The Esthetic Prop Revisited

Finnish girls (2014)

In Wilmot Robertson’s watershed book The Dispossessed Majority (1972), in the chapter titled “The Esthetic Prop,”[1] he describes the Esthetic Prop, which he associates most closely with the “Nordic physical ideal,” as a “genetic resource” and “an enduring, deeply-ingrained esthetic preference on the part of most Americans.”[2] It is also a source of White (i.e., European) racial feeling and allegiance and one of the few remaining props supporting the White position:

It is the…Esthetic Prop which helps the American [White] Majority to hold on to the trappings, but not the substance, of its former power. Only in the sector of esthetics, through the pervasiveness of the idealized Nordic [i.e., Northern European] biological type and its continued acceptance as the national template of physical charm and attractiveness, has the Majority been able to mount a small but successful holding action in the present racial melee.[3]

In the nearly half century since these words were written our racial position has continued to deteriorate, becoming identified ever more clearly and correctly as an existential life and death struggle. The causes of White dispossession, replacement and destruction — multiracialism (euphemistically called “diversity”), non-White immigration and racial intermixture — have continued to worsen as intended, promoted and enforced by the dominant anti-White establishment, which define this process as “progress” and any pro-White opposition to it as “racism.” In this growing darkness Robertson’s words point us toward a still active beacon of light which has been given too little consideration. We should give new heed to what his words clearly suggest: that the Esthetic Prop is a latent source of power that could and should be activated to help our cause.

Can the beauty of our race play a role in our racial salvation, in preventing our racial destruction? Could the beauty of our race provide a significant source of inspiration and motivation for racial preservation and resistance to racial destruction, i.e., motivation for its preservation and resistance to its destruction? Does it have such power? That depends on the extent it is valued, appreciated and loved, not taken for granted as an unchangeable and unthreatened part of our surroundings, and the extent to which the connection between that beauty and the race to which it belongs, and the growing danger to the continued existence of both, is understood. When that connection is made and understood, as Robertson suggests, the beauty of our race is a source of inspiration and motivation, and so of strength and power, that gives us another reason — an obvious and undeniable reason — to value, care about and love our race, to want it to live and continue to exist, and to recognize and oppose the causes of its destruction.

Robertson’s concept of the Esthetic Prop was no doubt largely informed by his career in advertising where he would have experienced, and probably employed, the power of beauty first hand. Advertising uses the power of human beauty, both male and female, to attract attention and sell products. We naturally enjoy looking at beauty and so our eyes are attracted and held by the sight of it, whether in person or in advertisement, and the enjoyment of the sight of beauty prejudices us in favor of the product being advertised. This is still true of much advertising as practiced today, but was even more true in the more beauty-friendly past before second, third and fourth-wave feminism began their campaigns against it. The attraction and enjoyment of human beauty, the physical beauty of our race, has graced and helped sell countless newspapers and periodicals, and attracted audiences to stage, film and television productions. To tell someone they look like they could be a movie star or model has long been one of the greatest compliments one could give to their beauty.

Georg Lukács (1885-1971) was a Hungarian-Jewish “Marxist philosopher, aesthetician, literary historian and critic” who “was one of the founders of Western Marxism” and “has been described as the preeminent Marxist intellectual of the Stalinist era” (per Wikipedia). He was also one of the founders of the “Frankfurt School” (1922), and said that its purpose was to answer the question: “Who shall save us from Western civilization?”[4] So was born Cultural Marxism, which has been working to “deconstruct” — distort, subvert and destroy — Western civilization ever since, including the race that created and sustains it. Robertson describes Lukács’ reaction to the Esthetic Prop:

Realizing the force these esthetic standards still exert in Western society…George Lukács, who stands well outside the Northern European genetic and cultural locus, has reacted by having a “liberal fear of beauty, with [an] obsessive suspicion that beauty and, by inference, a good deal of art is a mask preventing a clear view of human evil and suffering.”[5]

Georg Lukács in 1952

To fear beauty, and obsessively see it as something that prevents a clear view of evil and suffering, is to see it in not just an unappreciative light, but as something so negative that it enables and assists evil, and perhaps even as evil in itself. The modern radical left, in its usually Gramscian Marxist derived manifestations,[6] including post-1960 feminism, has typically devalued physical beauty as a violation of its radical egalitarian principles. Given the anti-White bias of these manifestations, which has only increased as Cultural Marxism has increasingly segued into Racial Marxism (and White dispossession has segued into White demonization, subjugation and oppression), this animus has always been primarily — if not exclusively — focused on the Esthetic Prop of White beauty, making it the prime target for disparagement and demotion. In terms of Gramscian Marxist motivation, the fear of White beauty is really a fear of its power, especially as an oppositional force to the anti-White agenda, so they seek to weaken and subvert that beauty and its power by the deconstruction tactics of “Critical Theory.”

