« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

MEMBER DIARY

Lady Gaga, Her Alejandro Music Video, and a Game of Russian Roulette

By: mailloux (Diary)  |  September 17th, 2010 at 02:40 PM  | 

RESIZE: AAA

Quite frankly, you have to see it to believe it. And in seeing it, you will have received a portent of where we are going and how far we’ve already come.

I am of course referring to Lady Gaga’s Alejandro music video. But, before I discuss the video and provide a link to it, some explanation of the context in which this post is written, is necessary . . .

I’m a religious fellow and therefore do not view reality in the same way as a reductive materialist who sees reality as composed exclusively of the material world (i.e. matter, energy, known forces of the physical universe). In contrast to the reductive materialist, I regard reality as also being composed of an immaterial world, of which our soul (that is, our intellect and will) is a part of.

A brief example which nicely highlights the difference between a reductive materialist and a religious fellow lies in the differing viewpoints on the brain and the mind. A reductive materialist would make the case that mind equals the physical brain (that the two are actually one in the same). I disagree (and not just on faith alone); the brain is material, but the mind is immaterial. The two are not the same. So, my religious view and the view of a reductive materialist really are very drastically different ways of conceptualizing, appreciating, and even living in reality!

As a religious fellow, I recognize that wickedness in the world is not exclusively the product of the malice of man or serendipity (i.e. bum luck). In contrast to the reductive materialist, I believe that there are also immaterial forces at play, and when man wittingly or unwittingly collaborates with those forces, great evil on a national or even global scale is unleashed; witness, for examples, the intransience of abortion despite its intrinsic horror, or the concerted attack on the traditional family courtesy of the gay rights agenda. The scale and the success of these agendas represent human malice in cooperation with spiritual evils (who also have both intellect and will). This makes these issues not just a matter of the sundry machinations of plain old, vanilla human folly, but a matter of greater complexity and greater durability. The dangers here are in part hidden from purely human eyes, but are entirely premeditated and strategic (i.e. a specific goal is fully intended).

Another example of an immaterially supercharged phenomenon, in my opinion, is the vast and exponentially quick corruption of entertainment media. How quickly we’ve descended the inferno, going from Mayberry in the late 1950’s to Lady Gaga’s Alejandro music video in 2010.

As an adult, especially if you are a parent, grandparent, uncle, aunt, Godparent, scout leader, coach, teacher, or whatever puts you in proximity of someone under the age of 18, you really should take in Lady Gaga’s video for her hit song, Alejandro. Why? Because, you can bet the farm that kids . . . young kids in elementary school . . . are already watching that video, loving that video, and being influenced by that video. Watch it yourself, so that you can arm yourself.

Here, go out and invest the time to see it. Click here. I’ll wait till you’re back.

So, like I said, it’s a pretty far cry from the adventures of Sheriff Andy Taylor in sleepy little Mayberry. This video is poisonous and symptomatic of the vast corruption of the entertainment media in general (truly, there be dragons here . . . ancient ones as a matter of fact). This video is nothing less than a predator and the prey are your children, your grandchildren, your nieces and nephews, and by proxy the family and culture. In it you’ve got a slick presentation of homoerotic imagery, brutal-animalistic sex, pornography, and a severe mocking of Christianity through an attack on a perennially favorite whipping boy, the Catholic Church. The predators are not just Lady Gaga’s bank account (and those of her promoters). The more cunning and more dangerous of those predators are the immaterial ones . . . the wickedness in high places (Ephesians 6:12). Gaga is just another tool in their hands, but she is the latest and greatest version of a tool . . . and much like a more advanced gun, its lethality is ever increasing.

I know we must attend to the details of politics . . . supporting candidates, arguing the implications of policy, getting out the vote, but to ignore other worldly dangers is to play a form of Russian Roulette on a cultural and, eventually, eternal level. To allow your little Johnny or Susie to wantonly indulge in MTV and in pop culture in general is to go way beyond the simple confines of “entertainment” and enter, full bore, into the realm of character, soul, and one’s very relationship with the one and only God who created little Johnny or Susie.

