Cultural Chaos: Olympic & UK Edition

What did you just watch?

Some niche underground art house performance?

A parody of some Broadway musical you haven't seen before?

An avant garde side project of a slightly hairier member of the Blue Man Group, perhaps?

No - that was part of the opening ceremony of the 2024 Summer Olympics in Paris.

If you haven't seen the above clip before now, it has been creating a bit of a stir.

You see, some people took it as a mockery of Da Vinci's The Last Supper, and more broadly as a repudiation of Christianity.

While others took it simply as a modern interpretation of Van Bijlert's The Feast of the Gods.

In either case, the organizers of the Olympics felt compelled to issue an apology.

In the circles I travel, many have interpreted the opening ceremony as exemplifying the decadence of elites and the decline of the West.

This is an understandable interpretation, especially upon closer examination of some of the background dancers (NSFW).

Certainly the performance is indulgent, and does not appear to be promoting any kind of social cohesion.

But, most notably, the opening ceremony was just weird.

I have no issue with weird art or aesthetic preferences more broadly.

In fact, some of my own aesthetic preferences could be considered "weird."

But one of the things that makes weird things weird is that not many people like them.

I am well aware when one of my interests or preferences is niche enough to not be popular.

So why present something this weird at the opening ceremony of one of the most globally watched events, with viewers ranging in cultures, customs, and worldviews all tuning in at the same time?

One interpretation is that the organizers of the show knew it was weird and were wanting to shock or offend their audience.

Elites aiming to offend the public at large doesn't seem to be a good thing, but I won't read into it any deeper.

The other interpretation is that they thought people would actually like the performance.

That is perhaps more alarming than any other interpretation because it demonstrates not simply decadence of the elites, but also disconnectedness of the elites.

For as worldly, well traveled, and cosmopolitan as the members of global elite class are, they are surprisingly monocultural.

They go to the same city centers in the same set of prosperous Western nations, attend the same elite schools, and eat at the same high end restaurants.

In the modern era, the elites of countries as geographically disparate as Australia and Denmark have more common with each other than they have in common with their own countrymen of lower status.

And seemingly less and less awareness of what the common folk find appealing or interesting.

If government and society were organized in such a way that individuals were the primary focus, this wouldn't be an issue.

Individuals can go about their daily lives without concern of elite-run governments imposing on their affairs.

But instead, nations are organized in a top-down structure with elites in positions of power and authority over commoners.

When these elites demonstrate their total disconnectedness from the rest of society, it does not bode well for that society moving forward.

Sure, right now we may just be forced to watch a strange blue man singing before a sporting event.

But what are the implicates of elite disconnectedness on important issues that actually impact citizens?

Issues like energy policy or law enforcement, for example?

The elites drive electric vehicles and live in gated communities - why not ban gas-fueled cars and fire all the cops?

Elites that are disconnected from the interests of their citizens don't have the option to represent their citizen's interests even if they wanted to, and that is a cause for concern whether or not you enjoyed the Olympic opening ceremony. ~ West

Tom Wolfe once quipped, "Art is the religion of the middle class."

Pause and think about that for a moment.

It's not just what's on the canvas or stage—it’s about values, taste, and a dash of moral superiority. Art becomes a secular sermon, articulating what's sacred and what's profane, a way of signaling virtue, intelligence, and culture.

As you might imagine, art is always central to revolutions, severing cultural ties with the past.

For Mao Zedong (and, you know, all the fascists and communists—they had great branding!), art was integral to the revolutionary struggle. Traditional Chinese art and culture were denounced as feudal and counter-revolutionary and creating a new aesthetic was a central weapon in the class struggle.

Western liberals took note, of course.

In "The Naked Communist," a Cold War classic, we're warned about the far left's alleged plan to flood society with "ugliness, repulsive, meaningless art" to destabilize and fragment cultural continuity.

The idea is that when art repels instead of inspires, it chips away at old values, creating a void for new ideologies.

Now, let's talk about the much-discussed Paris Olympic opening ceremony.

What was that all about?

Was it a grand celebration of human achievement intended to send a message of unity to the world?

Was it a deliberate break from traditional Western values; a middle finger to the past?

Or, in true French fashion, maybe it was just another haughty display of bizarre, sexualized vulgarity—banal and mundane in today’s hyper-saturated, desensitized media world?

I'm not 100% sure, honestly.