Unfortunately, there is an all too common disconnect between race and esthetics: what our race looks like, what we see, the material reality of our racial being, the physical appearance of those who form our racial surroundings or environment, including the beauty of the women men have admired and enjoyed — if only in photos or on the screen — and by which they have been inspired. This disconnect is common in part because of a culture that increasingly represses and discourages awareness of the connection between the White race and its beauty, and in which making such a connection is regarded as a “racist” (i.e., pro-White) threat to the new anti-White order of multiracialism and racial diversity. Thus there are many Whites who value and enjoy the beauty of their race, Robertson’s Esthetic Prop, but make no connection between it and the race of which it is a part and without which it would not exist. They see no inconsistency in supporting, or failing to oppose, the policies of multiracialism and racial intermixture that are replacing and destroying it. It has always been there as part of their racial environment, of which they are more of less conscious, so they might take it for granted, and assume it will always be there, and fail to appreciate its increasing replacement and the growing threat to its existence until it becomes rare or disappears.

There are also many supposed advocates for the traditions and values of Western Civilization, who regard themselves as its dedicated defenders, but make no connection between that civilization and the race that created it, and actually deny such a connection is valid or meaningful, separating it from its source and turning it into a disembodied abstraction. They value only a deracialized and globalized concept of Western civilization which they see as disconnected and separate from the biological and genetic, tangible and physical, entity that created it. But a culture and civilization are not disembodied things consisting only of traditions, customs and ideas. They are the products, the extended phenotype, of the genetic endowment of a biological entity with a tangible physical being that exists in the flesh as much as in mind, in body as much as spirit.

Among the advocates for Western civilization are also many pro-Whites who recognize it as the extended phenotype of their race — what their race has created and built — and give due credit and appreciation to the mental phenotypic traits that made these works possible, and also make the connection between Western civilization and the race from which it came, but fail to duly appreciate the physical phenotype and being of their race, are uncomfortable or embarrassed by such an appreciation, and regard it as an improper subject for notice or mention, or even as something vulgar. This negative view of our tangible racial being, rejection and denial of the value of the physical traits and beauty of our race, is not healthy. Our love and appreciation for the physical being of our race, spoken or unspoken, conscious or unconscious, is the source for the deepest and strongest forms of racial feelings, rooted in nature, and as such far more fundamental than the racial feelings based on comparatively superficial cultural values. Those who emphasize and value the cultural aspects of race while denying and devaluing the importance of the physical aspects share the view of Georg Lukács that physical racial traits, and especially beauty, have little or no value or importance. Ironically, this is contradictory to the Western cultural tradition that began with the Greeks, who famously believed that both the body and the mind, the physical and the spiritual, should be valued and cultivated.

A strong and healthy appreciation of our race, valuing and loving our race, is based on a foundation that includes a well-developed and positive sense of enjoyment and affirmation of its total existence and being, including its physical beauty, and a resulting desire to protect and preserve it as an inseparable part of our desire to protect and preserve our race. We should of course value the mind and its abilities and creations, but we should also value the body and its physical beauty. We are creatures of both, and without both are incomplete, so both should be given due appreciation. Both should motivate and inspire us to value and love and serve our race, to want our race to live, to continue to exist, and to be free and independent with control of its own life and existence.

The physical differences between races, including physical beauty, are differences we can see. As such, they are the undeniable part and essence of race. We do not need to be told they are real, and trying to deny they are real will not be convincing, as we can see them with our own eyes. These traits, including beauty, are also visibly, blatantly and undeniably racial. They are the physical embodiment of race. To deny their racial identity and connection, to disassociate and disembody these traits and their beauty from their race, to deny the existence of differences in the physical traits of beauty between races, is to indulge in a combined racial and esthetic nihilism, reducing both to nothing.

Our physical traits are also the racial traits that are most visibly, tangibly and undeniably altered and destroyed by racial intermixture. There is no need to devalue the physical traits of other races in our celebration and affirmation of, and desire to preserve, our own. Yet these traits of other races are the traits that are replacing ours through invasive non-White immigration and destroying them through intermixture, and our explicit appreciation of our own physical traits and beauty, and desire to preserve them, is an implicit expression of preference for our own and rejection of their replacement by the other.

