This is how you do it

I’ve managed to subvert more of my fellow woman than any angry blackpiller ever.

With the power of pastry aesthetics.


The alternate name was Village Living.

See, when a girl loses her innocent joy at beauty, that is when the evil strikes. With apathy and misandry.

If you bar that with a solid base of good taste, evil is powerless against it. We wage a battle of aesthetics, gentlemen.

And Barbiecore as an alternative for preteens to the queer glittery bullshit and thot dress subcultures.

This is how you kill the SJW – with feminine beauty and vintage aesthetics.

They cannot hope to compete, but they’ll try.

Less wheat field, more sourdough.

You can’t sell women on giving birth, guys.

wiki: “an Internet aesthetic which celebrates a return to traditional forms of craft such as foraging, baking and pottery.[1] According to its proponents, the ideas of Cottagecore can help to satisfy a popular desire for “an aspirational form of nostalgia” as well as an escape from many forms of stress and trauma”

My definition?

Escapism from postmodernism.

Turns out cultural marxism is equally open to subversion as the things it was attempting to subvert.

No TV, less social media – less SJW bullshit and influence. Cut off their hegemonic grip at the neck.

They’re trying to re-subvert it in response, like that asinine #notvintagevalues signal, but it isn’t working.

It’s like soft libertarianism with baked goods, you can’t make it an urbanite thing. It’s polar to such coarseness, hence the instinctive appeal to white girls. Better than being ‘basic’ globalist consumerists and it dovetails to minimalism (going Galt) nicely.

This is what I’ve been doing. Well…. some of it. We’ll see how the rest pans out.

‘Dark Academia’ is pushing all the slightly goth stuff I used to wear… while there, and is decidedly.. “Eurocentric”.

Have ya noticed?

Know thy place, my people.

nb. Yes I partially ripped off the tradladies but made it more normie, I doubt they’ll mind.

Cottagecore, derived from normcore, because it’s for normies, get it?

I’m also working on an “elevated” classy version that isn’t invaded by black thots pretending they’re not hookers.

Like this but with evening options.

Elegance or decadence?

5 min. Male designer speaks.

There’s a line, isn’t there? Think how much we spend on clothing today. Think how little is any good. If anything, it ought to be better. In menswear you see a lot of circulation, for instance, the gilet is a doublet.
A related discussion in vintage or re-enactment circles is the glamour/beauty debate.
Beauty is natural but human beauty never has been. Primitive tribes had shell necklaces and the torc or crown were made alongside spears. This is something we are so immersed in we cannot see it, there is a hierarchy of style and the modernist love of minimalism (it’s been almost a century now! come on!) came from an American urge to distance themselves from Europe and carve out what is ironically a more rugged, romantic* standard.

Boomers were defined by the hippy look, androgyny that mimicked the political shift.

People wore wigs in most centuries for decency reasons, like hats, they wore heels and girdles, eyeliner was medicinal. Male watches, wristwatches, were originally ladies’ bracelets. To this day, the face is too large for the male wrist, they go overboard to make it look manly with a chunky appearance. If humans put effort in, and since wearing clothing is legally required, they naturally want to express who they are and where they come from and that art form shouldn’t be dismissed. The utility belt began as female, with its height in the chatelaine. Men would only have things strapped to a military uniform from the shoulders, where their muscles could take the weight. Heavy belts help women, whose strongest muscles are our thighs.
The 1950s makeup aesthetic was heavily painted, more than some looks now. There was a full face of foundation and a lot of powder. These days, with HD cameras, it would look cheap as Hell.
Men forgoing makeup is modernist, inspired by the Romantic* philosophers because it was au naturelle.

To this day, many of you don’t know where this sudden squee over the working class came from.

Yes, it was totally your idea… like the American eagle that isn’t Napoleonic that isn’t Roman…. calling it, Empire = eagles. Sciencey.

The Romantic poets had a fetish about the countryside and farmers, this continued on into Vincent’s art but began around the 17th century with still life and paintings of farmers and cooks. The simple life to contrast the urban “Enlightenment”. Industrialization got the Romantics down, they thought machines were replacing men and making them more effete, dependent. Actually, how many men can stitch a button?

There’s a physical component to gendered presentation, the scale of masculine to feminine.
Modern looks are androgynous, even for men. Denim is andro, cotton, andro, jeans, andro, boots, andro, ties, andro, scarves, andro, t-shirts, andro, it’s all andro-andro-andro-andro!

For real.

Look around and see for yourself.

