We can’t seem to get enough of these leftist luvvies. The celebrities who endorse left wing activism that speaks up for ‘social justice’. They have made constant social media rhetorics about the plight of refugees, outpourings of grief in terrorist attacks, chastising people for racist remarks, accusing people of being hateful for things they haven’t done, praising of Jeremy Corbyn, vilifications of the Conservative Party’s actions, the persona of Donald Trump, etc. To them it’s a way of speaking out to show their compassion as if they are representatives of peace and justice where there are no heroes. But what do their politics actually represent and what do they intend to get out of it?
Recently I heard a tale about the actress Lena Dunham who returned a dog called Lamby to a pet sanctuary she adopted it from in 2013. The animal shelter she adopted Lamby from called BARC called out on her after she said of the return that the dog had been displaying ‘aggressive and challenging behaviour’ and she couldn’t handle him anymore. This Lena says is her reason for returning Lamby.
However from the Instagram account she has used to publicly shower Lamby with love and take him on adventures he has shown no signs of negative or aggressive behaviour. In fact BARC revealed that there was nothing wrong with the dog when she was given to Lena, he wasn’t abused or aggressive towards her when they first met. Lena has totally fabricated a story of abuse for publicised compassion. It seems that this story of her adopting Lamby was akin to a homeless street urchin being taken into care by a showbiz entrepreneur to be used as a sideshow for a media circus.
That last thought is what you can expect of today’s liberal minded celebrities. To people like Lena compassion and a care of duty is a means for publicity purposes. Making a play out of a tragedy or injustice with showmanship. It’s similar in regards to that of the Labour party using a tragedy like the Grenfell Tower fire for political point scoring. Why do they do it? Well the answer lies in a phrase used by Rocco Machiavelli. ‘The reason why there can be no change is because those who stand to lose form change have all the power. While those who stand to gain from change have none of the power.’ This practice of celebrity luvvies using poverty and injustice is a Machiavellian scheme to promote egoism and passivity.
One thing about these celebrity’s politics is that they are narrow minded and associated with leftist ideas. The reason for this is because a majority of them work in the arts and media, which is a profession that teaches that as performers they are obliged to be free to express themselves with a form of liberty that knows no bounds or responsibility or consequence. This is why they are able to get away with these endless good deeds promoting charities and speaking out on social issues like as if they have an opportunity to make money and fame out of other people’s problems. I should know, because as an autistic person I have been a part of these charities and received their help with nothing productive or helpful to my own needs.
When these celebrities work with charities they get to push their own agenda. But how committed are they to these things that they speak up for? How clued up on the issues and problems that they campaign for? Some of them don’t even have a past connection with these issues that they get involved in. Before getting involved in equality affairs and speaking up for refugees Lily Allen had a reputation for being a potty mouthed bad girl who took no interest in politics. Now with her music sales now dried up she seems to be using her Twitter account to make soundbites to get publicity to shift her music or keep herself in the public eye. Well those calls for peace won’t improve her reputation, it will make her irritable and put people off her music, which henceforth will kill off her career completely.
Being a patronising pathetic do-gooder won’t do you any good. It won’t make you any money and it’s not a career. Most of these leftist social justice warriors are useless because they don’t have any power or responsibility to help people. Raising money at benefit concerts won’t change a thing. They are just for raising awareness of their profile to sell their music but ruin their careers. As musicians and writers they might be able to make great music but they can’t create constructive and social solutions to the world’s problems. I would like to know how educated and clued up these liberal celebrities are in their missions for social justice. Do they read about it or they use their PR machines to hire advisors to speak the right words?
Bob Geldof probably started off his charity work properly. He began a crusade to help relive the 1984 famine in Ethiopia by launch Band Aid to raise money. Then he launched Live Aid to get more money to fundraise for start up costs to distribute more aid. At the time it was a great event that launched pop culture into the political mainstream. But in the long run it hasn’t been a very good way to change things. Although I give praise to Geldof for raising money to save people in a national emergency, it didn’t achieve a long lasting legacy to rescue Ethiopia economically or socially. Instead it built an industry of privatised aid and welfare and led the way in how philanthropy could work as a business. This meant that charity went from a noble and respected practice into a franchise for the wealthy elite to keep the poor fed and clothed. But in doing so they also created a monopoly on the poor whereby they had to keep them poor so that they could keep their philanthropy enterprise healthy.
Interestingly there were critics of Live Aid well up to the staging of the concert. There weren’t that many black African artists on the bill that it looked like a Western capitalist enterprise that was more concerned with making money than addressing the world’s problems. ‘Poverty Inc.’ is a documentary that explores these issues and raises some of the ways in which poverty is fought but not constructively challenged. In the footnote of the 1983-1985 famine in Ethiopia there is a story about how effective the aid raised had prolonged the lifespan of the ruling dictatorship that was running the country at the time. The famine has since raised disturbing questions about the relationship between humanitarian aid and host governments.
As for Bob Geldof his career as a charity campaigner has taken a different turn. In 2004 he started a campaign to get the leaders of the G8 countries to end the debts of the African countries and to double the amount of aid to them. Colluding with the then Prime Minister Tony Blair they planned to bring these developing countries into a state where they could be liberally progressive and embrace capitalism. Sadly though he has compromised his own cause through his economic illiteracy and lack of political nous. The Live 8 concert held in 2005 ended up becoming a means for the personal and political agendas of Blair and the Labour Party for the general election that year and to recover his reputation after the disastrous Iraq war. Some right wing artists like Noel Gallagher condemned the impact of Geldof’s charity work saying that rock stars don’t have any real influence over political affairs.
As an autistic conservative activist I can tell you that Gallagher is right. Celebrities don’t have much use for political decisions because they have no power of responsibility. I gave up giving money to Comic Relief years ago when I realised that all I was doing was buying their merchandise instead of making a difference. If rock stars want to influence political will then they should collaborate with business and scientists. Poor people have got talents that need to be exploited not used for other people’s agenda. In the years that I have been active for autism I have spoken out on the positive and constructive abilities of my disability, not playing the part of an insufferable pathetic hopeless useless spastic for entertainment purposes.
I wouldn’t trust a celebrity to speak up for my own causes and campaigns because they would only push it for their own agenda. They might help to promote my campaign for archery in the Commonwealth Games as a core sport but all I could expect of them would be a hashtag on social media but not a foot in the door of the decision maker.