LAURA KNIGHT-JADCZYK AND JOE QUINN
Since the 9/11 attacks, no book has provided a satisfactory answer as to WHY the attacks occurred and who was ultimately responsible for carrying them out - until now.
... send Ashley a copy of Political Ponerology!
Went into the trash bin decades ago.
I admire the courage and strength of Ashley Judds response here.
While it seems many individuals on this web site have concluded everyone that harms someone else must be a pshycopath, I still think many are simply motivated by the dollar and reside in that reality. They simply don't consider the consequences of their actions other then if it will sell (call it what you want). People thrive on controversy and they judge accordingly. Ashley is a famous figure and part of that fame was produced by her looks (honest fact). With that said and based on her comments, she understands the meaningless consequences of said gain and does not base the true value of who she is or her relationships on such priorities that delude reality.
By what she has said, she has grasped that it is her creator that determines her value and not even the fame that has produced said wealth has alluded her from that understanding.
The hidden truth of the Bible resides in understanding that God's truth is the hidden treasure that can make any person eternally wealthy regardless of the percieved wealth, beauty, or circumstances in this reality. Unfortunately, most have no idea Satan has robbed them blind, merely by giving them what they desire for a mere bleep in time only to take away what they never really had at their "death".
What the eff-I think she's absolutely a beautiful lady although i am gay. I've always enjoyed her roles and find her acting to be excellent. I can now add courageous and hope she cleared up a few things with some of those a**holes. Let's hope this doesn't ruin her career.
Well there's another argument here. Fame: if you don't want the genie entire - don't rub the lamp.
I'd never heard of Ashley Judd before I read this article. I had to look her up on Wikipedia. I don't watch much TV, everyone on it looks so plastic and gormless I can hardly bear to look at it, perhaps a contributory factor to public confusion over whether she's had "work done". Although she makes a couple of fair points, in context it's little more than a self-righteous rant that doesn't translate well into the world of those with a will to live - most of whom don't give a toss whether she's had plastic surgery or not. It probably does translate well into her own public profile and is therefore not separate from what you Americans call "box office". I mean, what's she cross about? She's not cross on behalf of anyone else, she's cross 'cause someone accused her of having plastic surgery. How puffed up can you get? If someone accused me of having plastic surgery I would just laugh. I haven't plastic surgery, and that's that, and because I don't subscribe to any of this kind of nonsense, I don't feel unduly affected by it.
Ashley Judd said:
"I am also aware that inevitably some will comment that because I am a creative person, I have abdicated my right to a distinction between my public and private selves, an additional, albeit related, track of highly distorted thinking that will have to be addressed at another time".
Karaoke, anyone?
"Stars — spectacular representations of living human beings — project this general banality into images of permitted roles. As specialists of apparent life, stars serve as superficial objects that people can identify with in order to compensate for the fragmented productive specializations that they actually live. The function of these celebrities is to act out various lifestyles or sociopolitical viewpoints in a full, totally free manner. They embody the inaccessible results of social labor by dramatizing the by-products of that labor which are magically projected above it as its ultimate goals.
The agent of the spectacle who is put on stage as a star is the opposite of an individual; he is as clearly the enemy of his own individuality as of the individuality of others. Entering the spectacle as a model to be identified with, he renounces all autonomous qualities in order to identify himself with the general law of obedience to the succession of things." - Guy Debord "The Society of The Spectacle"
Don't know what to say, when a celebrity decides to speak out against the system it's one of those, "uhmm..." moments since most benefit from it. Totally weird but I guess she is a person first and a celebrity second. She does make good points, hypersexualization is rampant. I am surprised though, she is good looking, chances are part of her getting some roles is because of how she looks. Doesn't she know this? Then it follows that the tabloids and celebrity lifestyle magazines will be all over that monitoring her with a microscope. This is just the reality.. No? Now she is complaining? After having taken the deal in the first place. I am confused.
Maybe this is just a PR stunt for her new show Missing. I gave it a go but gave up. Better to watch the Bourne films than stick it out for 20 episodes of going nowhere.
is beside the point. What AJ is speaking to is the hypersexualization of our society in general. Everyday men women and children are treated as well as treat each other as if they are property - something that someone else owns. I think most can relate to this. Every woman I know certainly can. The idea that we are not human beings but rather things is quite disturbing to me and a reflection of the psychopath's mind.
Unbeknownst to AJ, what she's experiencing is ponerization and I'm glad she took the time to speak out about it. AJ's appearances also have nothing to do with whether she has the right to say anything. If she were considered unattractive and wrote the above, it would then be argued that she's bitter and angry at not being more appealing. This is part of the issue we face today - that others are deemed worthy of a voice or not because they happen to be born at a time when their particular genetic profile is considered popular.
To me, it doesn't matter who speaks the truth as long as someone does. Even better if it's someone who's actually in a position and uses that opportunity against the system to reach the sleeping masses. Well said AJ.
"To me, it doesn't matter who speaks the truth as long as someone does. Even better if it's someone who's actually in a position and uses that opportunity against the system to reach the sleeping masses."
It doesn't quite work like that. Also, she is not strictly telling the truth.
