Yes, the Olympic ceremony parodied The Last Supper. And it would be nice if the media admitted that.

I briefly return to my last essay on the opening ceremony of the Olympic Games, particularly to the parody of Da Vinci’s Last Supper. As you know, quite a few people found that parody blasphemous and perverse, an open manifestation of the decadence of globalist institutions. I revisit it here to draw attention to the mainstream reaction to the uproar. I find that reaction particularly interesting and typical.

Here’s how it went: the mainstream media believed they could instantly dismiss the outrage over the alleged blasphemy. They made a quick call to the artistic director of the ceremony, who immediately revealed The Truth: the theater in question during the opening ceremony had nothing to do with The Last Supper. It represented a pagan Feast of the Gods. They were done. The fake news spreaders on X and other conspiracy theory sites were debunked once again.

The army of fact-checkers, digital first responders, and other zealous supporters of the globalist ideology sprang into action. They posted references to the artistic director’s words under claims about The Last Supper and even added Bellini’s painting, The Feast of the Gods, here and there. This way, everyone could see with their own eyes which painting it was actually about. The only slightly odd thing – which surely the great Ambassadors of Truth of globalism also noticed – was that Bellini’s painting didn’t really resemble the grotesque theater staged in Paris. But who cares, the artistic director had spoken, oracle of Truth, no more reason to doubt: the entire outrage was based on delusion and illusion.

Firstly: the painting alluded to was not Bellini’s The Feast of the Gods, but rather The Feast of the Olympian Gods by Jan van Bijlert. That painting does align in composition with the staging at the Paris ceremony. One might say: what’s the fuss, does it matter which painting it was? It wasn’t about The Last Supper, so the theater isn’t mocking Christianity.

Of course, it matters. Simply because: Jan van Bijlert painted his Feast of the Olympian Gods around 1635, about a hundred and fifty years after Da Vinci painted The Last Supper. And Van Bijlert’s painting is clearly a pagan variant of Da Vinci’s painting. In other words: whether the opening ceremony of the Olympic Games directly mocked Da Vinci’s Last Supper or did so through a parodic imitation of Van Bijlert’s painting, it doesn’t matter, what happened at the opening ceremony was indeed mocking The Last Supper, and thus ethical and religious principles, particularly Christianity. Period.

The most remarkable thing, above all, is that the fact-checkers and woke enthusiasts indeed did not see that it was about the Last Supper. They even mocked those who did see it, claiming they were lost in illusions and delusions. The more someone is gripped by totalitarian thinking, the more he accuses those who think differently of madness. In itself, it remains one of the most remarkable effects of the phenomenon of mass formation: the enormous narrowing of perspective accompanied by a radical blindness to anything that does not align with one's own fanatical beliefs (and the aggressive attack of it).

It is not that the representatives of the dominant narrative are the only ones who fall prey to this. Fanatical conspiracy thinking essentially suffers from a similar problem. Those who break free from the grip of the dominant narrative, in a sense, wander unprotected in the world of the Real and often seek refuge in another illusion, or at the very least, another narrative that irresponsibly reduces reality to a simplistic story.

And I repeat: it’s not about whether there should be no sexual freedom in society or whether it should be forbidden to mock religious tenets, beliefs, or views. Every person has the right to a space where they can work through the peculiarities of their sexuality on their own authority and responsibility, if they so wish. And although I personally find mocking something that another person holds sacred tasteless, I do not think it should be forbidden.

What it is about, however, is that globalist institutions use symbolism, as seen at the opening ceremony of the Olympics and the Eurovision Song Contest, to situate their essence in mockery and perversion. That is precisely the function of a ceremony of a major social event: it represents what the essence of a society is, it represents the principles that support the social system. And that is certainly a good reason to protest and refuse to participate in the globalist ideology. More so: those who fail to protest, neglect an ethical duty.

Back to the mainstream reaction and the legion of globalist foot soldiers. They missed the mark completely. We can conclude that from the above argument. And we can add the reaction of the producers of the opening ceremony. They confirmed in an official statement, contradicting the artistic director’s claims, that the particular part of the ceremony indeed parodied The Last Supper. I would say: we can come to a conclusion on this matter. When it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then it is probably a duck.

For now, the mainstream remains silent. That’s notable: their inability to admit mistakes. That is, in itself, human, but it is quite pronounced among representatives of the dominant narrative (an inability typical of totalitarian systems). The corona crisis stands out in this regard. Every crucial aspect of the dominant narrative has now proven to be wrong: the origin of the virus, the mortality of the virus, the effectiveness of the measures, the effectiveness of the vaccines, the (supposedly non-existent) side effects of the vaccines, and so on, name it and the dominant narrative got it radically wrong.

No one can really doubt that anymore. But how many fact-checkers and mainstream journalists have you heard admitting that they have radically suppressed the Truth in the name of Truth? How many have you heard apologize for degrading people to second-class citizens based on pseudoscience and fake news? We can only conclude: those who crown themselves as Ambassadors of Truth and profile themselves lavishly as fighters against fake news and disinformation suppress the truth with a stream of fake news and disinformation.

The lack of interest in facts in totalitarian systems is extraordinarily fascinating from a psychological perspective. In Germany, a whistleblower from the Koch Institute revealed the extent of the government and experts’ deception. The revelations left little to the imagination: the entire German corona policy was based on cynical disregard for facts and science and was one big coup to give a technocratic turn to society. And there is hardly any reason to assume that the policy in other countries was fundamentally different from Germany’s.

In Germany, this was briefly big news in the mainstream media. That, in itself, is a good thing. But outside of Germany, there was hardly any reporting. Let this sink in: the narrative behind the most significant societal crisis of modernity proves to be as leaky as a bucket, and it hardly sparks interest in the media that drove society economically, psychologically, physically, and ethically to ruin with this story. Indeed: ‘Not love, not hate, but the passion for ignorance is the most fundamental passion of man.’

Finally: I hear people indignantly shouting here and there that they should try to stage such a parody about the prophet Mohammed at the Olympic Games. Why is it always the Christians who have to endure mockery? It is true in itself: the brave woke adherents, the heroes of the masses, will think twice before directing their extraordinary heroism at Islam. And yet I must say: let this not be an opportunity to sow division between religions and worldviews, between Jews, Christians, Muslims, Humanists, or Agnostics, or Atheists who try to stay connected with principles of humanity.

What it really is about is that there is an ideology that mocks ethical awareness and profiles itself as a representative of an anti-ethical force. It is against that which we have a duty to speak out. Everything else means slowly becoming the monster one fights.