.
(Voyeurism is not confined to sex, as I am sure you know; it feeds on everything that offers a glimpse of the terrifying face of life - Death, the frightening prospect of obliteration, the fragility of life - and that includes sex.)

The ancient Roman "games" came to an end suddenly – on January 1, 404.
By imperial decree, they were to be shown no more.

I can imagine how angry, even revolted people were, when their favourite show was taken »off the air«.
(I can practically hear them: »By Jove, it's not bad enough that we go hungry, toiling day after day - well, our slaves do, at any rate... now we are left without entertainment, the one thing that made our hearts glad?! Oh, how I wish somebody invented a little box that we could keep at home and would show us every little nasty thing other people do!«
OK, OK - the latter was a flight of fancy too far... -;))

As a matter of fact, we do know more or less exactly how revolted they were.
When a man - a monk called Telemachus - descended into the arena to plead with people to stop it, and admonish them for their lust for blood, they stoned him to death.

But the »show« was shown no more.
(In fact, it was precisely this event what prompted the abrupt end of the games.)

And in time – the new philosophy of humanity coming from the East undoubtedly had more than its fair share of influence in sensitising the masses – people forgot how to be »entertained« by such spectacles. In time – through long centuries – they became to be seen as gruesome as we see them today.

It is ironic that those long centuries, the times that came before us, that brought us here, are now widely regarded as »uptight«, oppressive and, in general, not a nice era to live in. For its lack of »freedom«, you know.

Which is true in many aspects.
But see where the »freedom« has brought us.

Yes, after all the false - or partial - dawns of the centuries past, it looks like a bright day of civil liberties, education and freedom for all (?), and all that.

The problem is, man obviously simply cannot handle too much »freedom«. He lacks the basic knowledge – of his own existential status: the purpose, if there is any, of his being here – to be the master of himself.

And exxistential ignorance breeds existential fear – and existential fear breeds greed, cruelty, selfishness.

Would you really want to trust LIFE, and everything that works towards preserving it, into the hands of someone who doesn't know its purpose and is only driven by his fear that he might lose his own?

We are still the same masses that screamed for bread and games – that screamed even louder when those games were taken away from them.

Those tender souls who are bleeding over the injustice perpetrated against the merry foulmouthed pranksters in the name of fighting »hypocrisy« are only decrying the games being taken away from them.
And it is certainly no coincidence that it all comes at a time when »bread« is being taken from many, much too many.

Let it pass; let the ante slip, tiny millimeter by tiny millimeter at a time.
(And public outrage IS the most reliable indicator of where the ante is, and whether the slip has been swift, whether it is »too much«, or not.)

And then one day, very soon, we'll have sexual intercourse on public TV.
(Oh right: it already happened, I am told. In one - or two - of them "reality shows".)

Next stop, the gladiator games.
(You don't think so? Just drive by any accident scene and count the masses gathering to observe the blood and gore.)

Human psychology does NOT change through the ages. Only the common standards of acceptability change.

Which is why reading the deluge of comments by all those self-complacent "tolerant" souls, bashing the BBC for its (far too mild!) decision, terrifies me far, FAR more than anything unfortunate Jonathan Ross might have said.

***

BONUS: Here is a tangentially relevant piece of writing (about the games in ancient Romes) that you might find interesting: Blood, Sweat, and Cheers.

An Experiment (please ignore the post)

A good friend of ours (whose posts we've borrowed on one or two occasions) was discussing certain political issues with us the other day, and she mentioned that one - just one - of the posts in her blog does not show through Google search even several YEARS after having been posted.

Is it really just a coincidence that the post contains thoughts that some overzealous watchdogs might consider "politically incorrect"?

Is it?

We'll see soon enough, I think.
Because we're reposting the post here, if only for a few weeks - long enough for Google to crawl over it.


P.S.
It worked - within minutes.
We still don't know why the original blog post is being ignored, though.

But that's not the main point of this post scriptum... A few minutes after posting this, the forget-me-not who really forgets not (like, anything!) said: "Say... isn't it May 29 today? The anniversary of the Fall of Constantinople!"

So it is.
And, believe it or not, it is a synchronicity.

Don't you just love it when that happens? ;)

"The Holy Wisdom has left the building"

In case anyone doubted it, the vocal (and in their patent irrationality almost touching) demonstrations by the Turks have now irrefutably demonstrated that their country - I mean Turkey, not any of the European countries hosting their emigrants - would indeed be an undesirable addition to the EU.

The Turks are bitter with "Europe" for expressing its concerns about Turkey as a candidate for the EU and for, shockingly, even pointing out Turkey's attitude towards its citizens of Kurdish nationality.

Furthermore, Turkey is opposed to the EU basing its frame of unity on Christianity as a value reference point. It doesn't really matter whether this is true or not. It's the underlying principle what matters.

Each and everyone of the current EU members is a secular state, with a well-defined constituional separation of Church and State. So is the EU, as a sum of its components as well as an autonomous structure.