By sitting in front of your computer, reacting as the forces of history play themselves out - you are culpable in what happens next. By investing in this woman's fake I-AM-A-STRONG-CREATIVE-WOMAN rant/career gambit/vanity explosion, you are investing in her state of non-being-ness, your own state of non-being-ness, and the state of non-being-ness in general.
Ashley Judd said:
"The only thing that matters is how I feel about myself, my personal integrity, and my relationship with my Creator."
For Creator, read - Hollywood.
"As an actor and woman who, at times, avails herself of the media, I am painfully aware of the conversation about women's bodies, and it frequently migrates to my own body. I know this, even though my personal practice is to ignore what is written about me. I do not, for example, read interviews I do with news outlets. I hold that it is none of my business what people think of me. I arrived at this belief after first, when I began working as an actor 18 years ago, reading everything. I evolved into selecting only the "good" pieces to read. Over time, I matured into the understanding that good and bad are equally fanciful interpretations. I do not want to give my power, my self-esteem, or my autonomy, to any person, place, or thing outside myself. I thus abstain from all media about myself. The only thing that matters is how I feel about myself, my personal integrity, and my relationship with my Creator. Of course, it's wonderful to be held in esteem and fond regard by family, friends, and community, but a central part of my spiritual practice is letting go of otheration. And casting one's lot with the public is dangerous and self-destructive, and I value myself too much to do that. "
She's speaking not only in terms of how she is viewed by the media. but how were are all affected by the nonsense of it.
The point, as I see it is that women (and increasingly men) are subjected to being objectified on a daily basis. It's this pathology that she is perceiving unbeknownst to her.
Few people have the whole banana but that shouldn't disqualify them from speaking out when they have the opportunity. Being "famous" shouldn't disqualify them either.
Part of the hold psychopaths have on all of us is the illusion of being separate - an us against them mindset. Poor people hate rich people and vice versa. If not all poor people are "good",then it would stand that not all rich people are "bad". Of course, as one moves up the ladder, there are many more opportunities for being affected by ponerization but in the case of this article, I feel she's mostly on point.
If you want to speak of identification, perhaps you may want to consider your own. The vast majority of what you wrote (in your second to last post) reflects an anger towards AJ because she's famous/rich and thus less of a real person to you. So it seems that to you rich automatically equates to not being human/deserving of consideration and compassion.
Because all of us have to deal with some type of ponerized nonsense in our lives, sometimes there comes a time when a few get fed up and feel the need to speak up. Do I know what her underlying motivations are? No, and at the same time, I'm completely aware that they may be disingenuous. Unlike you, I was aware of AJ prior to this article and currently (until I know otherwise) base the validity of her statement on her prior actions and work that is supposedly separate from Hollywood.
As with everything, there is the specific situation to consider and it does no one any good to take the easy way out and lump people in boxes. It's what we all would want for ourselves. Although I think you've improved over time, some of your past posts could be construed as "rants" but in this specific situation, I'm responding to you in terms of this post. See how that works - how you yourself benefit from not being placed in a box? It's only fair to afford that to others.
Me, I can't ignore that she is heavily involved with Hollywood and that Hollywood is renowned for spin and deception. One can't help but wonder what lies underneath that highly polished, well furnished image. So I choose to be skeptical.
I should say, I understand that, that is besides the point(of the article) but regardless, its coming from a source that is highly questionable to me(Hollywood representative), so no matter how much sense it makes, I reserve the right to remain skeptical.
"She's speaking not only in terms of how she is viewed by the media. but how were are all affected by the nonsense of it."
Some more than others, you more than most, clearly. Ashley Judd is not telling the truth. You're not looking for the truth.
"Hypersexualisation" is what occured in the 1950's when Detroit churned out cars that looked like enormous gleaming phalluses in labia pink and prick-end purple. When Babylon wanted everyone to reproduce they hurled Sophia Loren and Jayne Mansfield at the men, Marlon Brando and Elvis Presley at the women, not stick insects.
"Hypersexualisation" in the given context is a misnomer, a bandwagon that's turning right, whilst indicating left. It's entirely misleading.Take the toffee hammer to it and figure it out yourself.
Well, HFL we're just going to have to agree to disagree. As I said, AJ doesn't have the whole banana and so feel that's a concession on my part. I also didn't completely agree with the recent Thoughts on Feminism article but could remove enough of myself to see the bigger picture so I think I'm fairly consistent with being able to separate the line of force in terms of these two articles.
Again, having money doesn't mean that one isn't entitled to their opinions or that their feelings are less valuable than others. The same holds true for those who don't have money. Psychopaths love and profit from the fact that we often think otherwise as it keeps us separated and distracted. At some point, someone has to make the decision to do something different. If we can't place ourselves in someone else's shoes long enough to understand that the infighting must stop and look at the bigger picture, we all lose.
Comment: The roots of this conversation lie with the ponerization of society. In this case, the use of psychopathic tactics to promote the illusion of separation between people. One of it's goals is distract the masses from seeing the machinations of political power elites by keeping them unnecessarily fighting amongst themselves. For more information on Ponerology, see these Sott links:
Political Ponerology: A Science of Evil Applied for Political Purposes
Political Ponerology: A Science on The Nature of Evil adjusted for Political Purposes