One famous actress once observed of another… “that type would wear a gold-plated dog turd around her neck to get attention.”
And so we come to Lady Gaga, the latest in a long incarnation of “entertainers” who begin by desperately seeking public attention… and end with thinking themselves the centers of the universe. Just when did court jesters (and these jesters perform, first and foremost, to gain the favor of a fashionable elite) replace philosophers and theologians?
The Gagster has been in the news again, decrying the existence of any outpost of traditional Christianity – you know, the kind that existed for a couple thousand years before the coming of her hirsute arse – and suggesting that Christians follow her interpretation of the New Testament. Yes, the Gospel as read by Lady Gagged and Gagged Again.
Not that she’s read the Bible… no, she’s just kind of “felt” it. But hey, feelings trump knowledge, right? So this is the Gag… read it:
“Here it is. Lady Gaga calls herself a Christian and then tries to convince the rest of the world that Vice President Mike Pence is not a good representation of what Christianity actually is. Why? Because he believes in traditional marriage between one man and one woman. Gaga's comment came after people on the Left became outraged to learn that Karen Pence is going to teach at a Christian school that follows biblical teaching about sexuality. That led to broad attacks against Christian schools in general, revealing that they have become the next big target for the anti-Christian Left.
…It exposes the tacit end game of an unseen spiritual force in this no-holds-barred age of fury – to defeat the cultural impact of the Christian faith by redefining it.”
If they can redefine what Christianity is – update it into something fitting their image – they can then simply define away traditional Christianity (the 2,000+ years old religious faith) as a common hate crime, something not protected by the First Amendment. And then they will criminalize its practice.
This new model “Christianity” revolves around sex. It calls itself “progressive” when, in fact, it is a regression into the unrestrained carnality and violence of the religions of antiquity. It “celebrates” satisfying the “animal” in mankind that Mohandas Gandhi warned about.
Of course, the more “progressive” members of our political class, failing to come to terms with America’s relative economic and cultural decline, have happily embraced the promise of the politics of sex. Instead of assuring voters of a “chicken in every pot” they tout “orgasms for every peccadillo.”
In a politics dominated by a One Percent who long ago stopped worrying about things like food and housing (Governor Murphy anyone???), the endless quest for sexual fulfillment can fill the vacuum. Aldous Huxley observed: “As political and economic freedom diminishes, sexual freedom tends compensatingly to increase.” (Brave New World, 1932)
Stephen Baskerville has written an excellent book on what Newsweek magazine described as “the politics of sex” and it is a must read for every legislator and policy maker in New Jersey. Baskerville is a scholar of political science and a leading authority on divorce, child custody, and the family court system. He holds a BA in International Relations from American University as well as a PhD in Political Science and History from the London School of Economics. Baskerville is currently Professor of Government and Director of the International Politics & Policy program at Patrick Henry College. Prior to this he was Professor of Political Science at Howard University.
The book is called, The New Politics of Sex (The Sexual Revolution, Civil Liberties, and the Growth of Government Power). In his book, Baskerville outlines the emergence of a new political ideology that derives its claims to political power from neither economic relations or ethnicity or race – but from control of sexuality. He notes that, until recently, scholars and journalists have been reluctant to analyze this new phenomenon with any depth or detachment – for fear of repercussions. One critic had this to take away from reading the book:
“I found it intriguing to understand how the roles of the sexes have not really changed. Women are still predominately the ones who care for children – they just do it as day care workers or welfare recipients now – and men still predominately provide the financial support – they just do it by paying court ordered child support now, or by paying tax dollars that the government redistributes to women on welfare.
What predominately has changed is that we’ve gone from having nuclear family units with a man at the head of it who is looked to for leadership and support, to being a herd-like society with government at the head, giving the orders, and being looked to take care of us.
Instead of individual family units, we’ve become more like one big family with government as our daddy. And instead of that daddy taking us to church once a week to worship God, our new daddy takes us to the government schools five days a week where we learn to serve the state in the new religion of socialism.”
Oh, and where our children learn that pot is “medicinal”, abortion is a “rite of passage”, and STD’s are a normal by-product of a life well lived. Happy days!
You can get a copy of the book here: