Charity and politics are incompatible endeavors. True charity is unifying because the effort to help poor and sick people is based in the understanding that all belong to one human family. But however just any political cause may be, the methodology of politics is divisive. It is the pursuit of power by manipulating competition and fear among groups. The highest charity prefers anonymity, whereas politics requires public visibility to achieve its purposes.
It is old news that progressive celebrities have substituted political pronouncements for true charity. Gone are the days of Jerry Lewis sweating and sobbing after four days of telethoning against muscular dystrophy. Celebrity charity arose in people like Bob Hope, Danny Thomas, Danny Kaye, and Audrey Hepburn, who had been poor or of modest means, or had experienced hardship themselves. After becoming rich, they felt a religious responsibility to use their fame and wealth to “give back.”
Today, most entertainment celebrities are progressive. Many have never experienced poverty or are encumbered by any religious heritage of charity. They substitute the cheap pride of political posturing for the trials of humility in helping poor or sick people, without regard to political, racial, or sexuality categories. The news is filled with celebrities helping not all kids, but those on the “LGBTQIA+“ spectrum.
People in show biz, especially those in lower tiers of talent, must stay attuned to fads and fashions to stay relevant. Today’s political couture is celebrity parents exulting in their children’s cosmetic resexualization, in part because they don’t care about the radically different lives of rich kids compared with working class and poor kids. Rich people can insulate their kids from the consequences of immorality; poor people cannot. Rich kids with progressive parents live in a bubble of contempt for the Bible and for American religious heritage, whereas poor kids find it more difficult to go it without God’s help. Rich kids live in an echo chamber of praise for sexuality chaos; working-class and poor kids are more likely to be confronted by belief diversity regarding sexuality, which does not offer automatic approbation. Working-class and poor kids have responsibilities to family cohesion and survival and can’t “me-me-me” like rich kids.
Sexuality experimentation triggers denigration, and not just because kids are mean. A person in illusory sex transition cannot attain the highest achievements of either sex and is an unconscious threat to group survival. That is why they should not be in groups where cohesion is the difference between life and death, like the military. Poor kids have less protection from bullying and less access to private schools, lawyers, and therapists. If a rich kid commits an offense on his sex “journey,” he can rely on the old man’s money. If a poor boy overestimates the liberties acquired from a tube of Dollar Tree red lipstick, he’s likely to be more severely treated by his social milieu and the justice system. Looking natural while simulating the opposite sex is an expensive proposition — wardrobing, hairstyling, makeup, plastic surgery. Rich kids can more effectively cosmetically resexualize; poor kids often destroy their natural good looks and end up looking freakish.
Celebrities should visit America and see the harm their messages are bringing.
Poor kids are especially vulnerable to influence from celebrities as they pursue the American dream, called “getting out of here someday.” When poor boys reject their advantages of strength, courage, and vigor, they may be squandering their best chances for economic advancement in higher-paid construction trades, the military, or athletic scholarships. Trans-ness may destroy their chance to prosper through marriage and children, in a vain attempt to control biology and other people’s reaction to them.
Sex and sexuality are spiritual tests. Words spoken about spiritual tests hold sway over beliefs on the most significant questions in life and deserve the highest intentionality. In the 20th century, cultural and academic elites moved the spiritual problems of sex and sexuality from the moral to the political realm. Today, conservatives use the misnomer “gender” when they mean sex. (There are two sexes and zero human genders.) If Eskimos have fifty words for snow, English could have fifty words for sex, but the noun “sex” is the only one that adheres to the facts of life.
A core progressive fallacy is that sexual feelings and behaviors constitute a stable human identity. Being male or female is the most profound, permanent category of human identity, which is why transsexuality is permanent dissonance with oneself. Preferences and behaviors about how you “do sex” are not immutable identities.
Progressives hate natural power they cannot control. That is why they hate women’s bodies. “Drag queens’” repulsive representations of women echo the hideous caricatures of African-Americans in the early 20th century, displaying huge lips and obsequious postures. Progressives revel in the idea that being a woman is a cheap thing, that a man can easily become a woman if he chooses. The myth of ready-to-wear womanhood conveys delusional power, fake political virtue and cultural relevance, which is why progressive celebrities promenade their sons’ imitation womanhood.
Them.us pictures three “loud” celebrities beaming into the camera next to their glum-looking “trans” offspring. A 2015 People magazine extolled Sting’s daughter, Eliot Sumner, for the imputed accomplishment of living with her model girlfriend. Ten years later, Eliot is no longer a she, but a “they.” They’s photos in numerous publications exude severity and darkness.
The progression from homosexuality to no apparent sexuality is becoming a well worn path. How can They, a young woman bereft of moral tradition, who suppressed her beauty, voluntarily “un-sexed,” in the shadow of wealthy and famous parents, not do harm as a role model for poor kids? But They’s styling, reminiscent of Uncle Festus without the good looks or humor, is impeccable.
Actors Liev Schreiber and Naomi Watts have appeared recently in articles lionizing their child, a male named Sam Kai at birth. At Kai’s 14th birthday, Watts gushed that she was “beyond proud” of her neo-daughter. At 14, what had this kid accomplished to warrant such an abundance of parental pride? Identity always supersedes actual achievement for leftists. At 15, Kai dabbled in acting and now at 16 has ascended to Paris runway model. The normalization of males replacing female models parallels males in women’s athletics.
Progressives hate women’s bodies and the power of female beauty. During the era of supermodels, between the 1980s and the early 2000s, politics was irrelevant. Supermodels worked hard at being beautiful, photogenic women who possessed a quality of magnetic stillness without sullenness. Melania Trump has that quality. The supermodels are gone because the left hates women’s beauty, which can never be approached by males.
Liev Schreiber told Variety, “It’s important that she goes, ‘Hey, I am trans,’ and, ‘Look at me.’” How can he be certain it’s best to destroy traditional norms when so little is known about the youth transsexuality craze? Is it social contagion? Environmental harm to male development? Or maybe Sean just got tired of having to take the garbage out and decided to become his own sister.
How can Schreiber be sure it’s important for any kid to emulate his son’s female simulation? What is great fighter Kai, cosseted from birth, fighting for? Feminized working-class teenagers to be Paris runway models? Picture Kai’s “transness” at 36, or 56. Is Mr. Schreiber sure Kai’s “look at me” will always work? Why does Schreiber influence teenage boys to reject their masculinity? He became wealthy playing masculine characters. Is he sorry that he is a man married to a woman, the natural father of children? Of course not. Yet Schreiber wants to undermine capacities of sex at the heart of happiness for all people, rich and poor?
Pxfuel.
Jesus Christ is King
Comments are closed.