Wednesday, April 24, 2013

Angelina Jolie Is Scary

Not because she's on this list — 10 celebs you didn’t know were atheists. There is no need to fear Jodie Foster, who's on the list as well; she strikes me as a very private person who has not interest in interfering in the affairs of others. Keira Knightley is also on the list, which mentions that she "has joked that she’d prefer to be a Catholic." An atheist with a sense of humor!

But Angelina Jolie is downright terrifying. Humanitarian work is where she conducts her evil. Whether its Darfur or Libya, she lobbies to send our boys and girls to die in foreign lands killing innocent people who she alone has determined less innocent that others. Intervention is her credo in her personal life as well, and David A. Yeagley, "the only voice of conservative American Indian thought," debunked her international child abduction ring here — The "White Woman Saviour" Fad. An excerpt:
    Angelina Jolie really dramatized the role of the American white woman savior grabbing up the darkest, blackest babies, from deepest, darkest, most miserable Africa (as well as Cambodian, Vietnamese, and possibly Syrian). She and Madonna. That’s the extreme, of course. That is the zenith of the white woman savior image. Shall we not ask, however, why she didn’t adopt an American Negro child, if race was the issue? Or why not simply adopt an American white child? Is there something wrong with that? Or, is it not dramatic enough to suit the heroic vision of self-importance? Do these white women have any knowledge, or even concern, about the foreign child’s present and future feelings, or the adopted child’s psychological development?
The prophetess Flannery O'Connor warned of her (and her ilk's) coming:
    One of the tendencies of our age is to use the suffering of children to discredit the goodness of God, and once you have discredited his goodness, you are done with him…. Ivan Karamazov cannot believe, as long as one child is in torment; Camus’ hero [Rieux] cannot accept the divinity of Christ, because of the massacre of the innocents. In this popular piety, we mark our gain in sensibility and our loss in vision. If other ages felt less, they saw more, even though they saw with the blind, prophetic, unsentimental eye of acceptance, which is to say, faith. In the absence of this faith now, we govern by tenderness. It is a tenderness which, long since cut off from the person of Christ, is wrapped in theory. When tenderness is detached from the source of tenderness, its logical outcome is terror. It ends in forced-labor camps and in the fumes of the gas chambers….
God help us.

Labels: , , , ,

Bookmark and Share


Blogger Enbrethiliel said...


I had been thinking that the "church of the masses" was the cinema, but I think I'll side with that painting now. The real "church of the masses" is the hypermarket and its greatest sacrament is consumption. And apparently, consumption is to foreign intervention what Communion is to loving one's neighbour.

(Of course, Church of the Masses is the name of Catholic screenwriter Barb Nicolosi's blog.)

April 30, 2013 at 5:46 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home