The most controversial tweet of the week is it is of Sameera Khan.
Sameera Khan is of Pakistani origin, but resides in the United States.
Khan is a tweeter, an admirer of StalinKremlin propagandist and Miss New Jersey. A curious mix. Like the colors of the frog Phyllobates terriblethe most poisonous on the planet.
In his tweet, Khan compares the actress Sydney Sweeney with the danish Victoria Kjær TheilvigMiss Universe 2025.
“Only in the United States do men prefer Sydney Sweeney,” says Khan, trying to convey the idea that Americans suffer some type of disability for preferring the first over the second.
Apparently, in the rest of the planet, men like Victoria Kjær Theilvig more.
But, apparently, no. Overwhelmingly, men from all countries and all cultures have responded to Sameera Khan that, if it were up to them, They would gladly trade a dozen Victoria Kjær Theilvig for a single Sydney Sweeney.
The debate seems absurd to me.
But not because of a matter of taste, but of speciesism: Kjær Theilvig does not even seem human to me, but rather a member of a species related to the A wise manbut far enough down the evolutionary tree that crosses produce only nonviable or infertile offspring. There is something off in it.
Perhaps, I leave the door open to the possibility, we men of the year 2025 will be too cave-dwelling to appreciate the beauty of a specimen of human being from the year 35,756 AD.
In any case, The important thing is that the sexual tastes of heterosexual men seem to be more universal than Sameera Khan would like..
So it is not “America” that prefers Sydney Sweeney, but heterosexuality.
[La excepción es Mario Díaz, director adjunto de EL ESPAÑOL, al que su rotunda heterosexualidad no le impide contemplar a Sydney Sweeney con la indiferencia de quien ve llover].
But why does Sweeney sweep Victoria Kjær Theilvig among men?
I advance a hypothesis.
Because even taking the makeup and filters for granted, and although unattainable due to her movie star status, Sydney Sweeney is much closer to the stereotype of the girl you fell in love with as a teenager than to the typical Hollywood actress.
[Lorena G. Maldonado tiene otra teoría al respecto. Recomiendo leerla].
Sweeney, furthermore, is not only an icon of universal beauty, but also timeless.
Victoria Kjær Theilvig, on the other hand, is a manufactured, darned and synthetic doll, an absolute product of our time. And the proof that its beauty is temporary and the result of media conditioning is that there is not a single work of art, since the first cave paintings, that has ever exalted the kind of beauty that the Danish woman is supposed to represent.
Never.
Plain and simple, no one has ever liked that “beauty.” In good part, too, because that type of beauty has never existed until the invention of cosmetic surgery.
In fact, Kjær Theilvig meets several of the parameters that we assume for aliens in science fiction movies:
1. Elongated bulb-shaped skull, the famous “bulb head”.
2. Almond-shaped, oval eyes with irises and sclera more similar to those of a cat than to those of a human being.
A robot that pretends to be human… but not well enough.
3. Absolute facial symmetry, which falls squarely in the uncanny valley of perfection (he disturbing valley is a hypothesis coined in 1970 by the Japanese robotics engineer Masahiro Mori which describes the reaction of rejection and apprehension that people experience when faced with robots or anthropomorphic figures that look a lot like humans, but not enough to pass for one of us).
4. Empty and expressionless facial expression, denoting a lack of emotionality, without eyebrows or visible facial muscles.
5. False and artificial smiles and gestures, void of true humanity.
6. Nose reduced to two small or non-existent holes.
7. Ears absent or converted into minimal protuberances.
8. Traits they transmit the idea of simplicity or evolutionary minimalism.
9. Fragile neck and long, thin fingers.
10. Global aspect that reinforces the idea of a mind alien to human emotions.
11. Communist replicability: stereotyped appearance that converts all members of the same raza into a single indistinguishable (and replaceable) individual at the service of a totalitarian hive mind. That is, in an insectoid with remotely human features.
[Estoy exagerando por aquello del animus iocandi, pero creo que se me entiende].
To me, the fact that a Kremlin propagandist like Khan tries to convince us that men prefer synthetic beauties to natural ones makes me suspect that the imposition of unhealthy beauty ideals on women and the destruction of the most intuitive aesthetic canons harbors a destructive potential greater than that of any war.