Lady Gaga’s Alejandro music video is not just a video in precisely the same sense that the new, little brown, irregularly shaped spot on your face isn’t just a freckle. It’s death (Genesis 3:4).

Tags: , , , , , ,

COMMENTS

POSTING RULES  |  LOGIN TO COMMENT  |  REGISTER TODAY
  • http://www.nighttwister.com NightTwister

    I’ve heard these same arguments all my life.

    It might be more well received if the moral actions of Christians as a group were an improvement over society as a whole, but when the percentage of divorce and abortion to name two is essentially the same within and outside that community it’s really hard to sustain the moral argument.

    I believe Christians (of which I am one) would be better served cleaning their own house before poking around the houses of others. As a matter of fact, I believe that’s exactly what Jesus teaches us to do.

    • aesthete

      Especially since policing the external morality of people who don’t want their actions policed necessarily requires that a) we dedicate less time to our own spiritual condition, b) put the policers on a pedestal (deserved or not), and c) put focus on external actions, rather than internal conditions (which goes counter to Christian thought).

      Though I don’t think that mailloux is necessarily calling for government intervention, those who do are definitely worthy of the quote from CS Lewis:

      “Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron’s cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.”

      That is all besides the standard argument in favor of the liberty to make poor decisions, which is certainly applicable to this, and other, situations.

      At any rate, I’m glad mailloux is posting on RS again.

    • mailloux

      by keeping my kids as far away from that crap as possible, and as Christians, we do have the right to call it crap.

      I’m not calling for it to be banned, but it’s a statement on society when so many shrug it off as “nothing”. And, it’s my right as an American to raise a red flag about Gaga and state why I think it’s harmful. I’m intolerant. I wish more people were intolerant . . . of stuff like Lady Gaga and MTV.

      If folks let their kids indulge in that, then expect trouble. That’s the main point of the post . . . sorry if it didn’t communicate that perfectly well.

      Take Care,
      mailloux

      • aesthete

        A similar argument was used throughout the 80s and 90s to attempt to ban rap music, censor TV programming, and enforce “media standards”. I’m aware that you would not subscribe to this train of thought (and for that I am grateful), but I think that NT’s point is valid for those who do, and for those Christians who believe that Christianity is merely a moral improvement program which can be applied to believers and non-believers alike (which as you and I both know, is as far from the truth as one can get concerning Christianity).

        • mailloux

          an individual who has earned my respect (for whatever that’s worth . . . my endorsement is probably not the most valuable thing, but you’ve got it).

          I’m not advocating banning anything. I didn’t say that in the post, but folks can vote with their wallets and vote with what they’ll accept in the sanctity of the home.

          Hip hop music is in large part quite evil . . . check out the lyrics of the top 10 songs. I did a post on this in the past.

          Lady Gaga is another corruptive influence. In fact, that video is quite frankly demonic. Christ would exorcise it (in my humble opinion); the spirit of that video is no different than what Christ consigned to the swine that drowned itself in the sea.

          Folks should know what the kids are into these days . . . to ignore it is downright dangerous . . . both temporally and eternally.

          With Respect,
          mailloux

          • aesthete

            I simply saw both of you as having points of merit that can be debated on an individual basis in a free society, which necessarily entails that said society allows those bad choices that you reference. I wouldn’t want anyone walking away from your post thinking that we should ban Lady Gaga for the children, and I don’t think that you do, either. NT’s post, and your clarifications, make it clear that it wasn’t so much an advocacy of government to deal with the problem as it is a note regarding vigilance on societal trends. In that sense, his comment and your follow ups were value adding for the broader RS readership.

            Thanks for the kind words; as one of my favorite diarists on RS (despite the fact that I’m not a social conservative), that is very flattering.

