View Full Version : Beauty Is Objective, Not Subjective

Wednesday, October 26th, 2005, 04:34 AM
Marxists will always deny any differences between people, because that is how they bribe the low to support them. That is why they are the enemies of any form of evaluation, like grades in schools, IQ tests, or beauty contests. And it is why they deny there is such a thing as beauty. Blacks are extremely ugly, and if you accept the reality of beauty Blacks are at a severe disadvantage. We can't have that, can we?

So the Marxists will claim that beauty is subjective. They'll claim that the evil capitalists create "artificial beauty ideals for profit." I ask: what profit? "So people will buy things like make-up and diets." Really? So Hollywood movies are financed by the awesome power of the diet industry now? No, they are not. Nice try, though.

Why would the evil make-up industry want people in movies and TV shows to be beautiful in the Germanic way that is so desirable the world over? That is of absolutely no economic value to them. Why wouldn't they, through their shadowy control, instead show movie stars - both male and female - with tons of make-up? Obviously that would be the way to go, if it'd be true that beauty ideals can be molded and no behavior is inherited.

Why wouldn't McDonald's and other food corporations, with mountains of money that make diet companies look like ants by comparison, pay Hollywood to make us think fat people are beautiful? Forget Baywatch, let's have Fatwatch! Then they'd sell more fast-food, wouldn't they? And the fashion industry would sell bigger pieces of clothing, which would cost more. And the health industry would sell more medication. Yes, if the evil capitalist could twist and mold beauty ideals to his heart's content, obviously obesity would be the way to go.

But beauty ideals can't be molded. They come from our evolutionary drive to survive. We think that which is healthy is beautiful - whatever small differences in taste there are, are superficial. Noone likes bad breath, lifeless and dirty hair, smelly armpits, wrinkles, warts, chipped teeth, cracked fingernails or spotty skin - all signs of unhealth, which is why we think they are ugly and undesirable.

Evolution and its drive to survive has molded human behavior, not "oppression" like the Marxist Jew tells us. When we understand that, we have a key to the world, a key that inevitably makes us nationalists in the end.

With his last breath in this question the Marxist will say: "But the beauty ideals have changed over time! Look at powdered wigs! Look at pale skin! Look at Rubens with the fat women in his paintings!"

When the Marxist makes this claim, he will without fail drag out Rubens. Because there is so little else to stand on.

Have beauty ideals changed over time? Only in the detail, not in the foundation. Powdered wigs, by the way, are an historical anomaly, brought on by the fact that people at the time had dirty hair. That pale skin was considered attractive at one point in history was due to the fact that work in the fields gave you tanned skin. Obviously then pale skin was a sign of your high status, which was desirable because high status increases your chance of survival. Another point to evolution, another miss for the Marxist and his all-behavior-is-malleable.

Take a wider look at history, and you see how strength and health have always been sought-after. Look at Greek and Roman statues. Have you ever wondered why such monuments are not erected today, even though all people enjoy looking at them? They would interfere with our masters' agenda.

Look at women's clothing back in history. Dresses that accentuate hips, buttocks or chest have appeared in different eras. Our appreciation for the hip-to-waste ratio, the firm ass and the big breasts come from the desire for a woman who can rear and raise children well - once again evolution's love for signs of health and survival.

Or let us look at men's clothing. Again: what a minority of French and countries nearby wore at one point in history, clothing that looked effeminate, was an anomaly, an exception to a rule that spans millennia. In the same era, the Japanese kimono shows a more normal instinct - for men, it accentuated broad shoulders, a sign of strength, which is a good thing to have if you want to survive.

Rubens, the Marxist claims, shows that fat can be just as beautiful as strength and health, were it not for the evil capitalists who for some reason insist in showing us slim damsels and strong heroes. But Rubens, research shows, was an exception and a pervert.

Link here (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/printFriendly/0,,1-531-1824218-531,00.html)

"But this new show isn't having any of that. Its ambition is to consider in detail the early years of Peter Paul Rubens and to reveal, in the process, a much darker side to his psychology. Rubens wasn't simply an admirer of innocent feminine plumpness. Like a lot of men with a taste for the failed weight-watcher, he had a thick streak of cruelty running through him. His feelings about women were edgy and confused. In Rubens, particularly in his early years, the taste for the multi-pound nude disguises some very unsettling hungers for sex and violence."
"See, for instance, what's really going on in The Massacre of the Innocents, the big Rubens masterpiece that cost the Canadian media baron David Thomson a world-record price for a painting when he bought it at Sotheby's for 50m in 2002.

