What kind of person makes a point of adopting children from every continent?
Remember Angelina Jolie, constructor of a global, multiracial family by multiple adoptions plus the birth of one natural white child with her boyfriend Brad Pitt? According to a website of celebrity biographies, prior to Jolie’s interest in multiracialism came an interest in multi-sexualism:
Jolie announced her Bi-sexuality and her lesbian relationship with fellow actress Jenny Shimizu. Which shocked the media but considering Jolie’s other sexual exploits it wasn’t all that surprising. She said: “I like everything. Boyish girls, girlish boys, the heavy and the skinny. Which is a problem when I’m walking down the street.” Her next role was alongside future husband Billy Bob Thornton in comedy, “Pushing Tin.” Again the two shared chemistry and Thornton dumped his long term girlfriend to be with Jolie. Their comments were more often than not rude and Thornton even admitted to liking to wear Jolie’s underwear as it made him feel closer to her. They were married in 2000 and in keeping with Jolie’s connection with blood; she wore a vial of Thornton’s blood around her neck for the duration of their marriage, as a way to keep him with her and show her devotion to him. [The marriage ended in 2002.]So now we know what Jolie’s father, actor John Voight, was talking about when he said in 2002 that his daughter has “serious mental problems.” The thing is, normal people in liberal society formally subscribe to liberal ideals of total freedom, equality, and relativism, while making lots of unprincipled exceptions to their liberalism in order to have a normal life. Jolie, not a normal person, doesn’t make the unprincipled exceptions. She puts the liberal madness into practice. The multiple tattoos are of a piece with the multiracialism and multi-sexuality. Having no center, no anchor in anything real, she covers her body with a promiscuous mix of symbols and sayings from different cultures.
By the way, the constant references in the media to Jolie’s great beauty are a mark of the emptying out of truth and value from our culture. Jolie is an ordinary looking woman with vacant features and disconcertingly large lips. A culture that considers her a great beauty is a vacant culture.
Paul K. writes:
I think that what her fans are reacting to when they describe Angelina Jolie as “a great beauty” is the decadence that she exudes, the precise quality that makes her repulsive to you. A healthy-minded person will find a reasonably attractive person beautiful if they exude an elevated quality of character, while the sick-minded person reacts to the opposite quality.Bruce B. writes:
Nobody uses the term “pretty” to describe a woman anymore and “beautiful” is usually used as a synonym for what is now called “hot.” This means a gal that a man would want to have intercourse (actually more than that) with. Yesterday while waiting at an auto repair shop my wife and I saw the front of a copy of People Magazine with Jolie on the cover billed as “the most beautiful woman” or something like that. The “big lips” look and the “wet lipstick” look are, I suspect, supposed to make a man think about receiving oral sex from the girl (though I’m sure most people would say I’m crazy and read too much into things). Any girl can be beautiful in the sense of being “hot” because it doesn’t take much to elicit a primal sexual response from a man. So I guess “hot” is egalitarian whereas “pretty” requires discrimination.
Posted by Lawrence Auster at August 26, 2006 11:49 AM | Send