Tragic news of 14-year-old Jamey Rodemeyer's suicide on Sunday has enraged pop star Lady Gaga (left) to take a stand against bullying … The teenager from Williamsville, NY, who had posted his own "It Gets Better" video on YouTube, and tried to inspire fellow bullied children and teens into believing they can survive the cruelty of bullying – took his own life after what his parents claim was years of bullying because of his sexuality. Gaga turned to Twitter to rally a call for the end of bullying. In a series of tweets she wrote: "The past days I've spent reflecting, crying, and yelling. I have so much anger. It is hard to feel love when cruelty takes someones life … "Bullying must become illegal. It is a hate crime." – Huffington Post/AOL
Dominant Social Theme: The government must be involved at all levels to make sure life is better and fairer for everyone.
Free-Market Analysis: The death of a young person is always very sad and no doubt Lady Gaga's emotions following Jamey Rodemeyer's suicide are genuine. But the entire Lady Gaga saga is a manipulated one in our view. Her intention of getting the US federal government involved in the issue of bullying is perfectly predictable within the arc of her manufactured celebrity. Leaving aside the tragedy of Rodemeyer's death, Lady Gaga's actions are actually destructive to the very causes she claims to champion.
Lady Gaga, perhaps the world's biggest pop star, has already ventured into the legislative area with her backing of the repeal of the 17-year policy known as "don't ask, don't tell." In fact, when the repeal was voted on, MSNBC reported that no less a personage than Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid sent her a message on Twitter: "#DADT on it's way to becoming history." Later Reed was even more effusive: "@ ladygaga We did it! #DADT is a thing of the past."
Lady Gaga took to tweeting herself, texting after the Senate voted 65-31 to give final congressional approval to end the ban on openly gay troops: "Can't hold back the tears+pride. We did it! A triumph for equality after 17 YEARS." You can see our article on the issue here: Lady Gaga Approves Repeal of DADT
The point we were making in the Gaga/DADT article was that Lady Gaga, as an anointed "spokesperson" for her generation was a good deal more concerned with sexual rights within a military context than with the genocidal "war on terror" itself. This seemed to us misguided.
As important as sexual civil rights may be – and we think it is perhaps a misplaced emphasis – the poisoning of millions with depleted uranium and the bombing of women and children by mistake is of far more importance in our view. Lady Gaga, to the best of our knowledge, has not spoken out about the West's various burgeoning wars with anything near the passion that she has summoned for alternative sexual lifestyles.
In fact, though we didn't mention it at the time, the whole idea of sexual civil rights is a confusing concept. As libertarian Congressman Ron Paul has often pointed out, one of the West's modern diseases (and confusion) lies in the idea of "group" civil rights.
This removes the emphasis from the individual (and individual rights) and treats individuals as part of a larger group that can only gain legitimacy within the context of a government negotiation. It is actually antithetical to the founding of the American republic and the independence of the individual.
Are we taking all of this too seriously? We would argue we are not. Someone like Lady Gaga – promoted in our view by a powerful elite public relations machine – has a good deal of influence over the larger conversation generally, especially in the US. Her various activities and sociopolitical stances are further confusing issues having to do with the boundaries between the individual and the State.
Lady Gaga uses a disturbing amount of Illuminati symbolism in her music. Her videos, especially, are full of sadistic symbolism and violent sex. Sentiments such as she reveals used to be a private matter. People have always chosen their own sexuality and proclivities within the private sphere, but now every part of what used to be private is public.
Lady Gaga and others like her thus participate in a coarsening of the public dialogue and a reduction of its ambit and aspiration. Instead of dealing with issues of war and exploitation, Lady Gaga is focused on the rights that people in the military have to express themselves sexually.
Now, Lady Gaga is mounting a campaign to further involve government power in private lives. As of this writing, a spokesperson for the White House was not confirming any meeting between Lady Gaga and President Barack Obama. But we are sure, if Lady Gaga presses the issue, that Obama will make time to meet with her and proclaim his willingness to champion her cause. The result: Further confusion over what Leviathan can and cannot do in a putative republic. And just as importantly, what it OUGHT to be doing.
Lady Gaga seems sincere about her beliefs. On an MTV special she recalled how a group of boys had thrown her in a trashcan in the street, "and just laughed at her," according to the article excerpted above. She said the incident affected her deeply, but she didn't understand its psychological ramifications until much later.
It is unfortunate, however, that sincerity is no substitute for education. Lady Gaga, in our view, is being exploited. Her videos are supposed to shock; more importantly, her social "stands" are further confusing young people about the boundaries between what the State ought to do and what it CAN do (almost anything, apparently).
In an era where an impossibly wealthy familial elite is trying to drive the world toward global governance as fast as possible, Lady Gaga's social activism fits right in. She emphasizes group rights over individual ones and ignores the larger issues of government-spawned violence to focus on the relentlessly narrow issues of sexual choice that affect small percentages of the larger population.
There is her music itself and the violent and sadistic videos that accompany it. It is difficult to avoid the conclusion that she is following a kind of script, playing out a role as an activist – as any good pop star of a certain kind should. The elites have always used music and musicians to effect a certain kind of social change. Can it all be a coincidence?