The Truth Be Told, It's Kind of Confusing

"I love this!"

"That was so well stated."

"I knew it wasn't how they said."

Except it was not true. Yep, Lady Francis was not being truthful when stating, "It was not the Last Supper. It was a depiction of an ancient Greek Bacchanal… because, you know, the Olympics are ancient and Greek. Surprise!"

One eminent art professor stated that the internal structure and the color choice of the depiction "is so typical of The Last Supper’ iconography that to read it in any other way might be a little foolhardy." Even the people who designed it and were responsible for explaining and promoting the display did not come up with this alternative interpretation and instead said it wasn’t meant as mockery, but as a message of inclusion (NY Times). A few minutes before I started writing this they admitted it was, in fact, inspired by Da Vinci's masterpiece and apologized to those who they had offended. 

Yet, Lady Francis continued the onslaught against truth by smugly equating Marie Antoinette's tragic demise with modern political theater,
"The headless woman was Marie Antoinette. She ruled over France and was found guilty of treason, conspiracy, and stealing from the country.
Sound familiar?"

To just blow off Marie Antoinette as someone who simply deserved to die downplays the massively insane, psychopathic blood lust released on France by the Reign of Terror. My question is why would someone choose to align themself with truly evil and psychotic people like Robespierre and Marat against a woman who was probably the most iconic female victim of a patriarchal world view ever? She never knew anything different than court life, was forced to marry the soon to be Louis XVI in her teens, her main job being to produce male children, and the scandalous stories about her licentious ways were produced, bought, and paid for by her power hungry brother-in-law in order to usurp the throne. Then she was decapitated for the amusement of the most jaded MMA crowd in human history.
 
Maybe you can quibble about the systematic murder of tens of thousands of blue bloods who were deemed guilty of being born with wealth whether they were evil or not, but how do you explain the rape and murder of the nuns and the killing of hundreds of lay priests (and not those ermine wearing corrupt, fat fucks) who died because they would not swear allegiance to the state and abjure their faith in God.

Now getting back to the Olympic presentation organizers. They say their purpose was not to mock. Well, that statement rings hollow too. If they were being completely honest, they would just admit they knew what they were doing was going to be divisive. They knew there would be controversy. They knew it was a political statement, and their aim was more than likely to poke their thumbs into the eyes of those who don't believe the way they do. The question becomes, then why try to obscure the message with such a blatantly obvious lie?

And why did so many of your followers glom on to it as a way to explain away their own inner confusion knowing that something was out of the ordinary, but still unable to bring themself to admit that this was an uncalled for provocation.  Don't you believe in your own message? If so, why the lie? To fool yourself into believing you can follow a lie and still consider yourself a good person? To avoid the consequences?
 
Ideology of any nature does not grant one the right to believe in or to purposely spread lies, and I know that both sides do it. Or is it really one group tricking both sides against the middle? The true character of a human being is what he or she allows themself to justify in order to get by. I understand the tremendous demand that that last statement places upon a person and I admit that I fail at this justifying things a whole lot more than I wish. At least, some of us are still trying. This was an act of revenge and hatred, justify it at your own peril. 

I was recently reading about Alexander Solzhenitsyn's sojourn through the gulags after he was unjustly imprisoned for criticizing Stalin in a letter to a friend. And I read about his transformation from an atheistic Marxist-Leninist into a committed believer. I found out that he attributed the problems of our Modern world to the Enlightenment and its relentless attack against anything deemed spiritual. For all their so-called wisdom and scientific expertise those great men committed one truly unforgivable sin. They locked away the concept of infinity, buried it in the basement, and whispered we'll get back to it one of these days.

The dominant reality of our existence on this planet is that we live in an infinite universe and need to grapple daily with what that means.Without the concept, we can only pretend that secularism is the smartest choice and that all life on earth is about is eating, defecating, and fornicating.

I'm betting Lady Francis was AI and was commanded to write the response with an utmost degree of smugness in order to create the maximum amount of anger on both sides.  The people who operate the internet know us all so well, and instead of using its powers to unite or uplift us, mostly use it to provoke and divide. Remember that one of Christ's main admonitions was the need to be as wise as serpents, but doing no harm with that wisdom. I'm not saying that those who wrote the Bible knew about the coming of the internet, but I'm betting they knew a lot about the nature of evil.

The truth of our situation places us into an uncomfortable position and makes tough demands upon us all. The irony of ironies, is that's what DiVinci's painting is really about.