Losing Beauty To Remedy Envy - Its Consequences for All Women

A Twitter follower wrote a truth - a truth that few would disagree. She wrote as follows:

When bad men combine, the good must associate; else they will fall one by one, an unpitied sacrifice in a contemptible struggle. ~~Burke

While this is true of men, is it not also true of women? Do not bad women, when they combine, become more brutal and callous by sway from other bad women with a similar view? And, if so, with whom does the good woman associate to wield enough power to defend herself? Other women, or men?

As in all collectivist societies, rather than individualistic ones (which is where we are heading in America today), it is first women, particularly the "pretty" or "beautiful" variety, that will feel a heightened discrimination by both men and women who embrace the new order. And it is not without exception that even brutality may become a feature along these lines. This is a fact shown plainly in history in countries whose socialist regimes or democracies were uprooted in coups that attacked women first, as was the case when the Pinochet Regime came to power in Chile in 1973 (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_dictatorship_of_Chile_(1973–90)#Suppression_of_political_activity) where it is noted that one of the most infamous methods of murder involved Pinochet's henchmen dropping pregnant women from airplanes and quoted as saying, "If you kill the bitch, you kill the offspring."

Similarly, at the dawn of The Third Reich, Heinrich Himmler declared in a statement he made on February 18, 1937:

We must be very clear. The movement (Nazi Party), the ideology cannot be sustained if it is worn by women, because man conceives of everything through the mind, whereas women grasp everything through sentiment. [...] The priests burned 5,000 to 6,000 women [for witchcraft], justly because they preserve emotionally the ancient wisdom and ancient teachings, and because, emotionally, they do not let go, whereas men, they are logically and rationally disposed.

So is the "rape culture" young women are talking about an exaggeration, imagined fear, or is it a "symptom" of the consequences of America's departure from an individually-based society to collective one? Is the hate women feel from men on college campuses a result of her conviction that "something has changed" that affects her? Are we on the cusp of seeing increased antagonism against all women, not only on college campuses in America, but everywhere? Is America really becoming a "rape culture" with this growing trend, or is this talk merely a political maneuver by left-wing zealots to put an end to "college frat boys" as some conservative pundits allege?

Bill O'Reilly dismissed the view that America is fostering a "rape culture." I disagree. On the contrary, I believe that - like the rise that many unnecessary hysterectomies so indicate - there is a collective conflagrant view of female sexuality that is happening - not only in America - but on the rise worldwide - commiserate also with the New World Order view (collectivism) that is in vogue with young socialists.

And women are scared - even when they do not yet understand consciously what is provoking their fear.

That in America of recent collectivism occupies a viable political platform for political discussion - and not hung out to dry altogether - is - in and of itself - reason enough to make some women on both sides of the aisle feel afraid, not only of the men who embrace the new "change" in America, but also of those women who embrace it as well and who are willing to carry out the agenda even when its consequences are detrimental to all women.

Not coincidentally, and on a sexual scale too, for those who support a more "Marxist" view in America, "beauty" is not relevant to its postulates since by nature most human beings are either plain or ordinary in appearance. Thus - beauty is not only equated with "Capitalism" and wealth which socialists love but pretend to hate; beauty - and the woman who possesses it - is viewed as representative of the "power" in the old order that doesn't square with the engineered equality socialists are seeking for sexuality itself (i.e., similar to the distribution of wealth scheme). In other words: beauty is not fair if ALL do not possess it!

The variety of culture that makes us Americans was uniquely formulated and founded on individualism that forms the basis of all our freedoms, and whether anyone cares to accept my premise or not, it is "beauty" as expressed in advertising and its association with "wealth" that spurned the idea of the grandiose possibilities that only capitalism could deliver. And though other countries would soon follow our example through its advertising and use of "attractive" or "pretty" women to promote their countries, politics and "goods," it ought to provoke thought upon how and why women featured this way extends beyond the purely sexual. For indeed here - and in some other countries as well - the symbol of a healthy, happy and attractive female in advertising not only sold goods, it sold another message as well, which was: All is well with our economy!

The hate of "pretty," sensual or attractive women then - regardless of their sexuality - is a "wrinkle" in the otherwise eco-gender-equality dream socialists seek to engineer. As representative of a healthy capitalism too, the independent female is symbolic of the "power" of capitalism that socialists hate and what that status represents - i.e., lack of control.

Does the rise for contempt of beauty then represent the decline of capitalism? Is Capitalism like a pretty, independent woman, or is it that "pretty" or "attractive" women are representative of capitalism? What does the pretty female represent? Who is she and why is she hated?