So, what is there for the Turks to fear? If Turkey is really a secular state (not that Ata Turk's reforms were really all that beneficial for the country in the long run), why should it fear a political structure loosely - and nominally - based on values such as unconditional forgiveness and equal "charity" towards everyone?

I can only speculate what the answer could be. Islam would not have equal standing in the allegedly christocentric EU - right?

Wrong.
All religions - in fact, almost all cults (with very few notable exceptions) - have equal standing in the EU: that is, no real "standing" at all. (Which might be precisely the cause of many troubles this attitude was supposed to prevent - but more on that on some other occasion...)
If anything, non-Christian religions are more shielded than any of Europe's cultural and (especially) religious traditions.

A glance at the crowds on Istanbul's streets makes it obvious that Turkey's outrage (?!) at the Pope's announced visit to Istanbul, the ex-Constantinople, is indeed clearly based on religious grounds, denying the country's nominal secularity - and casting a sharp shadow of ridicule on its own claims against the alleged religious basis of the EU structure.

Furthermore, there's loud talk of reverting the "Aya Sofia" (a name phonetically adapted from the Greek Hagia Sophia, the 'Holy Wisdom'), which was made into a museum by Ata Turk, to its former role of mosque. Of course they fail to mention that it became a mosque only after the 1453 Turkish occupation of Constantinople; before that, since 637, when it was completed, it was a Christian church - in fact, the greatest and most revered one of all Christian churches.

They are only "making a point", of course. And that point should be taken by the EU; it should be taken very seriously.

Turkey would like to join the EU either

(a) for economic reasons only (and I am sorry to disappoint all of you, cynics, but merely economic allegiances never stand the test of time)

or

(b) with some other purpose in mind - and if so, you bet it isn't "multicultural coexistence".

I am somewhat saddened by the politically correct silence of the EU, although I wouldn't expect it to react in any other way. There is a huge elephant in the middle of the room, and nobody is speaking about it. When I was in school (not very many decades ago), we still knew and dared to mention that "elephant". I am not sure that today's school children do.

Let's mention the name of that historical monster: it's the Turkish invasions and bloody excursions into Europe.

There is enough material about them on the web - though not nearly enough to convey even half of the horror that they brought to the European population of the 15th, 16th and 17th century (and in certain parts of Europe even later).

I wish the textbook stories about the Turkish invasions were exaggerated; for a long time I thought they were.
Now I know history and so I know better: they weren't exaggerated. The impaling of babies and toddlers in front of their parents' eyes, the raping of women regardless of their age and condition (including those who had just given birth), the disappearance of thousands upon thousands of people, of entire villages, reduced to slavery or horrific death, are - much to my sadness - NOT a legend, not a lie, not even an exaggeration. They are the historical truth - a truth that my ancestors had to live with, day in and day out.

Is Europe entitled to reproach (not that it does) atrocities to Turkey, considering its own bloody past?

Yes, it is - precisely because of its own bloody past.

Europe has been chastised by its own wars and aggressions, and has learned from them. By acknowledging its own history, it has transcended it.

No such thing seems to have happened in Turkey. They have apparently not been chastised, not by themselves, not by anyone else. They have chosen to forget their subhuman war "tactics" (as well as the many defeats that the unarmed peasant and town populations had inflicted upon their great army by means of pure wit and self-preserving unity, before the Turks' final defeat in 1683).

They have chosen to forget all that; and no official voice from Europe has ever reminded them of those unpleasant facts.

I mention such "ancient" history because the Turks themselves have now, rather short-sightedly, chosen to poke into the embers of "ancient" history.


Furthermore, the Turks' apparent genocidal tendencies were horrifically confirmed by their effective genocide of Armenians as late as 1917. And they still are being confirmed to this day, by their treatment of the Kurdish people.

I can certanly understand that Europe fails to mention the Turkish invasions of the past centuries. It would be rather awkward to do so - even though the disingenuous, double-faced attitude of Turkey towards history would make it perfectly justifiable.

What we, the peoples of Europe, absolutely should not tolerate, by remaining silent, is the fact that the EU - and the USA - have failed to even properly acknowledge the Armenian genocide of 1915-17 and even before that. That is an unforgivable and intolerable distortion of history by omission, by silence.

As for the Kurds, God bless them, the Turks don't like to hear about them or, much less, about their treatment of them and other "minorities". That's not going to change.
Which means that "we" have to.
Or else, it means that we are going to condone genocide, past and present, and invite an unrepentant thug into our living room.

In my opinion, the EU should definitely change its official attitude towards Turkey.

I certainly changed mine.

If asked to vote for or against Turkey entering the EU, until a few weeks ago I would have abstained. In the name of honesty, impartiality and good will, I would have refrained from voting, for I really didn't know whether Turkey's joining the EU would be a good idea, either for the EU or for Turkey itself.

As from today, this EU citizen's vote in that matter would be a definite NO.

***