Heidi Klum with her three racially-mixed children by Seal

In The Tyger (1794) William Blake wondered about the process of Creation:

Tyger Tyger, burning bright, 
In the forests of the night; 
What immortal hand or eye, 
Could frame thy fearful symmetry?

Many have also wondered how the joyful symmetry of physical beauty came to be, about the processes by which it was created. Many of the traits we associate with beauty are related to reproductive fitness. Others are explained as beneficial adaptations to particular environments, including skin color and the shape of the nose, jaws and eyes. It is also generally accepted that sexual selection for certain traits played an important role, that the esthetic preference and selection for these traits tended to increase the reproductive success of those who possessed them. In this sense much of what we enjoy as beauty was created by human action, with esthetic preferences being applied to favor or select some traits over others, and thus cause the frequency of those traits to both increase and continue to develop or evolve in the favored direction.

As an evolved genetic trait, or ensemble of genetic traits, strongly influenced by sexual selection in favor of esthetic preferences, it would seem likely that beauty and the esthetic preferences that appreciated, favored and selected that beauty evolved together, with these esthetic preferences themselves having a strong genetic component making them largely innate. This genetic component, as is the norm for evolved genetic traits, would not be expected to have a uniform distribution in the population, but to more likely be distributed in a bell-curve, with the distribution weighted toward the center, near the average or median position. So like beauty itself, with which it probably co-evolved, the appreciation and sense of — and sensibility to — that beauty, would have a greater concentration in the medium range near the center of the scale, with decreasing numbers of increasingly beauty-sensitive persons toward the right and beauty-insensitive persons toward the left. One would also expect this distribution to have a strongly positive correlation with the distribution of the genetic components of “ethnocentrism,” the feelings of love, care, preference and support for, and loyalty to, one’s own people.

The appreciation of beauty is not, of course, totally genetic, but also has a strong cultural or environmental component. An important distinction between the genetic and cultural components of esthetic sensibility is that the latter, being based on external influence itself, is by definition susceptible and even subject to external influences — by which it could be misdirected and distorted, or even subverted — whereas the genetic component is not. Obviously, this can cause a dissonance or conflict between the internal genetic preferences and the external culturally promoted preferences, in extreme cases leading to an unnatural preference for the physical traits of another race over those of one’s own. Cultural influences can be positive or negative in their effect on a race. As cultural and social influences have become increasingly anti-White the power of social acceptability, peer pressure and conformism has increasingly enforced the suppression and repression of natural pro-White preferences. Those with stronger genetically based preferences are more resistant to these external pressures while those whose esthetic preferences have a weaker genetic base are more susceptible.

Women have a similar appreciation for the esthetic and other physical traits of the opposite sex as men, closely connected with perceptions of reproductive fitness, but it competes with other non-physical indicators of reproductive fitness such as social status, power and wealth much more than is the case with men.

Most men in the course of their lives have had personal encounters with — or visions of — beauty that are more formative and meaningful for them than those seen only on the screen or in photographs, but cannot effectively share them as examples with others who have not seen them, so public celebrities are generally the common point of reference. Given the controversial nature of the pro-White position we cannot assume that any living person, especially a celebrity, would appreciate being named by us as an example of the beauty of our/their race. This is part of the common disconnect made between our race and its beauty, intensified by the growing anti-White animus of the culture, making it an improper and even “racist” (i.e., pro-White) connection to notice, and even more to regard as significant. Of course, there are countless well-known celebrities who are no longer with us, although their films and photographs are, and so are not in danger of embarrassment or of being obliged to issue disclaimers, and who are therefore safe to mention. There is certainly a great degree of personal preference on this subject, especially in terms of particular ranking, but there should be general agreement (outliers always excepted) as to qualification. Some such safe examples I could cite would be Audrey Hepburn in Roman Holiday (1953), Vivien Leigh in Caesar and Cleopatra (1945), Elizabeth Allan in A Tale of Two Cities (1935), Greta Garbo in Queen Christina (1933),[7] and Grace Kelly in any of the films of her brief career.