The truth is that, today, no matter what country one considers by way of example, the democracies in particular use attractive women in their advertising to represent the vibrancy of a country's economy or "power." And more than ever before - which may be evidence that capitalism globally is better for all women - advertisers use attractive women from all races and nationalities to promote their wares.

The hate of "beauty" because of its association with "wealth" then is the perversion of collectivism and the brainwash it engenders. And let there be no doubt its agenda then is indeed fueled by jealousy and sense of inferiority. Like "privilege" and its false broad-brush association with race, beauty and/or independence in our women reflects the superiority of what, uniquely, only a healthy economic life can deliver that transcends progressive notions of inequality. It remains a symbol of what is truly progressive - whether socialists care to accept it or not. And it is in this sphere - let there be no doubt by the statistics themselves - that in the end what will be the most antagonistic to ALL women if the collectives have their way - whether beautiful, conservative or not - will be the value redeemed through control of "who gets what" that is entirely destructive to all women as a gender. Control over her individualism, over her right to live independent of the collective "plan" for her, can only be achieved by collectivist controls that are bound to enslave her, including her sexuality.

This is the real story that the hate of beauty signifies, for it dismisses entirely - or tries to - the notion that "men" are engineering the parade of women as "sexual object" when in reality it is the interplay of economy - and the power that only men can wield in economic crisis - that destruction of this aspect of sexuality affects all women - whether beautiful or not. It is "capitalism" (a/k/a "power") that her looks now represent, the antithesis of what is just; and not only does this affect our women but also now beginning to affect our men. [Did anyone watch Rob Lowe on Bill O'Reilly and hear him say how he was not getting much work these days because he is "too good looking"?]

The hate of the pretty woman then is formed by a shallowness that is unbearable, and unlike most I follow on social media, it is this "shallowness," this inward self-loathing against a backdrop of pure superficiality that is killing the "spirit" of this country - for it is not only the hate of religion we see as its backdrop. Rather, in my opinion, it is the use of religion as a scapegoat to collectivize people against what is representative of capitalism (and associated with Christianity) which consequence vilifies all that capitalism represents that in turn heightens contempt for women representative of its qualities, and, in particular, the attractive or pretty woman.

So, Bill O'Reilly, the "rape culture," or the feeling of being "hated" that is being expressed by women on college campuses today is REAL. And it is REAL because capitalism is dead, and individualism, not COOL any longer. To be a woman and also individual - who is beautiful (or simply conservative) or "out of the loop" of collective thought for her independence of mind (as an artist must be to succeed as an artist) - or one who is seeking a career to better herself, rather than for acceptance by a group, is NOT playing the same game as women or men of the collectivist view and hated for not doing so. How "privileged" is that?

It was F.A. Hayek in his famous book The Road to Serfdom who, writing about the effects of collectivist political ideologies, astutely noted:

Apart from the basic fact that the community of collectivism can extend only as far as the unity of purpose of the individuals exists or can be created, several contributory factors strengthen the tendency of collectivism to become particularist and exclusive. Of these, one of the most important is that the desire of the individual to identify himself with a group is very frequently the result of a feeling of inferiority (bold emphasis added) and that therefore his want will be satisfied only if membership of the group confers some superiority over outsiders. Sometimes, it seems, the very fact that these violent instincts which the individual knows he must curb within the group can be given a free range in the collective action toward the outsider, becomes a further inducement for merging personality in that of the group.

Concluding in this paragraph from pg. 157 of the chapter "Why the Worst Get On Top":

There is a profound truth expressed in the title of Reinhold Niebuhr's Moral Man and Immoral Society - however little we can follow him in the conclusions he draws from his thesis. There is, indeed, as he says elsewhere, "an increasing tendency among modern men to imagine themselves ethical because they have delegated their vices to larger and larger groups." [quoted from an article of Dr. Niebuhr's by E.H. Carr, The Twenty Years' Crisis (1941), p. 203]. To act on behalf of a group seems to free people of many of the moral restraints which control their behavior as individuals within the group.

This left-wing envy and feeling of inferiority that is at core of all its antagonisms is not only limited to its hate of beautiful or good-looking women, and capitalism. They form too the living hell behind all the spying on Americans (to see who gets it, I presume), the lack of jobs and work only for the few, the collectiveness of the professions (blue wall, white wall, legal wall, etc.) and the destruction of the art of capitalism itself.

