The Face You Deserve

The Classical Greeks held that Beauty, Truth, and Goodness are the same thing — the Good is the True, which is the Beautiful.

The old cliche has it that by 50, you have the face you deserve.

Put ’em together, and you have one top shelf COPROP campaign.

It’s no accident that 95% of Liberals are ugly, and that the 5% who aren’t (Hollywood actors and whatnot), are degenerate freaks.  Ugliness — physical, moral, and mental — is a logical outcome of Leftism’s premises, and it always has been.

Stripped of all its formidably dense pseudoscience, Marxism is just Utilitarianism elevated to a religion.  Utilitarianism means “the greatest good for the greatest number.”  Obviously the Plain Janes of both sexes far outnumber the truly attractive people.  The valorization of physical attractiveness, then, causes way more pain to more people than it ameliorates.  Therefore, physical attractiveness is counterrevolutionary, comrade.

Lenin obviously agreed.

Not only that, but the beauty industry — Big Lipstick, let’s call it — is one of those tools of hegemony Antonio Gramsci was always going on about.  It’s impossible to achieve the proper revolutionary consciousness when you’re worried that Mao suits make your butt look big, and that’s just how Big Lipstick wants it.  Same deal for working out and eating right — nobody does it just for the health benefits; if they did, they’d eventually stop talking about their fitness routine, and, of course, no one ever does.  That, too, is a tool of social control, because it reinforces bourgeois values like “self-control.”  So not only is physical attractiveness counterrevolutionary in itself, but so is wanting to appear more attractive than you are.

Last, there’s the fact that the Proletariat is…. well, not to put too fine a point on it, the Proletariat is disgusting.  Factory workers aren’t the heroic, iron-jawed, muscle-bulging supermen of Communist propaganda.  Real factory workers look like this:

Lefties knew it, too, even back then, which is why Theophile Gautier, one of the deans of art-for-art’s-sake, famously proclaimed that “the most useful place in the house is the toilet:”

There is nothing really beautiful save what is of no possible use. Everything useful is ugly, for it expresses a need, and man’s needs are low and disgusting, like his own poor, wretched nature. The most useful place in a house is the toilet.

Faced with that reality, the only thing to do is to make ugliness itself into a political statement, which Bolshevik women, to their… credit? I guess?… got going on right away:

That’s Nadezhda Krupskaya, Lenin’s main squeeze, and she’s actually not too hideous by Bolshevik standards.*  Here’s Emma Goldman, rocking the true revolutionary intellectual look:

See what I mean?  “Fat acceptance,” slutwalks, and all the rest of it follow naturally from Bolshie beliefs.  If you accept — as a good little Dialectical Materialist must — that there’s nothing to human happiness but bread, shoes, and shit, ugliness — physical, moral, mental — becomes a good in itself.  How could it be otherwise?  Only truly useless things can be beautiful, and useless things, by definition, do not further The Revolution.

Too bad for the Bolshies that it’s in our nature to confuse the messenger with the message.  I like to think of myself as an open-minded, tolerant man who takes things as they come, but holy jeeebus, I don’t care what Emma Goldman’s deal is — if she’s for it, I’m against it.  I need bleach for my eyes.

We need to use that.  It’s no coincidence that Ashley Judd and now Taylor Swift are spouting off about Progtard politics — they used to be cute; now they’re not.  See what Social Justice does to you, ladies?  Stay cute – vote Trump.

 

*Alas, nobody refers to Russian women who joined the Party as “bolshe-chicks,” but feel free to use it.

 

Loading Likes...

10 thoughts on “The Face You Deserve

  1. Skedastic Racket

    So I was pressing today and…
    It’s remarkable how many people are content to be ugly and to live in ugliness.

    Reply
    1. Rod1963

      You do realize that public education has been stripped of the ancient Greek notions of the Good, True and Beautiful. I know for example in my junior high and high schools these ancient concepts were not taught, even in the art classes that I took. We never studied their ancient architecture and the difference say between Ionian and Dorian styles. Nothing. I had to learn that on my own as a kid from used books and my families encyclopedia collection. So even back then in the 70’s, pub ed was closing the doors on our cultural inheritances.

      Lets not forget that Madison Avenue . They helped infantilize adult males, convincing them it’s okay to dress like a 4 year old with short pants, a tank top or t-shirt and flip flops. G-d on Pogo stick, there is nothing more pathetic than a fat 50 year old man dressing like that. No self-respect.

      The music and fashion industry convinced girls it’s okay to dress like whores. I remember when female singers walked out on stage in fine dresses and the men wore tuxes and just sang and that was in the late 80’s. Now it’s a circus with the leads dressing like whores or a scene out of one of William Burroughs drug induced hallucinations.

      Look at modern architecture, it’s hideous, soul killing constructs that were put together by Communist Robots. It’s very presence dehumanizes people and makes them feel they need to GTFO of there. Modern Art is nothing but a gag fest and insult. Look at the Guggenheim, it’s a building worthy of being torched just for the hell of it. No one will miss it. It’s beyond hideous and verges onto being Satanic.