Elizabeth Allan with Ronald Colman in A Tale of Two Cities (1935)

A more explicit celebration of the Esthetic Prop is the “cheesecake” photos or art, also called “leg art” or “pin-ups,”that have long been used to help sell calendars, newspapers, magazines and products in advertising. Cheesecake and pin-ups adorned the walls of barracks and the noses of aircraft in World War II as a morale booster, and so the men, as was said, would “know what they are fighting for.” Seen in retrospect, given the subsequent downward trajectory of the White race, this could be regarded as a misappropriation of the Esthetic Prop against itself, as in time it became clear the men were deceived, that it was not really what they were fighting for, but part of what they were ultimately fighting against: their own race and its interests. Its proper appropriation, which we should use to full advantage, would be to prop up the race to which it belongs, to help inspire and motivate the upward trajectory of a White resurgence, by helping us clearly see what this time we really are fighting for.

The most explicit celebration of the Esthetic Prop in film is arguably The Petty Girl (1950) with Joan Caulfield well cast in the title role as the cheesecake model-to-be, which even features a comedic version of “esthetic arrest” (see below) in the scene where artist George Petty (Robert Cummings) first sees Caulfield gazing at Rodin’s sculpture The Kiss in a museum.

Joan Caulfield in Hollywood Cheesecake (1991), first published in 1981 as Leg Art

Although none of these examples are overtly sexual, illustrating that overt sexuality is not necessary, the “sex goddess” types like Marilyn Monroe should also be included and fully appreciated as examples of healthy pulchritude. One assumes that the fabled beauty of Helen of Troy, whose divine patroness was Aphrodite rather than Athena or Hera, would be properly conceived as having a very powerful sexual aspect.

As mentioned above, most men probably have fond memories of women they have seen in person, or in the flesh, whose beauty brought them particular enjoyment and pleasure. These are women whose beauty leaves a lasting impression, as in the poem by Thomas Ford (1580-1648):

There is a lady sweet and kind,
Was never face so pleas’d my mind;
I did but see her passing by,
And yet I love her till I die.

The earliest example of this in Western culture is in the teichoskopia, the viewing from the wall, in Book III of The Iliad, the very beginning of Western literature, describing the scene where “fair-haired Helen”[8] hurries to the wall where the Trojan elders were gathered to watch the approaching battle:

When they saw Helen coming towards the tower, they said softly to one another, “No wonder the Trojans and Achaeans endure so much and so long, for the sake of a woman so marvelously and divinely lovely.”

A more intense example, and its profoundly inspiring effect on an unusually sensitive subject, is found in James Joyce’s semi-autobiographical novel A Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man (1916), in the description of Stephen Dedalus’s experience of “esthetic arrest,” and its resulting epiphany, as he waded up a rivulet toward the seashore along Dublin’s Dollymount Strand:

A girl stood before him in midstream, alone and still, gazing out to sea. She seemed like one whom magic had changed into the likeness of a strange and beautiful seabird. Her long slender bare legs were delicate as a crane’s and pure save where an emerald trail of seaweed had fashioned itself as a sign upon the flesh. Her thighs, fuller and soft-hued as ivory, were bared almost to the hips, where the white fringes of her drawers were like feathering of soft white down. Her slate-blue skirts were kilted boldly about her waist and dovetailed behind her. Her bosom was as a bird’s, soft and slight, slight and soft as the breast of some dark-plumaged dove. But her long fair hair was girlish: and girlish, and touched with the wonder of mortal beauty, her face.

She was alone and still, gazing out to sea; and when she felt his presence and the worship of his eyes her eyes turned to him in quiet sufferance of his gaze, without shame or wantonness. Long, long she suffered his gaze and then quietly withdrew her eyes from his and bent them towards the stream, gently stirring the water with her foot hither and thither. The first faint noise of gently moving water broke the silence, low and faint and whispering, faint as the bells of sleep; hither and thither, hither and thither; and a faint flame trembled on her cheek.

—Heavenly God! cried Stephen’s soul, in an outburst of profane joy.

He turned away from her suddenly and set off across the strand. His cheeks were aflame; his body was aglow; his limbs were trembling. On and on and on and on he strode, far out over the sands, singing wildly to the sea, crying to greet the advent of the life that had cried to him.

Her image had passed into his soul for ever and no word had broken the holy silence of his ecstasy. Her eyes had called him and his soul had leaped at the call. To live, to err, to fall, to triumph, to recreate life out of life! A wild angel had appeared to him, the angel of mortal youth and beauty, an envoy from the fair courts of life, to throw open before him in an instant of ecstasy the gates of all the ways of error and glory. On and on and on and on!

