The world proposed by progressists is ugly
Beauty is reactionary, just like the Right and the True, and it is so as absolute. Beauty is not relativizable. Human nature conceives as “beautiful” what is harmonious, weighted, flourishing, measured. “What pleases is beautiful” is a consoling farce, a lie told by the ugly to the beautiful. There is an aesthetic sense in animals, which react to certain colors and ornaments. The same reflection also occurs in humans. Evolution has programmed us to be attracted to some characteristics of the other sex. Roughly: men are attracted to developed and luxuriant bodies, as they indicate fertility. Women to firm and strong bodies because they guarantee protection.
Culture and individual sensitivity also play a role in the definition of “beauty”, as do intellectual qualities, but they do not detach us too much from the way Mother Nature has shaped us. After all, our aesthetic sense has remained virtually unchanged since the days of ancient Greece.
Our age denounces spontaneous aesthetic canons as products of male domination, therefore intrinsically oppressive and, therefore, worthy of being overturned. The world of fashion, vanguard of progressivism, has made this program its own for decades. The man in the street is attracted to swollen breasts, asses full and luscious thighs. Then, on the catwalks, very thin, androgynous, flat models without curves and roundness must parade. The stylists, always homosexual, can't stand the languid and buttery bodies of females. They prefer the dry charm of Russian or Eastern European models, more like boys than girls. Fashion houses carry out the ideological plan of feminists and LGBT activists which consists in denaturalizing aesthetic pleasure and sexual desire, showing that they are the result of social logic and cultural impositions.
The bodies promoted by “Progress” have nothing soft, sensual or velvety. They no longer wear pantyhose and garters, but are either long-limbed and masculine or toned and athletic, bodies of females and not of women. Figures stripped of all animality, reduced to coat rack for clothes that are becoming increasingly large and opaque. Prototypes for adolescents on the verge of anorexia. The counterpart to this dispossession of femininity is vulgarity. Many girls reveal themselves in an excessive, exaggerated and, ultimately, ridiculous way. Their fully exposed bodies leave no room for fantasy, they do not tickle eroticism, they do not caress the greed for sex. Their claimed absence of modesty undermines female magnetism. It is precisely modesty that is the engine of sexual craving, the famous “I see and I do not see”. It is a mutation that goes hand in hand with the castration of males and their feminization, that is, a homosexualization that is even not too veiled.
The prosperous and luxuriant woman, coveted by the virile macho, has disappeared along with the latter. The emancipated, smoker, anxious, nervous, career and so on woman remains. Ugly, but convinced of being of a superior beauty, perpetually in search of the “best for herself” that will never come.
It is not surprising that Gucci proposes the young Armine Harutyunyan as the ideal model. It reflects the model of woman advocated by dominant androgyny: a levelled girl, masculine and angular. Light years away from the florid body of a Marylin Monroe.
The world that progressives are making will be ugly, terribly ugly, because it is shapeless and confused. There will be neither male nor female, the natural aesthetic sense will be forbidden as it is “oppressive” and “sexist”. A future of asexual mannequins awaits us.
Published by Tommesh – ComeDonChisciotte.org:
Original column by Davide Cavaliere:
Translation by Costantino Ceoldo