What is being erected instead to destroy all that capitalism signifies (whether it be physical or the successful entrepreneurship of individuals) then is a contempt that arises towards those that refuse to be members of a group. Ironically too, out of the equation arises yet another falsehood: Those who reject all groups to retain their individuality are "privileged" when it is obvious today that only those for whom membership is conferred are more privileged than any individual.

Of course the collectivist female is loathe to admit her jealousy and contempt for the attractive female, but - unlike her male counterpart whose efforts to subrogate women is more likely to be met by challenge from current laws that protect women from men - she (the rogue collective female) is easily persuaded to take this kind of "social justice" to a heightened level, and, as such, is more than willing to malign herself against, not only what the attractive female represents, but the attractive woman herself, and, thus, even against her own values as a woman, all for the "greater good," she tells herself, in the name of "social justice," "gender neutrality" or "fairness" that the "new order" promises will be better. [What she has forgotten, however, is that she is being "played" by those in power for a political end that can NEVER deliver the esteem she is seeking, and neither can its economy bestow upon her any power.]

What individual of true intelligence would malign herself in a group against herself? And who, or whom, gets the "pretty" woman but that which possesses qualities not contemptuous to beauty? How would a pretty or beautiful woman ever be safe among those whose value reduces her as nothing more than representative of values they hate?

This whole scenario has produced as well a swell of conservative men who - like Bill O'Reilly - are content to see women fail at proving claims of rape, believing as they do that this kind of thing is mere propagandist fodder for liberals - and they may be right on one level. But on another level they are wrong. And what I mean by that is - like all other deceptions the liberals are so good at, garnering the "rape culture" to fit their social engineering goals and then twisting these stories to fit the spin that it all results from our country's social conditioning of our men - is exactly what conservatives allow them to do all the time.

Rape is hate, and what conservative female is not hated on college campuses these days? (Who can remember an article by The New York Times, "Move Over, My Pretty, Ugly Is Here"!? [cut and paste link http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/30/fashion/30ugly.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0 to read it). This article was written as though there are so many good-looking people out there who outnumber all women in the United States, that one would swear the writer a woman even before inserting this link into their browser.

This is the lie the left perpetuates!! What is more TRUE is that beautiful or pretty is a minority demographic and always was. In fact, what is so tragically sad is that the women on the left who are promulgating this view consider themselves "unattractive" when they are not, and neither can "ugly" be a term used except by women to describe themselves [which has to be another article altogether!]. [I don't know about you, the Reader, but I have not seen an "ugly" woman - but I have seen the "ugliness" of human nature to be sure!] Finally - to the liberal woman who might perhaps be reading this article: Go get yourself the photo albums of at least three corporations and its executives over the last 30 years, and look at all their employees. Then look at the women, closely. There you will find the evidence that - contrary to the view espoused in "Move Over, My Pretty, Ugly Is Here"! - there are almost NO beautiful bombshells in corporate America, and there never was, but only nominally attractive people, who when viewed with respect to their accomplishments, or the smiles on their faces, are attractive indeed.

Heck, the socialists are so good at playing the fool's game. They have even hijacked the "rape culture" to make it look as though women's cries about it are the result and backlash from a "capitalistic" structure in need of more "social engineering" on the premise that the men are raping women because of the "macho" tendencies that only capitalism delivers (and, of course, it's "frat houses" where boys roam). Not so! Who can forget the hate of Sarah Palin? [I remember working as a temporary secretary in a left-wing office before the election of Barack Obama where women were sending each other photos of Sarah Palin hanging by a noose! Women were giddy and laughing over it, and the men were gleeful too, and it was gross.] The hate of her also should have been a sign all along - for it is one thing to hate capitalism, but quite another when, collectively, the hate of her arose because of her "beauty," that even Fox News was adept to report during this period when one of its correspondents noted: "They hate her because she's pretty."

It may seem odd then to admit that the nexus of "sex" must be infused with the goal of planned economy, or that social control often begins with women and is used to extinguish the individual from his art or own expression, or that destruction of art must by default make women - and beauty itself - objects of contempt. But that is what collectivism does, and it is this growing lack of individuality in our culture that cultivates a sense of inferiority and envy that when given the power that a "group" confers, can produce violence from its members.

Like art then, beauty is an individual thing, and it is that value - the end product or acquisition of what truly resides within the individual - that collectivism seeks to destroy for a false, engineered and self-serving social justice for a collective "power-based" political end. Therefore, in my opinion, we all ought to consider the term "rape culture" and what the use of the term is communicating and throw it back at all socialists to show what their policies create and deliver.