The synopsis of the novel in Wikipedia recognizes the life-changing significance of this event: “Along Dollymount Strand he [Dedalus] spots a girl wading, and has an epiphany in which he is overcome with the desire to find a way to express her beauty in his writing.”[9]

One suspects Joyce did not just imagine such an intense level of esthetic arrest, but had himself experienced something very similar. It would be expected that artists, who have so richly and devotedly celebrated and portrayed beauty in both literary and visual forms, and should have the most sensitive esthetic sensibilities, would be among those most affected by it. Dante and Petrarch famously experienced their own variants of esthetic arrest and transcendent being: Dante at the sight of Beatrice, whom he only saw twice, but was so affected that he was inspired for the rest of his life; and Petrarch at the sight of golden-haired Laura, who ever after was “the driving force behind his writing.”

Andrea Dromm in 1965 National Airlines commercial “Miami Go Go”

There is also the experience of seeing not just one beautiful woman, but several, or many, together at the same time or in rapid succession. In the days when flight attendants were still called stewardesses they were selected for attractiveness, a fact that was touted in the airlines’ competing advertising, with National Airlines probably being the most explicit in this practice.

The five stewardesses on an Eastern Airlines flight I took to Miami in 1974 looked like they could all be finalists in the Miss America pageant. Even though we hit a large air pocket I still remember it as one of the most enjoyable flights I ever took. The opening staff of the Norwegian Pavilion at Epcot in May 1988 provided a similarly memorable enjoyable experience. When I took my first trip to Scandinavia the following summer the experience was frequently repeated. I remember a bus tour of Copenhagen with a group of mostly retired Americans getting their first impression of Scandinavia, and everyone remarking about how good looking and blond the people were. I assumed they had expected a high level of blondness, but what they actually saw obviously exceeded their expectations. These are all experiences of being in a beauty-rich environment, something which, with regard to White beauty, we are moving away from rather than toward, with such experiences becoming more rare rather than more common, which should not only be a cause of great concern but convincing proof we are moving in the wrong direction.

Swedish girls during the midsummer festival

Anti-Whites can and do deny the existence or reality of racial differences in mental traits. Indeed, to believe in the existence of such differences is one of the many definitions of “racism” (i.e., being pro-White), violating and threatening the egalitarian foundations of anti-White multiracialism and racial diversity. It is much more difficult for them to deny the reality of racial differences in physical traits and beauty. They certainly try by various unnatural means, including race-bending cosmetics and surgery, to lessen the esthetic divide by making non-White actresses and models appear more similar to Whites. At the same time, working from the opposite direction, they attempt to lessen the status and power of the Esthetic Prop. One of the means for this is promoting esthetic relativism (e.g., “everything is beautiful in its own way,” or “beauty is in the eye of the beholder,” etc.), which is certainly true to a degree, as it is healthy for each race to have a positive appreciation of its own standards of beauty. But this is an evasion of the essential point, which is that each race, to the extent they differ in physical traits, should be expected to have its own racial standards of physical beauty. A more explicitly anti-White method of attacking the Esthetic Prop is lauding non-White physical traits and beauty while disparaging and degrading White ideals and standards of beauty, to support the argument that if White beauty is lost it should not be a matter of concern as beauty will continue to exist in its non-European forms.

The anti-White elements that control the culture correctly identify the Esthetic Prop as a major obstacle to their Gramscian goal of achieving a White implosion by turning Whites against their own race, its existence and all that it is, so it will self-destruct. To counter the power of White beauty they have long labored to deconstruct and relativize it, and even to debase and debauch it, but its effects are so deeply rooted in our being that the scale of their success has been far below the scale of their effort. Despite the continuous and frequently strident promotion of the beauty of non-European races the great majority of Europeans (outliers excepted) still manifest an overwhelming esthetic preference for the beauty of their own racial group. The problem is too few make an explicit connection between that beauty and the race of those who embody it. Like those women and their race, that beauty can continue to exist only if the race that produces them, and whose feminine esthetic ideal they personify, continues to exist, and to successfully reproduce them. We should do all we can to make that connection as clearly and explicitly understood as possible.

Those who lack appreciation for the beauty of the Esthetic Prop, or who enjoy it but persist in failing or refusing to make the explicit connection between it and the White race, but who value and wish to preserve Western civilization, and do make the explict connection between that civilization and the race that created it, and value and want to preserve the White race for that reason, are still of course pro-White, just sadly lacking in a powerful source of inspiration and motivation. We are still united in the same cause, for in truth neither Western civilization, the civilization of the White race, nor the beauty of the White race, can continue to exist without the White race, the source and sustainer of the existence of both.