Women aren’t dressed like men, men are dressing more like women. Do you need a loose fit of maternity wear? Think back to 1980s suits to now, picture the silhouette. Modern men cover up way too much skin, historically. Why? Well, they don’t fight, there’s no body heat being lost. Sports replaced wars. The wealthy areas tend to be cold or polluted, so we cover up. Powerful men are in vogue, fewer dandies and more fat old men, who tend to cover up.

Long coats are Byronic, like long sleeves. Cravat and tie are basically the same thing in French. Grooming became more important, they didn’t just drop a standard so telling women to forgo makeup would be like telling men exactly which hairstyle to wear regardless of face shape and job and climate and whether or not they were allowed a beard, absurd in any time period. Makeup, like hair style is also cultural. You can see comparisons on Youtube of say, French and American makeup. Men couldn’t have beards in the upper classes until soap and good hygiene became the norm. There were reasons for the aristocratic fashions and all grooming is good grooming, with the exception of anal bleaching.

That would be masochism.

Suits, for instance, change how a man walks. Other men don’t notice, we do.
If a man can’t buy a good pair of shoes, do we trust him?
The effect on manners and a sense of personal dignity cannot be under-estimated.
As one man I know put it, he recently got into vintage and said “I know now that I felt like shit because I looked like it.” People responded to that insecurity signal. Depression is linked with unemployment but also sloppy dressers.
Why is there an envy of the stylish? They look happy. We imagine them contented.
It’s different to pin what caused what and I’m not a man so your feels aren’t my beeswax.
When we picture a utopia, what do we spotlight? What they wear. Instinctively, you care. Cosplay is all about the style and the feel of an era, what it represents. Living history, I’ve heard it called, like recipes and music.

They build up on skills and those traditions are rooted in history, in a country and time.

20m. German lady.

A critical aspect of femininity is presentation and expression.
It isn’t limited to women, however, men gain a collective identity more.

It affects how you carry and identify yourself. Think military uniforms.
This concept was floated in NRx years ago but I figured I’d bring it up again.

6m. French designer.

There’s a distinct pride element, whether it’s class, sex, nation, occasion (we still dress up for weddings..) and think how many aspects of appearance are banned or frowned upon (up to the English flag, because it might offend).
SJWs themselves cannot resist the siren song of a uniform but the blending is childish, Monroe catseye glasses with a Betty fringe and Audrey shirts, they signal an ignorance of feminine style. It’s pure fashion and poorly crafted as a look. There is no style.
How many people dress like hoodrats and chavs that wouldn’t dream of it ten years ago? Thanks to Anonymous making it middle class rebellion.
How did wearing Mom Jeans become Tech Guru status? Apple smartphones.
Why don’t men wear hats and spats and carry canes?
Where did all the petticoats go?

These sound superficial but the fabrics follow the philosophies. Designers respond to demand.
We dress cheaply because clothing is made cheaply. That makes us cheap people. History will view us as such. Trends set in LA temperatures look ridiculous in Europe. I said it.
Please can men discuss this because obviously I don’t want to tell you what to wear but women notice. We note the expression and effort, why else do you think the gay best friend thing came about?

This isn’t superficial, aesthetics is critical. It’s the ultimate emotional appeal (looking good) and, no offense, but the signal of sophistication and elegance is one few people could ever make. Natural beauty is genetic but style is a level playing field. The dress-up montages in film and anime are a token marker of stepping into a social role (think Iron Man suiting up) and mature responsibilities.

I’ve noticed one particular thing I want to point out before I set this festive post on a timer: PC culture has risen as appearance has gotten more sloppy. With weak signals from look, the verbal mannerly side has gone into overdrive.

Beauty relieves pain

On the right tab of more articles, plenty of papers on neuroaesthetics.

Beauty is real.

Neuroaesthetics is an emerging discipline within cognitive neuroscience that is concerned with understanding the biological bases of aesthetic experiences. These experiences involve appraisals of natural objects, artifacts, and environments. Because aesthetic encounters are common in everyday life, exploration of their biological bases can deepen our understanding of human behavior in important domains such as mate selection, consumer behavior, communication, and art. We review recent evidence showing that aesthetic experiences emerge from the interaction between sensory–motor, emotion–valuation, and meaning–knowledge neural systems. Neuroaesthetics draws from and informs traditional areas of cognitive neuroscience including perception, emotion, semantics, attention, and decision-making. The discipline is at a historical inflection point and is poised to enter the mainstream of scientific inquiry.

There are interesting findings about the amygdala’s novelty trigger and about aesthetic expertise in the brain.

Whatever, evolution.

Link: Unrest is aesthetic gold

I’ll never tire of this man’s face. It’s Grecian god-tier.

It’s almost like chaos creates a specific social mobility between classes, including memes and various paradigms in the noosphere.