  • SirGladiator

    I think what Mailloux is trying to say isn’t that Christians are perfect, which of course we aren’t, but that this music video is horrible, which of course it is. It probably isn’t worth focusing too much attention on though, given that there are lots of horrible music videos out there. Granted any music video from someone like ‘Lady Gaga’ will probably have more impact than those from folks few have heard of, but I think we basicly know at this point that she, as most Hollywood/media types, is a far-leftist, she does seem to have a dislike for God and morality and basic human decency, evidenced by that video but certainly not ‘only’ by that video.

    People like Gaga are folks we should be praying for, not only because they’re helping to destroy society in their own small, or not so small, way, but simply because she’s a human being like the rest of us, and she needs Jesus just the same as the rest of us do.

    I actually saw an old video a while back, of a ‘before she was famous’ Lady Gaga, she was unknowingly on one of those ‘hidden camera’ shows. They were taking 3 random people at a restaurant, and giving them an intentionally-bad waitress, and if they didn’t lose their temper, they won 100 dollars. Guess who the ONLY one of the three who didn’t keep her cool was? Yep, her. She obviously doesnt know God, and she, the same as everyone, needs Him. That is, I believe, the ultimate point here in regard to Lady Gaga and her music video that promotes evil. If she gets to know God she could do a tremendous amount of good, far more good than the bad she’s already done. We should all be praying for that to happen.

    • mailloux

      I wish you had written the topic of my post. You say it better than I possibly could.

      Thank You,
      mailloux

  • janalice

    Perhaps I misunderstood your comments, but you seem to be indicating that “good” Christians should not point out right and wrong in others, but should only judge themselves. That is not what Jesus taught us, according to His example. Of COURSE Jesus admonished others’ sins. He certainly didn’t point out his own faults (“cleaning His own house”), because he didn’t have any–he’s God, afterall! Because He is perfect, He was the perfect example of how one can hate the sin but love the sinner.

    True, we are responsible for our own souls and we shouldn’t boast about how well we do it. But, are you suggesting that we as Christians should just sit back, “take care” of our own souls, and do nothing to protect others, including the younger generation? Can you appreciate the irony in this? This type of mentality can’t be healthy for anyone, as evidenced by the fact that societies fall apart when they succumb to evil. Satan, of course, wants the “good little Christians minions” to help him by doing precisely nothing to impede his progress

    So, back to the original topic. Is it wrong to point out the abject evil of the Lady GaGa video? Absolutely not! It takes effort and courage to do something about the evil in our society. The first step in combatting the evil is to admit that it exists, even if it is obvious, as Mailloux so aptly accomplished.

  • avgjo

    Frankly, to me, to have a consistent conservatism, I believe one must adhere to the social aspects as well as the financial*. I appreciate you addressing the social.

    No, government doesn’t need to be in the business of censoring this sort of nonsense. But we the people can, by socially and financially isolating the sources of it.

    As I recall, from studying history, and, more importantly, talking to older people, there was a time in this country when such stuff wouldn’t have been tolerated, frankly because society at large wouldn’t tolerate it. We’re not at that point, but I’m not sure it’s because people approve of this nonsense. Rather, I think many decent people are cowed by the perverse leftist interpretation of ‘Judge not lest ye be judged.’ Far too many good people (and I believe that there are many, many in this country) are afraid to speak their mind or take action on their convictions because ‘we can’t judge anyone’ (said in Rush’s castrato voice).

    So thank you for speaking out. And I hope that your example inspires others, too.

    * As an example: abortion. The number of people killed by it is felt by reduced labor force, and then taxpayers, and even pool of candidates for military in case of extreme national emergency. An extreme example of the consequences of this is Russia, where high abortion rates, and alcohol abuse have led to a shrinking population, and the attendant problems. It is interesting how social issues and fiscal issues, like the other parts of reality, cannot be treated in complete isolation.