But compare it with the Beijing opening ceremony, which was a masterclass in disciplined, traditional grandeur. I mean, it’s jaw-dropping, right? The message was clear: China is strong. It was an embodiment of national confidence and power.

So, what’s the West saying with its current artistic choices? Are we showcasing our strength, or are we broadcasting our decadence, fragmentation, and decline? ~ Zack

Immigration is a national security issue.

But not in the way most people think.

The UK this past weekend experienced rioting and violence between nativists and immigrants.

It is yet to be determined if this is just the start of further violence, or just a flash in the pan.

Who shoulders more blame?

I don't know.

Low-level domestic violence isn't a good thing, but is hardly a national security issue in the broader sense.

Similarly, in the US, there are well founded concerns about the identities of illegal immigrants entering the country, but it has yet to result in any major national security issues.

So what do I mean when I say that immigration is a national security issue?

It is a matter of demographics and capital.

For any nation to thrive in a competitive geopolitical landscape with native populations birthing below replacement rate, immigrants are necessary for that nation to remain a competitive power player.

Western nations need more immigrants.

But there are a few caveats.

Immigrants need to 1.) be effectively assimilated, and 2.) be net producers.

European countries have had more issues with assimilation than the US, probably in part due to European nations being much older with deeply embedded senses of national identity.

In the US, immigrants are net contributors to society, even though this is somewhat undermined by aggressive social benefits programs.

Meanwhile, China, the most populous nation in history until recently, has begun its period of demographic decline and will likely have halve its current population within 80 years.

"Good" immigration isn't just good, its necessary for the survival of nations.

But none of this means much to you if you find yourself in the middle of a riot, so I will leave you with this article on staying safe in civil unrest. ~ West

The UK scene is getting ugly.

Now, I’m not going to reduce the gravity of this situation to a soundbite. I have no doubt both the natives and the immigrants have legitimate grievances with one another. And I'm not going to condone lawless behavior on either side. (I do have some questions about how equally the law is being enforced, but that's for another time.)

Generally speaking, though, if we're guided by the principles of individual liberty, free markets, and limited government intervention, we should support the freedom of movement of individuals seeking better opportunities.

After all, pursuing geoarbitrage is part of our mission here at Libertas.

That said, this doesn't mean there won't be monumental challenges associated with the already bankrupt welfare state many Western natives depend on, not to mention the multi-generational challenges around cultural integration that come with mass immigration.

One shouldn't expect this process to be painless, despite its inevitability.

There's a different concern I'd like to focus on, however...

And that's how the government is responding to the unrest.

Spoiler alert: the specter of a police state is looming large in the UK. And if you think this is just about keeping a few hooligans in check, well, that's magical thinking.

First, let’s talk about surveillance.

The government has toys that would make Orwell blush. From AI-monitored global communications to facial-recognition cameras on every street corner, Big Brother isn’t just watching you—he’s algorithmically anticipating your every move.

Take the longstanding ECHELON system, for example. It’s intercepting vast amounts of non-military communication. For what? National security? Fighting international crime? Oh please. It's the post-9/11, anti-terrorism State apparatus turned towards totalitarian control.

Make no mistake, your emails, phone calls, even the websites you visit are fair game.

Even the Prime Minister is on record saying...

"And let me also say to large social media companies and those who run them. Violent disorder clearly whipped up online. That is also a crime. It’s happening on your premises. And the law must be upheld everywhere."

That’s pretty clear.

What's even scarier is governments are successfully using fear to get the plebs to not only accept, but cheer on these draconian measures, giving up liberty for the illusion of security.

Honestly, the scales have tipped so heavily towards security that many freedoms are now on the brink of extinction. Just ask the individuals who have found themselves on the wrong side of these surveillance measures.

Folks in the UK are receiving jail time for making racist comments and distributing anti-immigration stickers online.

I don't condone their actions, of course, but I do find this trend alarming. The State is notorious for moving the goalpost on what constitutes "hate speech," and this level of centralized surveillance can—and will—be abused.

Today it’s facial recognition to “catch rioters,” tomorrow it’s social credit scores to control behavior.

And while I'm not a free speech absolutist, when you know you’re being watched, you start to self-censor. You avoid discussing controversial topics (obviously, I’m treading lightly here), you stay away from political dissent, and eventually, you stop thinking freely and being able to form rational arguments.

Finally, a warning: What happens in the UK won’t stay in the UK and if the land of Magna Carta can become a police state, there's frankly little hope for freedom and privacy in the West.

Plan accordingly. ~ Zach