Why else would that propagandist of Putin called Sameera Khan in convincing us that beauty lies at the tip of a surgeon’s scalpel?
Sydney Sweeney in season 2 of ‘Euphoria’.
Well, because ugliness is a political project in itself. A destructive project.
And that is why progressivism defends radical nonconformity with human nature..
Because nonconformity leads to self-mutilation.
And self-mutilation, the destruction of the self for the benefit of artificial and polarizing identities designed in the catacombs of the State. The primordial broth from which progressivism springs.
First, all the links of the individual with the solid are broken. And then he is immersed in a viscous but compact molasses, from which he will never be able to escape and which will exhaust him to the point of death.
Let’s understand each other. Putin is not progressive. But as a good former member of the KGB and an expert in the guts of real communism, he knows the destructive potential of progressivism.
And that is why he encourages it (in the West, not in Russia).
Because no society destroys itself faster than one that destroys itself..
***
Sameera Khan’s tweet reminded me of the Instagram Face. The aesthetic canon of our time.
The Instagram Face It is that supposedly perfect face that thousands of women seek through cosmetic surgery: high cheekbones, voluminous lips, feline eyes, small nose and impeccable skin.
It is an aesthetic inspired by Instagram filters and celebrities like Kylie Jenner o Bella Hadid.
Or, rather, in the cosmetic surgery operations that Jenner and Hadid have had.
In fact, many Instagram filters (and many other similar applications) are named after the celebrities who inspire them: Kylie Filter, Bella Filter.
The numbers are impressive. In Spain alone, more than 300,000 cosmetic surgery operations are performed each year. More than 800 daily. Between 30 and 50% more than just five years ago.
85% of clients are women.
30% of the clients are under thirty years old.
One of four patients under thirty years old asks for surgery, showing an Instagram filter as a model.
Bichectomies (sucking cheeks) have increased 400% in the last five years.
Los fox-eye lift (almond the eyes so that they slant upward like those of Megan Foxthe hallmark of the Instagram Face), and 250%.
Russian lips (hyaluronic acid injections that lift and define heart-shaped lips, like those of Irina Shayk), and 180%.
The result is visible.
Actresses who, after having surgery, seem like a totally different person, like Bella Thorne, Amelia Gray Hamlin, Demi Lovato o Erin Moriarty.
Clone celebrities (Kendall Jenner y Emily Ratajkowski, Anya Taylor-Joy y Zoe Kravitz, Margot Robbie y Jaime Pressly).
Middle-aged women with faces from which any distinctive features have been erased (Madonna It is the archetype, but Me Ryan, Uma Thurman o Nicole Kidman fit into the mold).
‘Body positive’ cover of Cosmopolitan magazine.
All this promoted by media that oscillate between the veneration of lifestyles that are clearly toxic to health (such as body positive) and the idealization of an aesthetic that claims to sublimate natural feminine beauty, when in reality she exalts her surgical modification, turning her into an ugly caricature of herself.
Something highly appreciated, by the way, by a trans movement that finds it much easier to replicate the beauty of Victoria Kjær Theilvig, precisely because it is artificial, that the natural beauty of Sydney Sweeney, impossible to imitate even by the best surgeon on the planet.
In reality, in the field of aesthetic surgery, a phenomenon that we are experiencing today in many other fields is only being repeated: that of aesthetic homogenization. Which is an ideological project in itself.
The more we have delved into globalization, which in theory was going to put within our reach a practically infinite supply of cultural and intellectual products, the more reality has become uniform. Have you ever had the feeling, when walking through the center of any European city, that you could be in any other identical city in any other European country?
That is aesthetic homogenization.
Multiculturalism, globalization and technology have led us towards a smaller, uglier, more impersonal world where it is increasingly difficult to find something (a face, a song, a book, an idea). that breaks out of the mold of that lowest common denominator that is ugliness.
And that common minimum is ideological, yes. But above all aesthetic. Because aesthetics is ideology. And ugliness and poverty are two sides of the same globalist coin.
Elections are not won at the polls. They are earned by annihilating the souls of those who then vote.