[1] Wilmot Robertson, The Dispossessed Majority, Howard Allen Enterprises, 1972, pp 112-118. In later editions the spelling “esthetic” was changed to “aesthetic” (without the ligature or diphthong), conforming to British and more formal academic usage, as in philosophy.

[2] Ibid., 115.

[3] Ibid., 118.

[4] Robin Phillips, The “Quiet Revolution” of Cultural Marxism, February 6, 2018 at: http://www.robinmarkphillips.com/?p=4454

[5] Robertson, Op. cit., 117.

[6] Phillips, Op. cit.

[7] Garbo was a personal favorite of Robertson. He had a large picture book of her in his library which caught my eye. When I pulled it off the shelf and started looking through it he became quite animated and enthused about what she meant to his generation (he was eighteen when Queen Christina was released) for whom she personified the ultimate esthetic ideal.

[8] The other beautiful Casus Belli in The Iliad, Brisēís, the object of the conflict within the larger conflict, is also described as “fair-haired” by Homer (2.689), although about two millennia later the Byzantine poet John Tzetzes reimagined her hair as “black and curly.”

[9] Disappointingly, the 1977 film adaptation reduces this scene to several seconds (at 54:20) and totally distorts the nature – and fails to convey the importance – of this pivotal experience.

 

16 replies
    • Richard B
      Richard B says:

      Unfortunately, the “Aryan female beauty” isn’t as attracted to her male counterpart in gold as she used to be, for reasons mentioned in the article (money, status, etc).

      Speaking of the article…

      “…in truth neither Western civilization, the civilization of the White race, nor the beauty of the White race, can continue to exist without the White race, the source and sustainer of the existence of both.”

      Here’s a great quote from William James that speaks directly to the heart of the matter. I’ve seperated the paragraph so as to draw attention to each thought within the overall idea, ie; for emphasis.

      “A social organism of any sort whatever, large or small, is what it is because each member proceeds to his own duty with a trust that the other members will simultaneously do theirs.

      Wherever a desired result is achieved by the co-operation of many independent persons, its existence as a fact is a pure consequence of the precursive faith in one another of those immediately concerned.

      A government, an army, a commercial system, a ship, a college, an athletic team, all exist on this condition, without which not only is nothing achieved, but nothing is even attempted.

      A whole train of passengers (individually brave enough) will be looted by a few highwaymen, simply because the latter can count on one another, while each passenger fears that if he makes a movement of resistance, he will be shot before any one else backs him up.

      If we believed that the whole car-full would rise at once with us, we should each severally rise, and train-robbing would never even be attempted. There are, then, cases where a fact cannot come at all unless a preliminary faith exists in its coming.”

      It would appear as if we’re being looted, and not just looted, by a few highwaymen exactly because we’re constitutionally incapable of rising at once with each other so as to put an end to the highwaymen.

      Or, maybe it’s simply because we lack faith in each other, or in ourselves, or both.

      Whatever the case may be (and who can tell?), unless that changes articles such as “The Esthetic Prop Revisted” are literaly – academic. Neither here nor there.

      I’d like to think it’s possible. That we can rise up together to put an end to the highwaymen.

      But I’m more interested in putting the question to TOO, it’s writers, readers and commenters.

      Do you think it’s possible? If so, how?

      One thing is certain. It’s going to take a hell of a lot more than admiring beautiful women. Many of whom are perfectly indifferent to, or openly against, what many of us consider to be most important.

      Reply
  1. James Bowery
    James Bowery says:

    #highnoonpatriots Culture is artificial selection, race is the result. The meaning of life is creation of good and, in particular, the purpose of humanity is to create good through our cultural choices.

    Any definition of “culture” that falls short of its evolutionary consequences is essentially evil.

    It may be said without exaggeration, that the primary purpose of science is to discover what aspects of our culture have evolved that which we find good, so that we may further the creation of good.

    Studying sexual selection should be at the forefront of science so that we may apply what we come to understand in shaping culture, hence shaping humanity.

    Reply
    • moneytalks
      moneytalks says:

      >> ” The meaning of life is creation ”

      [ of life-sustaining technologies ]

      ; where [ technologies ] includes { biologic organisms }

      as a manifestation of [ creative reproduction ]

      ; and where a reproductive-capable single-cell

      ( asexual biologic organism )

      is

      { The Primordial Creative Technology } .

      Therefore , ” the good ” must mean [ life-sustaining technologies ]

      rather than

      the usual insinuated reference to an unspecified

      ” moral ” ambiguity .