Edgy is fine, I have no problem with edge if you browse a smidge but we also need a refined side. something comfortable to counteract dull and dreary times with a dismal economic prospect. A little, dare I be very Gen Y and say, hope, to inject? Edge is incomplete, it doesn’t serve the youth’s needs. It’s one side of the coin. There’s more to offer, practical things. Gen Y and Z want solutions, not more promises and pipedreams.
I need more positive posts to balance out the internet glums of chums but it’s difficult trying to decipher and interpret these things as one person alone, it isn’t for me individually to decide. I’m not being humble, it’s factual. I have no idea where to go either, in terms of living conditions as well as this, so I can feel an opportunity and it’d be a shame to keep it to myself when I can’t do anything with it currently.

I mean
there’s an opening for the traditional, and not as a barren moneymaking scheme. I’d rather our lot fill it than the enemy, who hate beauty and want to pervert anything good with lies.

Why am I bothering, I ask myself?

Do NOT cede the culture war to these fuckers.

Please, listen, I’ve met them. They’re so much worse than you think.
The power of this one video killed most hipster culture, I swear. By making it totally apolitical and actually funny (not only if you read ABC first), it’s 100% a political jab against signalling. Bask in it.

While I’m sharing old videos with genuine comedy you should’ve seen, traditional people had wild humour.

You needn’t be obvious.

Video: Instagram make-up and drag beauty

Drag make-up is a costume. Even Duchess Katherine has been sporting Scouse (drag) eyebrows, very heavy like a Sharpie or permanent marker (often in black). What photographs well (2D) looks atrocious in person (3D).

There’s nothing wrong with makeup. Makup is largely medicinal nowadays (anti-aging, anti-pollution, SPF) as in, everybody should be wearing product on their faces. The first makeup was also medicinal to prevent sun damage etc as well, and Roman men used to wear mercury, merlot-tinted lipstick before women adopted it (same with heels from butchers, corsets to support the posture while wearing armour). Dandies made makeup seem feminine by associating it with the decandent (and, let’s be honest, poofy) French court*.

Briefly, let me explain the little-known female trolling.

Female trolling is commonly finding a girl with an ugly face (mostly bone structure) or bad makeup and clothes, telling her those things look ‘sexy/stunning/gorgeous’ and then watching her repeat them.

Most women don’t know this.

It’s the social media equivalent of So you agree? You think you’re really pretty?
Bear this in mind the next time you read ‘delusional’ girls of 4 (most 10-scale is neck-down sexual dimorphism) lowering herself to a 2 because she is gushing and accepting compliments like she’s an 8. Deep down, I think they know, because if you gently try to correct them, they shoot the messenger. They just want to be popular, they just want to make friends, and will sadly humiliate themselves dressing like a slapper to do it.

It’s like the pretty girls befriending one true uggo to make themselves look better in photos. Nowadays they befriend transgenders to look more feminine. Yes, it’s cruel and bitchy. Men do it too, they befriend one weaselly guy to look more attractive.

Eyebrows overdone detract from the other more subtle features of the face. Drag needs to be all ‘bold’, all strong, all oddly masculine with its cack-handed approach (men don’t have our gentle touch). They perceive beauty as porn stars. Like heterosexual men, they cannot perceive what specifically about a woman makes her attractive. We’re not ‘cheating‘, anymore than washing cheats them out of smelling our pheromones, it’s a flaw of the male visual perception, encouraged by evolution not to be fussy if it means reproducing. It’s an overall effect, so overwhelmed by the visual stimuli as they are, by being male and viewing a female face, that they try to imitate that intensity with crayon makeup (drawing it all on like painting entirely new features, all ‘bold’, all over). Same with vibrant hair, it detracts. You can accurately judge someone’s attractiveness based on bone structure, which cannot be faked (contouring is an attempt to mimic female orbital spaces, which cannot be altered surgically for FFS). With natural colour hair (their own), their skin tone looks best and colour seasons are based on this fact. However, some people are so boring or so attractive they can pull off unnatural colours, both are signals; the former, to get a vital second look, and the latter, to get less attention. Yes, less sexual attention. They already get too much.

By clothes, masculine clothes on the female figure make or break it (think supermodels), like Karlie Kloss. She proves that if you’re gamine, feminine and youthful enough on the face, you can pull stupid poses without looking ugly (because you retain childish innocence in your features and it looks ‘fun’) and you can wear a simple white shirt and blue jeans and look better with your figure (that shows through like a pane of glass) than other women wearing a wedding dress.

