A British museum owned by Cambridge University recently overhauled its art exhibits and introduced new signage warning that paintings of the British countryside could trigger “dark nationalist feelings.” Another sign in the exhibit explains, “Landscape paintings were also always entangled with national identity.
The left hates beauty because the existence of beauty is irrefutable proof of true diversity - some things are better, more beautiful than others. It also proves that there exists greater competence and performance in some people, and less in others. That violates their belief in sameness, which can only be achieved in absolute mediocrity.
I had never given the role of beauty much consideration either, but isn’t beauty its own justification? It is uplifting to see beauty in the churches of Europe and the Buddhist temples of Thailand, whatever creed one holds. The aspiration to create beauty is one of mankind’s best qualities.
This is incorrect. Firstly, progressivism is not in opposition to beauty. In fact, all beautiful things in history have been progressive and all conservative things, without exception, cannot help but be ugly. This is because conservatism only emerges as a latent social force after progressivism, thus all conservative things necessarily are inauthentic, inorganic, fictitious and unpleasant to the sight.
The reason for this phenomenon of the leftist opposition to certain beautiful things is because those beautiful things have already been politicised, they are not neutral at the point of criticism.
It is no accident that all reactionaries who make beauty their object of ideology are ugly and physiologically obnoxious. As evidence of this you are free to look at a picture of the author of this piece.
“Pray to God for gladness. Be glad as children, as the birds of heaven. And let not the sin of men confound you in your doings. Fear not that it will wear away your work and hinder its being accomplished. Do not say, 'Sin is mighty, wickedness is mighty, evil environment is mighty, and we are lonely and helpless, and evil environment is wearing us away and hindering our good work from being done.' Fly from that dejection, children!”
But he also increased the number of drone murders over and above those accomplished during the Obama years.
He also praised the manufacture of and by extension the use of "beautiful bombs" and as far as I know he actively encouraged US consular and other officials stationed in other countries to actively promote the sale/purchase of the said "beautiful bombs" and their delivery systems.
Meanwhile the US is (and was) now a permanent warfare state the continuing prosperity of which depends on the increased (and always increasing) manufacture of and use of "beautiful bombs". Many/most US states depend on this situation and of the presence of military bases. for their continued prosperity
Oh, Trump is no saint by any means, but he is vastly preferable to the alternative on offer. That should tell you - although I suspect you already know - just how bad things have got.
I agree that MAGA people can be crass but what do you have against Rittenhouse? The poor boy was just defending himself against pedo thugs who got what they deserved. Whatever his many faults I’ll still take Trump over Biden. Any day of the week.
Rittenhouse is now famous for being momentarily famous. Using such infamy he now poses as an "authority" on all things political and cultural. He is of course much praised by the Trumpen-fuhrer. As such he is now doing a speakers circuit tour promoting his stuff. Apparently he is even going to speak at Kent State University where some peaceful protestors were murdered by trigger-happy police.
Meanwhile speaking of the absence of and even the hostility towards beauty and the promotion of in-your-face ugliness most/all of the dreadfully sane (even psychotic) speakers listed here belong in this category
So what? He is entitled to his opinions just as you are, and to speak wherever people want to hear him. And he was richly rewarded, deservedly, for being slandered by the media. Good for him. And he’s getting hot chicks now. Turns out chicks dig dudes who can defend themselves. Not soyboys or pedos. He may look like howdy doody but the boy is a player now. Maybe you are just gay.
The protestors at Kent State University were not peaceful. They were violent Communists. There is no moral distinction to be made between Communists and Nazis.
"Progressives reflexively strike out and mar that which is beautiful so that it does not convict them in their own squalid existence."
The left hates life and beauty. That is why they destroy, but can't create or build. Like the Red Guard, the woke revolution zealots have torn down too many statues and monuments because no one stopped them: https://yuribezmenov.substack.com/p/founding-fathers-statues-monuments-removed
The left hates beauty because the existence of beauty is irrefutable proof of true diversity - some things are better, more beautiful than others. It also proves that there exists greater competence and performance in some people, and less in others. That violates their belief in sameness, which can only be achieved in absolute mediocrity.
I have always felt a deep concern for the indigenous peoples of England.