    • aesthete

      Small government conservatism (which is what most people mean when they say “fiscal conservatism”) is in and of itself an expression of values, that expression being that government (particularly at the federal level) should be as uninvolved in the life of the citizen as possible (essentially, a not as extreme version of libertarianism). It is not about using government to effect a maximization of wealth, resources, or the tax base: all of those are the goals of progressive or moderate government. It is not even about balanced budgets: if it were, it would not advocate for most tax cuts at present. It is about minimization of government. The way that a ban of abortion is constructed in your example posits it as a federal program to increase the labor force, which when expressed in such a form, is repellent to small government conservatives. Such cold analysis is not only wrong*, but also offensive (unintentionally so, I’m sure) for the same reason that discussing the economic benefit to tailors of preventing your murder would be. Abortion should be argued on the grounds that an innocent human being is savagely “deprived” his right to life by another, and that it should be given the similar penalties to those infanticide currently has. This “jobs created/saved” rhetoric attempting to masquerade as fiscal conservatism is pure bunk. I see what you’re trying to do, but in this case, it’s too cute by half :)

      *Considering that the vast majority of abortions are undertaken by low-income families, the correct point of analysis would be to think of an abortion ban as an increase of the low-income population. Looking at it that way, it is clear that such an increase would increase the costs of government as it is currently constructed: not only would this increase the number of persons eligible for (and thus, using) various means-tested entitlements, it also means that this additional population will likely be net beneficiaries of the tax system, at least for the short- and medium- term. It would be more damaging by far for government expenditures than an increase in the population of illegals in the US, though it would likely be the equivalent of an increase in the illegal population, as far as economic growth goes (where it would have a positive effect). Mind you, none of this includes the additional costs for crime, the actual cost of prohibiting abortion in an effective manner, the increased costs for adoption agencies, etc.

      • avgjo

        Nowhere in my post did I (a) call abortion a fiscal issue or (b) advocate a (federal) ban on it. With all due respect, stating that I tried to masquerade abortion as a fiscal issue is not correct (perhaps for me to say ‘bunk’ would be too strong). I merely pointed out that abortion (to me at least) seems to have fiscal consequences at the societal level, in the long run. In other words, not that abortion is a fiscal issue, but that it is a social issue which also affects fiscal ones. Per my strong 10th amendment convictions (reflected in my post above, incidentally, when I said that government should not censor such videos as mentioned), I believe this should be left to the states. And if I had argued abortion solely from the standpoint of its effects on our national fiscal situation, yes, it could well be deemed offensive. Please bear in mind though, that, with respect to abortion, someone states that they are a fiscal conservative but not a social conservative, the argument you mentioned about abortion depriving a person of life may ring hollow; many self-described fiscal conservatives have heard these before and it hasn’t changed their point of view. So, perhaps the only thing that will get through to them is to point out the deleterious effects of the behavior that they would otherwise tolerate; sadly, it seems that with some people, ‘cold analysis’ is all that gets through.

        As far as small government conservatism…what is it predicated upon? For what end does it exist? Well, for me, it is predicated upon the ideas elaborate by the Founders of this country, which have ancient roots in Europe and Israel. These ideas are summed up by ‘life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness’. The quote you have on your post there, from Mr. Jefferson, indicates that the government indeed has a role in the issues of economy that you mentioned. But, in stark contrast to the progressives, it is a passive role. It’s role is stay out of the way of those who would prosper by their own efforts and merit. It’s other role, as I know full well you know, is to protect the inalienable rights enumerated in the Constitution. But these all DO play a role in the maximization of wealth, etc., by giving people incentive (fulfillment of ambition as well as not ‘aiding them in their pursuits’ ) to do and be their best. This last has been borne out by our nation’s history. By the first amendment, we have the right to debate issues such as those you and me are discussing here; by the tenth amendment, people in states should have the right to determine what course they will take regarding this, whether for moral reasons (as I and you (I think, right?) would base our decision on) or for more um, pragmatic reasons.