      Hence ,

      The PRIME DIRECTIVE

      , for the physical survival of [ man ]

      , is ipso facto [ good ] .

      [ Man ]

      , especially but not exclusively { the occidental man }

      , and as a human being

      , is normally a { Superior Biologic Organism }

      ; and not a [ primordial biologic organism ]

      ; and thus cannot be a [ primordial creative tecnology ]

      since a human being is neither a single-cell organism

      nor an asexual reproductive organism .

      However ,

      incarnate [ man ]

      is systematicly composed of { primordial biologic organisms } .

      Therefore ,

      [ man ]

      , especially but not exclusively ( the occidental man )

      is a { Superior Biologic Organism }

      and also a { Superior Creative Technology } .

      Reply
  2. RobertDolan
    RobertDolan says:

    Beauty will not be our means to salvation and in fact the beauty of our women creates
    jealousy and provides even more motivation to destroy our gene pool.
    Notices how the muslims often kill the young white girls they have turned into sex slaves,
    and black men often beat their white girlfriends to death as well.

    Somehow I do not think diversity is our strength.

    Reply
  3. ia
    ia says:

    Quite a good article and important subject overlooked and undervalued. One little quibble: the turning away from beauty began before Lukacs. Gaugin went to Tahiti around 1890 idealizing Polynesian women. But the first big break came with Picasso in 1907, Les Desmoiselles d’Avignon. He put African masks on the European faces.

    Images, gestures and sounds in time bypass the cognitive process and directly imprint on the cortex. I don’t think most people who identify as conservatives understand the subliminal penetration we humans experience and how this affects our understanding of the world. Especially in a world where electronic media that is becoming increasingly prolific. If the media structures “reality” at odds with this subconscious imprinting there should be more weakness. People feel but cannot express that something’s not right.

    My advice to young white men is to study the arts and learn how to manipulate or at least comprehend sensory perception. It’s not so much what you say but how it’s said.

    Reply
  4. Walter L
    Walter L says:

    Who would you take to the prom?
    Michelle Obama, who adorned countless fashion magazines, and let us add to the pot, a multi-billionaire that you would collect handsomely when married, or a Melania Trump (look alike), who is shunned by all the fashion magazines, and let us add a penniless waif that you would collect zero when married?

    Reply
  5. Andrew
    Andrew says:

    A small correction: I immersed myself when I was young in the Frankfurt School, reading Adorno (“Negative Dialectics”; “Hegel: Three Studies”), Horkheimer (“Eclipse of Reason”, “Critique of Instrumental Reason”), Marcuse (“Eros and Civilization”, “One Dimensional Man”, “The Aesthetic Dimension”) and such books as Martin Jay’s “The Dialectical Imagination”, Held’s “Critical Theory”, and “The Frankfurt School Reader”.

    Based on that reading, I do not believe that Georg Lukacs had any connection whatsoever to the Frankfurt School. In fact, Theodor W. Adorno was harshly critical of Lukacs for his “realism”.

    Having read Lukacs’s “Marxism and Human Liberation”, I know that Lukacs was a great admirer of Sir Walter Scott, of all people, seeing in his novels set in medieval England an agenda for social justice.

    Another person who is wrongly associated with the Frankfurt School is the psychoanalyst Erich Fromm.

    I think it is a huge mistake to associate the Frankfurt School, circa 1920-1975, with the crude racial and gender identity politics of today.

    Apart from Marcuse saying something about people in the Third World being oppressed by Western imperialism (which they were and still are), and therefore constituting a potential “revolutionary class”, the Frankfurt School intellectuals were not anti-white, anti-male, or anti-European per se.

    Although Marxist, they rejected all of the existing Communist regimes — Soviet Union, Red China, North Korea, Cuba — at the time. I’m sure they held it very much against Lukacs that he worked for a Communist regime in Eastern Europe. They saw such regimes not as liberating, but as totalitarian dictatorships.

    The greatest crime that I might find the school guilty of was Adorno’s participation in writing “The Authoritarian Personality”, which said that the average conservative, sexually traditionalist, and racist white man in America was a “fascist”. (but then, is it really worse to be a fascist than a communist or a capitalist? I won’t go down that rabbit hole here…)

    “The Authoritarian Personality” was written in the wake of WW II and Nazism. The members of the Frankfurt School were Jews who had fled Europe. They were in a paranoid state of mind — like Jews generally are almost as a rule — and they were trying to integrate politics with psychology in order to develop a new theory of personality.

