18 Oct 2014 17:18:54
I wanted to talk about the conspiracy that is organized spectacles and how they have evolved over the years.
What have come to be known as sports used to be a method through which people got not only physical exercise but also grounded (ground as used in electrical physics - aka earthing). That is why most sports were performed with bear feet and minimal, if any, equipment. In this way they were affordable and beneficial to all. This was the form of sports in ancient greece, the forefather of both the modern olympic games and football (known then as episkyros).
In ancient rome, sports were aggressively transformed and took the form of mortal combat. This materialized in the gladiator games, where mostly lions, sometimes trained fighters, were pitted against untrained and unarmed slaves, or the occasional captured warrior.
"Games" were organized in periods of civil unrest as a means to pacify the people. Through mass psychology, people were coerced into identifying with the hunter and not its pray. Through this process their struggle was the hunters struggle and his victory theirs. All in all, an effective way to appease the people's desire for freedom, self rule, sovereignty, on an utterly insignificant and inconsequential scale.
Please take note that the persons recognized by the people as rulers were responsible for covering the expenses of those violence oriented games. Of course they did this by using money they had stolen from the people in the form of taxes, but what it meant is that the recognized as ruler would have to use some of the money stolen from the people to appease the people.
In rome's defense the majority of these practices were adopted during its latter stages. This is a pattern which often precedes (and perhaps ushers in) the decline of, what the establishment wants us to identify as, empires.
Fast forward to today, where sports have become a vastly more profitable enterprise. The money flowing towards the top clubs in the top leagues and the products they endorse has geometrically increased (until the last couple of years). This has in turn encouraged the establishment to further control the matches and of course their outcomes.
The way the modern games are conducted, in regards to organization, rules and required equipment has managed to eradicate the most beneficial aspect of the game, i. e. the grounding of ones self.
What has been further developed is the use of the games as a means to pacify the masses and direct their anger and frustrations towards artificial and unimportant goals (i. e. whose going to win the league).
This is not to say that there aren't those that watch sports in a detached from the outcome manner, able to appreciate the skill required to perform that which is on display, but it seems they comprise the exception.
What appears to be the stark contrast in comparing those games of old and their modern counterparts, the reason for this post, is that the people are now sponsoring the means of their pacification.
The conclusions are yours.
All I can offer is what I perceive as a dire need for reflection in regards to our actions, our submissions and our perceptions on an individual and collective scale.
zari
It will be interesting to read if Ed033 has any commentary to add.
Ryan.
During combat training one wants to simulate combat conditions so as to acclimatize to them. For example they would want to match and exceed the weight they will be carrying in combat so as to get accustomed to the weight of their shield, armor and weapon. Why would they then play games while naked and with bare feet?
Most of what was written about the games of those times make no mention of them being designed as combat simulations, but instead claim their purpose was to promote health, coordination, minimization of reflex times etc. Those could be establishment lies attempting to obfuscate their real purpose but they could also be accurate but lacking accounts which survived to our days for that reason.
To further illustrate the contrast between the games of those times and those of today, one can look at the forefather of the modern bull fighting games. These were games in which people would have to face a charging bull, grab the bulls horns exactly before it hit them and use them to propel themselves over it. There was no sword involved and the bull wasn't stabbed repeatedly while caged before the games.
Thank you Ryan. This is something that has been troubling me for a while and wanted to share, to see if others perceived anything similar.
zari
As for the nudity, it is most likely because they wanted to avoid cheating. For instance in javelin it would be possible to conceal a sling to throw it further within a sleeve. Without one you can't.
Now drop the simulation talk, no one but you is making that claim, it is not even close to relevant. You don't need to simulate the conditions to showcase ability otherwise target shooting would never have evolved, for instance.}
As stated in my previous comment, I do concede that some of the sports were designed with war training in mind, however not all of them involved skills relevant to combat nor required weapons.
In regards to competing naked so as to avoid cheating, that makes no sense to me. Granted, that is what I was taught at school as being the reason behind it, but it isn't all that logical. Being sleeveless and wearing knee-height togas would serve that purpose adequately. They weren't preventing people from using nanomotors after all, but rather sinew slings which are not easily concealed.
Also, what about their lack of footwear which has as yet not been addressed?
Can't argue the target shooting part, it must have evolved with that purpose in mind. From bows to firearms etc.
zari
The games were never meant to simulate combat, but to showcase one's skill in certain areas of it. They grew out of war games but they weren't war games as such. It is the same evolution we see with target shooting and javelin throwing, target archery etc. None of them are meant to simulate it, nor even approximate the conditions that might be faced, that was saved for the soldiers' training.
I do agree on them being used as a kind of opiate of the masses though, but that was what they were always about, that is my point. The Greeks used them in just the same way as the Roman gladiatoral games, to keep the populace amused. They weren't about grounding or earthing oneself, but a way of creating amusement and competition to keep control and improve the quality of the soldiers produced.
Mind, isn't that very similar to childhood games? Do children not just play games to amuse themselves and show off their ability to perform certain tasks? So it is obviously a natural instinct that successive governments are just taking advantage of.}