        As far as your analysis of abortion’s effects, I would point out that stating that an abortion ban increasing the low-income population assumes that people are guaranteed to stay in the financial situation into which they are born, it assumes that an abortion ban would not be accompanied by strong ‘entitlement’ reform (a proposition which is at least questionable), reform of the justice system and of our ‘immigration’ system, and serious financial and regulatory reform. If we found ourselves in a political situation where the federal banning of abortion were possible, that would indicate a serious (in terms of numbers and intent) conservative element in government, which I believe would lead to the other things I just mentioned (since these are part of many conservatives’ platform), which would lead to a different outcome than you mentioned. Removing the entitlement net would give decent people (which form the majority of the poor) incentive to work for the improvement of their lives; justice system reform (more severe sentences, etc.) would deter or make examples of those who would respond to the cut of ‘entitlements’; financial and regulatory reform would provide jobs for these folks and ‘immigration’ reform ( a la employer scrutiny) would deal with the problem you menioned. Adoptions and all that stuff you mentioned could well be less of an issue because of the behavior modification effected by making people fully responsible for the consequences of their actions. And BTW, I am not saying that this is the more likely or guaranteed outcome, only that it is at least as plausible and possible as the scenario you mentioned. At any rate, the issues you raised illustrate what happens when we take individual responsibility out of the picture. America sure worked well, and without widespread occurrences of what you mentioned, before Roe v. Wade. That decision was pernicious, but so were its side effects. Considering its timing, after a massive welfare state had been in place, issues such as you raised are now very practical and can be used to scare people who might otherwise be for the banning of abortion at the state level, into not supporting a ban; ‘I would love to ban abortion, but we simply can’t afford it.’

        BTW, thanks for a well-thought out response and raising interesting and good points. I like a good mental warm up in the morning, and you have certainly provided that.

        Chat later.

        avgjo

        • aesthete

          Good points concerning my last paragraph; I’d thought of a couple of those, but not all of them. My main concern is that you are thinking of fiscal conservatives as only wanting to balance the budget and maximize wealth, when most self-described “fiscal conservatives” are actually small-government conservatives who put the emphasis on governing with a light hand. If abortion were not a moral issue (which is how you would exclusively argue for a ban on abortion through “cold analysis”), it is essentially a restriction on liberty in exchange for some possible utilitarian benefit: obviously, this is repellent to small government conservatives in the same way that government subsidization of procreation would be. For that reason, it is actually much better to argue the point of morality than it is to cite statistics on incidental effects concerning abortion: one simply needs to remember that there is a secular, Harm Principle-based argument that favors an abortion ban, and that one need not bring religion into such an argument. (Just to give you a frame of reference, I’m not a social conservative, but I am pro-life because of that argument.) Thanks for the reasoned discussion and civility; we need more of that on RS!

          • avgjo

            And thank you as well for the civilized, enjoyable discussion.

            Incidently, in the time intervening my previous response and this one, I was speaking with another social conservative about this issue (he was a new acquaintance, and another social conservative). I mentioned my perspective on this, and he mentioned that he had made similar arguments to the one I advocated, and how he felt ‘dirty’ doing so. I thought of your response when he said this. Point well taken.

            I will think deeply over what your last response was. thanks for the food for thought.

          • aesthete

            Just remember, the overwhelming majority of Americans believe that infanticide should be criminalized. Every single one of them is suceptible to an argument favoring bans on abortion. We have, thus far, focused on the Constitutional and religious arguments against abortion, and while both are valid, we leave a large field untapped by ignoring a secular argument that is virtually ironclad for anyone who believes that infanticide and neglect to a fatal extent (i.e., letting one’s child starve to death) should be criminalized. Even in leftist Tucson, AZ, I’ve gotten some converts using that argument.

  • Pingback: Looking for popular Name Band love aids? We have any selection: Dildos,Female Sex,Rabbit Vibrators,Male Masturbators and Cock Rings

  • Pingback: off your credit card debts

  • Pingback: ??????, ?????? ??? ????, ?????? ??????

  • Pingback: yim game

  • Pingback: Full Report

  • Pingback: Indian Web Hosting Companies

  • Pingback: letmewatchthis

  • Pingback: hip hop