> new signage warning that paintings of the British countryside could trigger “dark nationalist feelings.”
you should have a screen shot of that
Communism, leftism, whatever you will call it, cannot stand up to the scrutiny that comes from simply having alternatives available to people.
The beauty of other things existing is enough to refute them. So beautiful things have to be destroyed.
do people actually believe this? yikes -
I had never given the role of beauty much consideration either, but isn’t beauty its own justification? It is uplifting to see beauty in the churches of Europe and the Buddhist temples of Thailand, whatever creed one holds. The aspiration to create beauty is one of mankind’s best qualities.
This is incorrect. Firstly, progressivism is not in opposition to beauty. In fact, all beautiful things in history have been progressive and all conservative things, without exception, cannot help but be ugly. This is because conservatism only emerges as a latent social force after progressivism, thus all conservative things necessarily are inauthentic, inorganic, fictitious and unpleasant to the sight.
The reason for this phenomenon of the leftist opposition to certain beautiful things is because those beautiful things have already been politicised, they are not neutral at the point of criticism.
It is no accident that all reactionaries who make beauty their object of ideology are ugly and physiologically obnoxious. As evidence of this you are free to look at a picture of the author of this piece.
"Beauty will save the world."
-- Dostoyevsky
“Pray to God for gladness. Be glad as children, as the birds of heaven. And let not the sin of men confound you in your doings. Fear not that it will wear away your work and hinder its being accomplished. Do not say, 'Sin is mighty, wickedness is mighty, evil environment is mighty, and we are lonely and helpless, and evil environment is wearing us away and hindering our good work from being done.' Fly from that dejection, children!”
– Fyodor Dostoevsky, The Brothers Karamazov
How much beauty can be found in anything that Donald Trump has ever done or is now advocating.
Not much beauty can be found, demonstrated or advocated at his MAGA rallies.
How much beauty is promoted by most/all of his loudest supporters?
How much beauty is promoted by Steve Bannon via his War Room. Or even implied by the title of his forum - interesting choice of words for a title
How much beauty can be found in the various right-wing websites that the Trumpen-fuhrer associates with or that promote his toxic rantings.
How much beauty can be found in or promoted by the Fox "news" website?
How much beauty does Kylie Rittenhouse demonstrate.
One beautiful thing he did was not to start major wars.
But he also increased the number of drone murders over and above those accomplished during the Obama years.
He also praised the manufacture of and by extension the use of "beautiful bombs" and as far as I know he actively encouraged US consular and other officials stationed in other countries to actively promote the sale/purchase of the said "beautiful bombs" and their delivery systems.
Meanwhile the US is (and was) now a permanent warfare state the continuing prosperity of which depends on the increased (and always increasing) manufacture of and use of "beautiful bombs". Many/most US states depend on this situation and of the presence of military bases. for their continued prosperity
Oh, Trump is no saint by any means, but he is vastly preferable to the alternative on offer. That should tell you - although I suspect you already know - just how bad things have got.
You are GAY.
I agree that MAGA people can be crass but what do you have against Rittenhouse? The poor boy was just defending himself against pedo thugs who got what they deserved. Whatever his many faults I’ll still take Trump over Biden. Any day of the week.
Rittenhouse is now famous for being momentarily famous. Using such infamy he now poses as an "authority" on all things political and cultural. He is of course much praised by the Trumpen-fuhrer. As such he is now doing a speakers circuit tour promoting his stuff. Apparently he is even going to speak at Kent State University where some peaceful protestors were murdered by trigger-happy police.
Meanwhile speaking of the absence of and even the hostility towards beauty and the promotion of in-your-face ugliness most/all of the dreadfully sane (even psychotic) speakers listed here belong in this category
http://www.digital.cpac.org/speakers-dc2024
So what? He is entitled to his opinions just as you are, and to speak wherever people want to hear him. And he was richly rewarded, deservedly, for being slandered by the media. Good for him. And he’s getting hot chicks now. Turns out chicks dig dudes who can defend themselves. Not soyboys or pedos. He may look like howdy doody but the boy is a player now. Maybe you are just gay.
The protestors at Kent State University were not peaceful. They were violent Communists. There is no moral distinction to be made between Communists and Nazis.
Interesting to see convergence on this topic (which is obviously not a new one) today in particular with pieces by Sailer and Aporia discussing beauty