16 November, 2009

Beauty: It’s a White Thing

Posted by Socrates in art, beauty, jew mentality, jewed culture, Jewish brain features, Maurice Samuel, Socrates, Tom Sunic, White art/architecture, White identity, White philosophy, White thought, White-culture-as-superior at 7:46 pm | Permanent Link

A good article by Tom Sunic. Jews led the assault on beautiful, proportionate art and architecture because they hate it. They hate it because Jews themselves are ugly and they know it. Big noses, big ears – their faces are disproportionate, and worse, many Jews have a rodent-like appearance. They can’t recognize beauty when it’s right in front of them. They lack a “beauty-recognition” gene, like other non-Whites. All Jews can do is “destroy” what is called beautiful by White people, in the words of Jewish author Maurice Samuel [1]:

[Article].

[1] “We Jews, we, the destroyers, will remain the destroyers for ever. Nothing that you do will meet our needs and demands. We will for ever destroy because we need a world of our own…” — Maurice Samuel, from his book “You Gentiles,” 1924


  • Similar posts:

    1. 06/06/11 Jews: Between a Rock and a Hard Place 56% similar
    2. 01/02/09 Helen Suzman Redux 52% similar
    3. 03/19/11 Jews vs. White Beauty 48% similar
    4. 12/21/08 Online Book 45% similar
    5. 12/03/10 “We Jews, We, the Destroyers” 32% similar
    6. 8 Responses to “Beauty: It’s a White Thing”

      1. Lewis Lewis Says:

        First you say this: Jews led the assault on beautiful, proportionate art and architecture because they hate it. They hate it because Jews themselves are ugly and they know it.

        Then you say this: They can’t recognize beauty when it’s right in front of them. They lack a “beauty-recognition” gene, like other non-Whites.

        Which is it? Even niggers lust after White chicks. I don’t know if that qualifies them as having a non-white “beauty-recognition” gene as you call it… (esp since most shit-sharks are dag nasty anyway.)

      2. Lascivious Jackson Says:

        It is obvious that the Jews have a different slant on what is beautiful in art or they just hate everything we do so much that they just want to destroy it. They sure prefer White women to their own, although a lot of them seem to be going after Orientals. As for Negroes being attracted to White women. I would say Negroes are sexually attracted to anything that is fashionable. If the Jews promoted Negro males with Eskimo women tomorrow, that would become the most desirable female tomorrow among Negro males. They don’t think, they act!

      3. CW-2 Says:

        An interesting article, one of Tom Sunic’s less convoluted pieces. However, his primary motive seems to be the desire to give undue praise for the artistic achievements of the Dinaric strain of the European family.

      4. Socrates Says:

        Lewis Lewis Says: “First you say this: Jews led the assault on beautiful, proportionate art and architecture because they hate it. They hate it because Jews themselves are ugly and they know it. Then you say this: They can’t recognize beauty when it’s right in front of them. They lack a “beauty-recognition” gene, like other non-Whites.

        Which is it? Even niggers lust after White chicks.”

        The point was this: Jews, by living in the West, know what the “normal standard of beauty” is (or at least was). They know what Whites like and don’t like and tear down the former because the Jews know that they don’t measure up. They know that they’re not good-looking by Western standards. No doubt it bugs them. As for niggers, sure they want White chicks, who are previously-forbidden “prizes,” and it must give them great satisfaction to violate Whitey’s property in a sexual way. A White chick is the ultimate “trophy.”

      5. Lewis Lewis Says:

        That’s fine, but it’s different than saying they can’t recognize beauty, which is what was posted up top. They know what beauty is and they see it as their enemy, a target to be dragged through the mud and destroyed. Of course, then there’s the problem of nose jobs and all that…

      6. Socrates Says:

        Lewis Lewis Says: “That’s fine, but it’s different than saying they can’t recognize beauty, which is what was posted up top. “

        But that’s true, too. Both are true. Jews – and other non-Whites – can’t recognize real beauty per se, and I mentioned that fact in the post. See the last sentence. They only know what White people CALL, or consider, beautiful. Make no mistake, they know very well the “standard of beauty,” simply by being in the West. As Dr. Pierce said, they’re superficially Westernized. Of course, that standard is vanishing.

      7. Tim McGreen Says:

        I don’t like how the author divides up the White people of Europe into quasi-zoological classifications, like Dinaric and Alpine-O or whatever. We are all White, except for those southern Iberian and Sicilian types, many of whom no doubt have at least some Moorish blood. But that can be washed out in a few generations.

        As far as art goes, the Japanese probably have the most attractive non-White art, but it is static and repetetive. I don’t think the style of Jap art has changed in over a thousand years.

      8. Adam Says:

        From this promising beginning:

        The idea of physical beauty — and its plastic, graphic, or verbal expression — is of European origin.

        Dr. Sunic then steers his article into boggy ground, in which he seems to imply that all non-white conceptions of beauty are derived from whites. This goes too far. Certainly, there is an alien kind of beauty to some non-white creations, of a type that is not imitative. Many examples could be given: The Taj Mahal, Ming pottery, Angkor Wat, Chichen Itza and Uxmal, Japanese samurai swords, some haiku, the Tao Te Ching, and even the Bible are beautiful — just not beautiful in the same sense that Western art and literature are beautiful. We can appreciate them, but it’s like appreciating something produced by an alien life form. Because we are white, we don’t fully share the producer’s thought patterns, and can never fathom their idea of beauty in the same way we can our own.

        Probably it would be better to say that abstracted beauty, the concept of the beautiful as something existing in itself, is only developed in members of the white race. Our race has a reverence for the beautiful that reifies and objectifies it, which is probably the source of the white gift for science, itself presupposing a similar appreciation for objective truth. As Keats wrote:

        “Beauty is truth, truth beauty,”—that is all
        Ye know on earth, and all ye need to know.

        That is all WHITE men know, or need to; and that is why their science progressed when the rest of the world’s stagnated. Jews, on the other hand, notoriously know truth as what’s good for themselves, and perhaps for that reason can hardly be said to understand the concept of beauty at all. For their Asiatic minds, truth is what the rabbi says it is, just as for the Chinese or Japanese it’s what the Chairman or what the Emperor says. That’s why they are ants, and we are giants.

      Leave a Reply

      You may use the following HTML tags in your comments.

      <a abbr acronym b blockquote cite code del em i q strike strong>