    Their enemy was conformity to existing society, which they deemed oppressive. And their blind spot was their failure to see how — as conformist as white America was at that time (the 1950s) — it was also, paradoxically, highly individualistic and anti-authoritarian. In other words, they did not understand America or Americans.

    And they did not know the extent to which the battle they thought they faced had already been won. While they obsessed over what amounted to mild anti-Semitism in the United States, American Jews were running Germany and making sure that Germans would never stop being punished for rightfully standing up to the Jews and driving Jewish communism and Jewish finance capitalism out of Germany.

    One useful concept I picked up from the School was that of “repressive desublimation” (Marcuse) — the way that dissent can be neutralized by being marketed as yet another consumer item. The whole 1960’s “revolution” was easily defeated in this way.

    But now we live in a different world. There is no need to desublimate revolutionary impulses because there basically aren’t any. The political and financial Establishment as it exists today IS the revolution — but it’s a cultural revolution a la Gramsci (the “long march through the cultural institutions”) that is now moving on to its next phase: The establishment of a one-world totalitarian government — Chinese style — complete with social credit scores and punishments for those who do not keep their mouths shut and do what they are told.

    Reply
  6. Rob Bottom
    Rob Bottom says:

    Indeed, the attack on the white male is in full sway. Today, the emasculation of the white male in the media, which pushes white men as transsexuals, must be having a hugely negative effect on the way our women perceive us. It was not enough to slowly edge white males out of athletic competition, no, they have to showcase the most aberrant white males while non-whites become manly, muscular, and “alpha.” It is a fact that homosexuality and transgenderism are more common among African-Americans than whites, yet we rarely, if ever, see African-American males as emasculated, homosexual, or transgender figures in the media. This is of course an intentional omission on the part of the media. They want white women to instinctively reject white men as potentially closeted effeminate homosexuals or mentally ill trannies.

    Reply
  7. Vehmgericht
    Vehmgericht says:

    For leftists, white women are only be thought to be beautiful or desirable as an expression of the hateful hegemony of Whiteness. They enjoin that there are no objective standards of beauty, only the aesthetic of the ruling class, which can vary from time to time and place to place.

    Hence the bizarre campaign to pass off morbidly obese or disfigured persons (of either sex) as pin-up models. But the masses will not be deceived, for in so fundamental a matter as the urge to perpetuate life, Nature cannot be gainsaid by Man’s ideologies.

    From a scientific point of view, beauty correlates to fertility and immune competence. The Romans knew this, for in Latin ‘deformed’ means ‘away from, or down from, the beautiful’.

    It seems, as the article states, that the classic sought-after traits of western women: fair skin, lighter coloured eyes and fine textured hair, are recessive compared to the corresponding African genetic elements (alleles).

    Indeed, for all that we are told ethnicity is no more than skin-deep, it is easy, despite admixture or cosmetic surgery, to discern sub-Saharan ancestry. I find the bulging so-called ‘Bantu Brow’ and depressed nasal bridge to be salient ‘tells’.

    The urge to decry, belittle and destroy beauty, be it white women, or the incomparable best of white civilisation and art, is of course founded upon the Nietzschean concept of ressentiment, or more simply sour grapes. What one cannot produce or legitimately possess one wishes to seize, defile or destroy.

    That at least is the mentality of children, slaves and the permanently aggrieved, and for that reason that we should be unapologetic about sharing ‘our things’ only with those who can appreciate them.

    Reply
  8. Tim Folke
    Tim Folke says:

    This fine article reminds me of the reason why – in the words of David Lane – our folk must prevail: “So that the beauty of Aryan woman shall not perish from the face of the earth”.

    Reply
  9. Barkingmad
    Barkingmad says:

    Doesn’t matter how beautiful you think they are, being an actress cancels it out. Only a few generations ago, white parents were aghast that any daughter of theirs would want to go into films or stage acting. Maybe they felt the same way about their sons, too.

    Acting is nothing more than an elaborate form of lying and our people knew it, figuring out what it would lead to down the pike. And it’s all come true.

    Reply
  10. Thomas
    Thomas says:

    Beauty is fraught territory. I’m rather homely and personally don’t find airbrushed beauty sexually attractive but have come to associate it with rejection and frustration. Thin, Sissy Spacek-type women work fine for me and I owe a lot to their “charity.” It is BEAUTIFUL. And because it is, I’m probably right now cueing the Jews to cast them in more of their interracial sex films, programs, and commercials. More articles on the coming civil war please!

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Want to join the discussion?
Feel free to contribute!

Leave a Reply

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

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.