Grace Kelly contoured with two shades of powder. You can look feminine with the Hollywood techniques the drag performers actually adopted. Max Factor was the first to do the really heavy pancake look. There’s disturbingly no opposite, women who want to look more beautiful and femme (than sexy, high testosterone). There’s no opposite to contouring, but peaches and cream complexions look close, the English Rose look. It needs to be so soft and gentle in application it wouldn’t film well for Youtube videos, so they never catch on, (2D, 3D point). As for ‘men can’t wear makeup’, many successful men do. They just choose their colours (see my article on British girl makeup) very well and blend. I would say men are fast catching up to women in skincare and this includes makeup. Makeup doesn’t mean prostitute, that’s an old French idea based on rouge, it means you don’t want skin cancer and premature lines. One or two ‘strong’ features at a time e.g. cheekbones, jawline, or clear mascara, lip balm. Everyone needs concealer. Everyone. Tired? Concealer? Date? Concealer. Job interview? Concealer. Notice the guy who gets promotion always has amazing skin… almost, too flawless? Women don’t care as long as you don’t look feminine.

*Personally, I like the TV show Versailles, but facts is facts. Straight men don’t want to signal homosexuality.

The most disturbing aspect? We’re being trained to accept men as the beauty standard of women.
Where’s the feminist upset over Barbie? This would be the ultimate expression of Patriarchy, treading on our territory. They want to take what is exclusively feminine, like their property.
Men have taken away in ‘fun, expressive, artistic’ makeup culture the one thing we had left, by evolution – our beauty.

I disagree. A man will never be better at being a woman, than a woman.

Meanwhile, insulting chav makeup, which uses less product, is socially acceptable. Chavs haven’t the social power to mob you.

Link: Battling the aesthetics of modernity

Trigger warning: gross abortion picture you don’t want to see if you’re eating as I definitely wasn’t…. 

*sound of hiding pasta*

Worst part? At first I thought it was an art project.

Why? Because I’ve seen an IRL art project that looked just like it at a glance.

These are facts.

By triggering aesthetic’s counterpart, disgust, you’re furthering the Overton window.

Video: Why is modern art so bad?

I’ll interject with a little background since I happen to know something to contribute.

I once heard a thought experiment from a nouveau realist artist. They’re trying to bring back form.

If you were walking around a scrapyard, and you found this work of “art”, a little distressed and muddy, would you know what it was? Would you recognise it? Furthermore, would you feel compelled to ‘save’ it?

I’ve yet to find a better test.

AC has touched on this profound schism between the ancient standard of art (K-selected amygdala) and the postmodern ….excuse.

Historically, the turnaround point could have been at two places. The backlash against The Academy in Victorian times (Pre-Raphaelite Brotherhood’s sexualisation onward) or, it laid the groundwork for the likelier of the two. A backlash against Nazi Germany, itself in contrast to “Degenerate Art” aka what we now laud as Modern, almost a century later. When the Nazis lost, it became a show of Allies’ patriotism to oppose the Nazi standards and anything symbolically on a tangent with them (Hugo Boss suits included) and to fill the vacuum with whatever was disgusting, depraved or shocking (cough Holocaust porn cough), and call that “beautiful” to mirror the implied equality of humans (with mud) versus the racial hierarchy. What a lot of people don’t know is that the Nazis did showcase an exhibit of this inferior artwork…. next to ideal Nazi examples with perfect lighting. The contrast was apparent. Hence, when the Jews opened their own art galleries after the war, which style of art do you think they bought? Art is a market after all, a lot of money in it, and even today, the market is overvalued thanks to billionaire tax breaks. When those stop, the market will collapse, and the New Money from China will be left holding its dick.

Naturally, there are those who disagree with the analysis but the timings and statements about the only true art being ‘political art’ are persuasive ipso facto;

We can easily dismiss demonising talk of ‘the Jews who destroy art in order to break Aryan spirit’.

…Photography is to painting as pornography to real women. Both create an illusion of real thing, but leave a lingering emptiness. In the long run, the ‘real thing’ suffers. Pornography undid many happy unions. Reproduction of art conditioned us to view uninspiring beauty. It is difficult to view a painting of Mona Lisa without instinctively comparing it to its endless reproductions. In a way, the modern art was a botched response to reproductions, for an artist needs to attract attention of blasé viewers.  unz

Yet, if you dare suggest there is an objective standard of beauty, and that art must depict both beauty and technical expertise hard-won from thousands of hours in studio, the sudden shuffling of feet to disassociate with you would create another, firmer impression.

The current line? Personal ‘expression’. Lauding the Self and all it makes (cough period art cough) as God.

Think: Is the issue with the artist or the viewer?

A culture can be readily judged by the superiority or inferiority of their artwork.