Wednesday, 18 February 2015

Bloodmoney: Violence Excused in the Name of Entertainment

The modern Western world is a postmodernist one, one which absolutely rejects the belief in any truth. It redefines truth which has lead to the politicisation of morality. As a result, morality is defined according personal self-interests. Anything which opposes or even questions one’s self-interests is abhorred as ‘immoral’ or ‘unethical’. It is no wonder the modern sociological definitions of violence have not been far from controversy.

The very word ‘violence’ is enough to stop the heartbeat of the modern-minded person. The modern-minded person, upon hearing the word violence thinks immediately of violence against women or religious violence. Almost never do people think of violent high-impact sports as violence in itself. They acknowledge that such sports may be violent or may turn violent, but never do they call it for what it is: violent bloodlust.

Very rarely does the modern mind think of violence to be suffered by those in the most highly celebrated sports such as rugby, let alone about violence in ‘high-risk’ sports such as NFL, American football, boxing, mixed martial arts and cage-fighting. It thinks of violence to be only ever suffered by women, and never by those men in violent sports. It thinks of violence to be only caused by religion, and blames religion for violence, and never for a moment pauses to think about the deaths perpetrated by the communist atheist governments of Russia, China, Cambodia, North Korea and all other communist regimes. Rather, it dismisses it as that which is to be expected, and never attributes its atheistic social Darwinism to the massacres of their own people.  It covertly supports violence in sport, calling it entertainment and justifying it on the pretext that those involved consent to it.

Those people in violent sports are like a bear trapped in a cage. They have bought into the lie that violent sports are glamorous and the key to a good life. People pay money to watch such sports to promote it and continue the tradition of such bloodshed. The blood of those who suffer from such violence is in the hands of those who watch and pay for such sports. Although people who choose to pursue such sports certainly choose violence, those who pay to be entertained by such sports have blood on their hands – the blood of the participants of blood sports. These sports are modern versions of the Roman Empire’s favourite sport: gladiator.

Gladiator was a brutal blood-lusty sport, almost always used as a tool against marginalised classes and slaves. It was considered a normal form of entertainment, so normal that anyone who failed to participate or approved of it was seen as intolerant and evil. People who willingly participated as gladiators did so out of pride and hatred, and justified it in the name of the Roman pagan religion. Roman Historian Titus Livius states in The History of Rome Book 9 Chapter 40:

The dictator, as decreed by the senate, celebrated a triumph, in which by far the finest show was afforded by the [16] captured armour. so magnificent was its appearance that the shields inlaid with gold were divided up amongst the owners of the moneychangers' booths, to be used in decking out the Forum.6 from this is said to have come the custom of the aediles adorning the Forum whenever the tensae, or covered chariots of the gods, were [17] conducted through it.7 so the Romans made use of the splendid armour of their enemies to do honour to the gods; while the Campanians, in consequence of their pride and in hatred of the Samnites, equipped after this fashion the gladiators who furnished them entertainment at their feasts, and bestowed on them the [18] name of Samnites.8

Gladiator fights were supported by the Roman state for they entertained the people. In fact, of all things, the state’s made gladiator fights the most ‘magnificent’ of all as documented in History of Rome Book 41:

In the magnificence of public exhibitions of every kind he surpassed all former monarchs; they were with only one exception given by Greek performers, the one exception being a gladiatorial contest exhibited in Roman fashion, which frightened the spectators, who were unused to such sights, more than it pleased them. By frequently giving these exhibitions, in which the gladiators sometimes only wounded one another, and at other times fought to the death, he familiarised the eyes of his people to them and they learnt to enjoy them. In this way he created amongst most of the younger men a passion for arms, and whilst at first he used to hire gladiators from Rome at a great cost, now from his own.

The state actively promoted gladiator fights because they entertained the people, not merely to distract the public from its failings, but to boost the state’s image as one cared for its people. Such entertainment was the bread and butter of the masses as it satisfied their bloodlusts. Gladiator fights were participated in willingly to appease the Roman pagan gods. This parallels the high entertainment value placed on violence sport in modern Australia and America.  

Although violent sports are not participated in to appease gods of a pagan religion, violent brutal sports has become the new religion; a secular religion in which there is the worship of the elite participants, rewards given to those who best entertain the bloodlust of the masses including awards and fame, and blind eye casually turned against the elite who commit evil acts such as assault, violence or fraud. The elite of violent sports are esteemed as those who society must follow or who set a good example as to how one must live to enjoy a good life. The weekly attendance of these games is parallel to religious observances of the holy days of each religion. The elite sports people are treated as sacred idols whose behaviour is not to be criticised, or whose immoral behaviour is not the personal moral fault of these people.

Despite all the violence, some feminist groups have complained at the lack of ‘attention’ given to women in such sports. They complain that women in such violent sports are given no attention except for sexualisation of those women. This is a very cunning deceptive claim. While there is certainly sexualisation of women in sport, however, these feminists are completely silent of violence perpetrated by these women through these sports because they think that women can do no wrong – the feminist mantra that undergirds all their complaints about representation of women in all areas of life including sport. Feminist Melinda Tankard Reist howls:

When pictures of the female players with full-forward breasts were splashed everywhere following Legends (aka Lingerie) Football League games in Sydney and Melbourne this month, it underscored what has been a losing year for women.

Little publicity is given to women's sport in general. Did you even know there are female gridiron teams, where players wear full protective clothing like men? But attention wasn't a problem in this case...

The high ratio of photos to text online was significant. Camera angles captured bikini-topped flesh and skimpy undies in reports that failed to even mention the score. Women's bodies were on display, treated as a spectacle.

She complains about the sexualisation of women in sport, but yet castigates the public, especially men for not drawing attention to these women. She describes it as a ‘shameful disregard’ because they did not get the attention she desires them to have. Such is the typical hypocrisy of the feminists.

In a culture of violence, people have become blinded to what violence is and support violence against those they hate. The clearest evidence of this is the outrage by feminists against the provocation defence, but support for the domestic violence defence. Both defences allow a person to be acquitted for the murder of another out of rage. Criticism is levelled against the provocation defence by these feminists because they think it is almost always women who suffer at the hands of a violent male partner. However, they justify the domestic violence defence because they think it is justifiable for a woman to murder her male ‘partner’ out of rage.  The masses complain about violence on the streets and domestic violence, not because they hate violence for what it is, but only because they fear it will happen to them.  

A society which indulges in bloodlust, whether by watching violent sport or secretly entertaining murderous thoughts is one that is unable to deal with the problem of violence. It believes that it is anything but violence itself that makes violence wrong, to justify its secret love of bloodlust. Violence in sport is approved by the masses on the pretext that the participants consent to violence by playing the sport in the first place. Above all, the masses are engrossed in seeing such violence because it stimulates their bloodlusts, the desire for hatred which manifests violence and murder.

Violent sports are deemed justifiable and even sacred, just as abortion, another form of violence, is deemed sacred by those who support it for what it is, rather than what it can do. Violence captivates those who love it and oppresses those who love it by that very desire itself. That explains why those who are filled with bitterness and hatred accept violence perpetrated against them. Violence perpetrated against them feeds their ego by tempting them to express their hatred, and justifies their violent revenge in their mind. Hence, the cycle of violence occurs.

Owing to the love of violence and its approval, Australian society has no moral authority to criticise or hate violence. Violence is justified as long as it does not ‘hurt’ anyone and consensual, for such violence is entertaining. It can only accept the consequences of its own bloodlusts.

Violence is now justified under the guise of sport and entertainment. Such is the bloodmoney of the masses.