"Do you know a more vicious old master? I don't. It's not just the amount of violence in the picture that is so striking but the type of violence too. Scratching, biting, pulling hair it has an unmistakably sexual edge to it. Supposedly concerned with cruelty against children, this actually has the air of a rape scene.
"Rubens painted various depictions of the Greeks confronting the Amazons, and in all of them the dynamics of the action are the dynamics of a gang rape.
"But the painting that beats least about the bush on the subject of Rubens's sexual appetites is his extraordinarily sleazy Samson and Delilah. Having been the world's strongest man, Samson has allowed Delilah to tire him out in bed. And as he droops across her in a deep postcoital slump, a gang of servants loom up out of the gloom to cut off his hair and unman him. It's a castration story, disguised so very lightly. Anyone glancing at it would know immediately that a loud masculine alarm is being sounded here about the seductive dangers of Delilahs."

Rubens was not a healthy guy. How funny that the dried-up cultural Marxist feminists that infest Western universities like vicious parasites mention his name so often in order to confirm their lie about the malleable beauty ideal. That he was a deviant, they somehow "forget."

Then again, commies are liars, and you already knew that.

Monday, December 12th, 2005, 05:32 AM
This link to the Marquardt Beauty Analysis (http://www.beautyanalysis.com/index2_mba.htm) was provided in another thread (http://forums.skadi.net/showthread.php?p=349921#post349921); thank you LG for posting it. Finally the last piece of the puzzle falls into place, and I now understand what makes up human beauty completely. This should be taught to every school child in the world.

I could never figure out why we consider the Golden Cut proportion in facial structure beautiful, but now I know. The link provides the answer: from the Golden Decagon (a pattern made up by lines proportionate to each other in accordance with the Golden Cut, which is 1.618) you can create an image of the archetypal human face, a Golden Mask. This, in turn, is made up of several smaller Golden Decagons, and at least two lines in each of these smaller decagons coincide with the larger decagon. (Just check the link above: look under Our Research - Making the Mask. Fascinating, by the way, that the Golden Cut even shows up in our DNA.)

Anyway: beautiful faces, regardless of race, regardless of sex, regardless of era - examples from many different eras are provided in the link - fit this Golden Mask!

So what is beautiful symmetry? It is simply that which we recognize as close to or identical to the archetypal human face!

Why? Because we are a visual-dependant species. We don't primarily recognize each other by using smell or sound or touch. When you hear someone calling out your name, you turn around to get a visual of him.

We use sight to identify a human as human. And we need to identify a human in order to interact, for communication, confrontation, cooperation, procreation, etc. It is essential for our survival. Thus, once again we come back to survival as the basis for human instincts! (Pretty logical, when you think about it.)

So now you know: signs of health, such as smooth skin and clean teeth, broad shoulders on men and good child-rearing hips on women - all mentioned in my post above - combine with symmetry in face and body to make a person attractive. And both symmetry and the health signs rest on our drive to survie.
(What about our attraction to paedomorphic traits in women? This is because children need to be protected. So evolution has made a child's traits strike a chord in us. When we see those same traits in women, we want to protect her - and we interpret this as attraction.)

Now we know, without doubt, what creates human attractiveness. I urge everyone to read through the research in the link provided above. It is important not just because we are nationalists and therefore devoted to finding the truth. No, it is also important in order to combat the Marxist feminists and anti-Whites. They claim that Whites are considered attractive because we have "forced our ideals of beauty upon the world." Without being able to explain where beauty comes from, many believe them - and they want to believe it, because they see that Blacks are ugly, and they want to be "nice" and say Blacks are not really ugly. They want to say that we think Blacks are ugly just because we are evil, racist Whites who think everyone should look like us.

This is what the Marxists want - to lie even about beauty to make us think we are evil and need to be destroyed. Combat their lies by remembering always that beauty is objective, and a result of evolution!

Monday, December 12th, 2005, 06:55 AM
Beauty is both subjective and objective. It is dependent on observer and object being observed. If you look at a group of people and say, "They, are beautiful." Then you are being objective. If you say, "We are beautiful," then you are being subjective. Perspective creates meaning.