Friday, May 17, 2024
Maintaining the home, the face, and the nation
I’m going to dabble again in the realm of generalizations. I like generalizations. They often reveal a truth that micro-analysis fails at.
Meghan Kelly recently noted that among recent protests, most of the protestors (I think she accurately noted, “all”) are notably unattractive. She can comfortably say that of course because she’s clearly attractive.
Like all generalizations, one can certainly seek out and even occasionally find exceptions but…
Indeed, among massive leftist complaint one typically finds an abundance of grotesque piercings, odd hair colors and styles, unkempt clothing, and an obvious lack of any desire to maintain or improve an attractive image. Take a look at Antifa and BLM mugshots and it’s clear that none of them will be adding to a pool of genetic refinement.
Then there are the public spokespersons in the political divide. The casts at CNN and MSNBC vs. FOX NEWS. Jesse Waters vs. Wolf Blitzer. Meagan Kelly vs. Joy Bayhar. Charm vs. dissonance — Flowers vs. Mud.
I’ve noticed that those who protest wildly about “the environment” often have a horribly neglected personal environment. I don’t know what Greta Thunberg’s home looks like, but I’d venture to wager it’s probably about as neat, clean, and organized as a six year old’s toy closet.
Again, accounting for exceptions, the right side of the spectrum has plenty of attractive to very attractive personalities. The left, definitely not so much. Even among those on the right who aren’t particularly stunning, their clothing choices, hair style, and cosmetic effect indicate that they try to maintain and improve their image.
The Jacobin rabble (and they are nothing but a rabble) don’t care how they look for the same reasons they don’t care how their homes, cities, or nations look. Whether by intention or otherwise, the left brings ugliness to buildings, cites, and life. They are dissonance, caught in a vicious cycle of resentment, anger, care-less-ness, and disregard for improvement. An appealing design is seen as an attribute of capitalist materialism, a neighborhood in disrepair, a badge of honor.
Rudolph Giuliani was noted for adopting the “broken window” theory to city governance, the idea that tolerance for minor neglect and tolerance for petty crimes will extrapolate into urban decay and major crime (duh!), something we see today in New York City (and all Democrat-run cities). “Broken windows” are the least of their failings.
Look at their buildings (see the FBI headquarters and Boston City Hall ), look at their homeless tent cities (something easily and temporarily remedied when Xi Jinping visited California),…look at their faces. The cover of a book at least gives you an idea of what’s inside — it’s worthy of judgement. Judge a book by its cover. An objective appraisal can’t honestly say that letting drug addicts shit on public sidewalks is a book cover for a text on fine art.
Order, symmetry, structure, maintenance, beauty, harmony and peace
Vs.
Disorder, randomness, entropy, decay, ugliness, dissonance, and conflict
Which face gives value to existence? And, which face conveys the hopeless of a deliberate path to hell?