      And housing tracts. Some modern tracts (at least here in Los Angles county) are so bad and soul killing, they will turn the occupants into heroin addicts just to dull the pain of living in them.

      Israel Shamir called this trash heap Civilization X.

      Reply
      1. Skedastic Racket

        I’m aware of how sordid this country is. I also think modernity couldn’t have got this far unless people agreed with it.

        Reply
      2. Frip

        Rod. Not taking major issue with you. But I always find myself differing with the far right guys, in how they criticize new music, art, and architecture, for being so weird or pozed. I have to tell you, things change, because things get boring. Seems to me you want Frank Sinatra forever. You want the Empire State Building forever. I love both of those things more than anymore. But I also get how creative minds must move on. Even if it means creating something ugly. I recall feeling cold when I moved to a city with brutalist buildings. But I also embraced it because it made me feel something different than I’d ever felt before. “Tuxedos”? Dude, come on…

        Reply
        1. Severian Post author

          I think we’re losing sight of the point here. There’s a vast difference between “ugly for a higher aesthetic purpose” and “ugly for the sake of ugly. Goya’s paintings are quite unpleasant, but for an aesthetic purpose. Ditto cubism etc. – I personally have no use for it, but I can see what they were doing and why.

          Brutalist architecture and modern “art,” by contrast, are ugly for the sake of ugly, and that’s an explicitly political, not aesthetic, choice. There’s a reason nobody could tell modern “art” is supposed to be art without some dork gushing incomprehensible polysyllables over it — if anyone can do it, then the very idea of Art is a joke. The Sistine Chapel makes you feel that Man has something noble in his nature; modern art says man’s highest accomplishment is dunking a crucifix in a jar of urine.

          You want proof? Look at any hot new exhibit, in any medium, in any boho enclave in America. It’s all the exact same “transgressive” shit they’ve been doing since 1968. Nobody who goes to a modern art performance has been shocked by modern art since the Beatles were on Ed Sullivan. These days, truly transgressive art — meaning, against the grain of modern life, shocking to all current artistic sensibilities — would be a nice landscape painted by a happily married heterosexual White guy.

          Reply
          1. Frip

            Extreme examples, staw man concepts, and sarcasm aren’t enough here. Sometimes you’re too confident in certain simplistic opinions. Conceptual art = piss Jesus, and art theory = phonies with big words, doesn’t cut it.

            Anyway, people can argue this stuff forever. I’m just saying…that there IS such a thing as philistinism or being hopeless reactionary. That it’s primarily on our side (crusty old dudes, proles). That it gets annoying. And makes it easy for our opponents to write us off as yesterday men. We’re gonna need an influx of youth whose worldview doesn’t hold that music stopped after Freebird and sitcoms died with Barney Miller.

        2. Rod1963

          Creative minds? There is no creativity in modern art. Making some POS that takes all of 5 minutes while being drunk on ThunderBird doesn’t cut it. Piss Christ is not creative, nor the junk that sits in the Guggenheim. Let’s see one of those “creative” minds create something in the vein of Michaelangelo or some of the Celtic and Saxon jewelry or the works found in the Tokapi palace. Oh that’s right they can’t.

          What we see is degeneracy.

          I’ve been to those museums of modern art. Nothing in them requires talent. I can bribe a 10 year old to paint modern art pieces or use my dog’s tail dipped in paint. In terms of sculpture, welding junk together denotes nothing either in terms of aesthetics or skill of the “artist”. Or putting a 300 ton rock in front of the museum. For the love of mike. a 300 ton rock. Truly a testament to human gullibility and the brain death of the artistic community.

          I can go to any swap meet in Los Angeles and find better art done by locals or some Mexican immigrant than what sits in most galleries.

          Too many forget that art in the Western tradition was meant to educate, inspire and revitalize the human spirit. To show a glimpse into something transcendent in many cases.

          Reply
  2. Frip

    Severian: “Formerly pretty girls who hit the Wall at Mach 3.” My God. The “Mach 3” bit adds a sudden cruelty to it. LOL. You couldn’t just have them hit the wall could you!

    Sev: “Last, there’s the fact that the Proletariat is…. well, not to put too fine a point on it, the Proletariat is disgusting.” LOL.

    I was at a discount box store the other day, and everyone was so ugly I had to start walking with my head down so I couldn’t see people. Mostly women. I started noticing one, then two, then 5, then everyone. It was like a Walking Dead episode where the guy starts slowly realizing he’s surrounded by zombies. I left the store as soon as I could. I wasn’t just repulsed, I was depressed. You start thinking “what kind of a God” type thoughts. Like you would walking through a burn ward. I think discount stores must have a coupon day that certain customers are keenly aware of. And this is when the poorest of the poor…the rejected of the rejected, flow in.

    Reply
  3. Al from da Nort

    Old joke speaking of the proles, etc. Lackey to King; Sire, the peasants are revolting_! King: They certainly are_!

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *