Instauration: Waspishly Yours [Barbie]
Posted by alex in Instauration, self-esteem, Wilmot Robertson at 10:25 pm | 
Permanent Link
[from Instauration, February 1998]
The latest outrage perpetrated by feminists, especially those with pans like the pan-faced Betty Friedan, is what they’re doing to Barbie. They are raping that Aryan image of female perfection because she glows with an iconic beauty impossible for women to achieve. Imposing such unduplicable standards of perfection, we are told, destroys female self-esteem.
Why should all these Chosenite uglies lambaste Barbie and roast her on a spit of spite? Because, they say, she creates a feeling of inferiority in all womankind.
Since Barbie represents an impossible ideal, she automatically sows seeds of low self-esteem in little girls. Come to think of it, why didn’t they shoot Grace Kelly in the cradle, before she had a chance to intimidate all those shanty Irish with her Nordic beauty? Surely her untimely death was a boost to every female’s self-esteem. So why don’t we give a medal to the murderer of JonBenet Ramsey, for didn’t he/she save a lot of little girls from low self-esteem?
Who said that women — especially feminists — are not logical? Who said that the male executives of Mattel were spineless? Because they merely manufacture toys, does that mean that money shouldn’t be priority #1? Who said that American public opinion was stalwart against facial warts? So Mattel, the makers of Barbie, caved. They agreed to produce a new, politically corrected, less intimidating version of Barbie.
The new Barbie will have a thicker waist to store more waste. But how close to a beer keg will she have to become not to threaten Roseanne? The new Barbie will be shorter. But how short will she have to be to raise Dr. Ruth’s self-esteem? The new Barbie will have smaller and fallen breasts and peasant thunder thighs. But how many pounds will she have to gain not to threaten Bella Abzug’s buxom beauty?
Can’t you see it now? People who live in glass houses shouldn’t throw Sharon Stones. Can’t you see the Candice Bergens of the world speeding off to their plastic surgeons to get a crook or a hook put into their noses? What happens to liposuction and breast implants? As well as ruining the toy industry, do the feminists also hope to impoverish every plastic surgeon in Beverly Hills and Brighton Beach?
But why stop with noses? If you really want to raise a little girl’s self-esteem, why not give her a real dose of middle-age reality/ Why not destroy her childhood fantasies altogether? Why not endow the new Barbie with varicose veins, stretch marks and the dish-lips favored by African Ubangis?
Down with Venus de Milo, because she’s perfect, despite her two amputated arms. Down with the Discus Thrower by Myron. Who throws the discus anymore, when all the money is in basketball, even if you lose a few megabucks by wringing the neck of your “racist” coach? Down with Michelangelo’s David, the Renaissance ideal of male adolescence. Shame on broken-nosed Michelangelo for projecting his Roman-nosed ideal onto posterity. And shame on those sculptors who don’t use Danny DeVito instead of Robert Redford as their model for the male ideal. And to make sure he doesn’t create performance anxiety in men (and moist fantasies in women), let’s “improve” David by patching on a pot belly, a hook nose and the round-shouldered slouch of a scholarly rabbi. And, since this is a Hebrew hero we’re enhancing here, why not give him a medical degree or a Michael Milken flair for junk bonds, deception and bankruptcy? The prospect fills me with male self-esteem. Who wouldn’t prefer to look like Peewee Herman rather than Brad Pitt?
A man’s reach should exceed his grasp or what’s a heaven for? All of us are standing in the mud, but some are reaching for the stars. Man may be the measure of all things, but God is the immeasurable length of man’s longing.
Speaking of God, if Barbie represents an impossible ideal of perfection, what about God, the uncaused first cause, that image of perfection we should all emulate? Shouldn’t Jesus, at least, have a few wens, a few peekaboo imperfections, to make Him more imitable? (When was the last time you walked on water, multiplied loaves and fishes or were resurrected from the dead and ascended into heaven? What was God thinking, to have created such an impossible ideal? No wonder so many choose to worship the devil.)
Italians of the Renaissance perfected the Greek notion of art as mimesis (an imitation of reality). Aristotle saw everything in nature as striving to achieve perfection. The oak tree keeps producing crop after crop of acorns not to feed and produce the perfect pig, but in the deathless and undeviating hope of evenutally producing the perfect oak tree. Mankind is constantly striving to reproduce perfection in its progeny. (What the Greeks called teleology, today we might call evolution.) The point is that everything in nature is striving to achieve an ideal. Each species is struggling to attain a flawless paradigm of its own kind. Aquinas and other philosophers of the Middle Ages called God the flawless form that encompassed all the other forms of divinity. As English poet and lexicographer Dr. Johnson once said: The purpose of art is not to paint the stripes on the tulip, but the picture of th etulip as a whole. A gentleman in the 18th century did not wear high heels and a powdered wig to keep his head warm, any more than a woman wore a corset to improve her breathing. The idea was to mimic perfection, to “anticipate” nature in the perfection it was trying to achieve. Now we laugh at perfection and powdered wigs; that’s called democracy. So why do women continue to wear makeup, pantyhose and tah-rah-rah boostee-ays?
Should Shakespeare be extolled as a paradigm for poets? In order to salvage one’s self-esteem, shouldn’t poetry doggedly be dumbed down to doggerel and greeting-card verse? Would that idealized version of immortal woman, Mona Lisa, look less intimidating with warts and a mustache? Instead of David, would you choose a naked statue of Yitsuck Shamir to represent ideal manhood? To each his own, but my self-esteem is lifted, not depressed, by projections of the ideal form, male or female.
What would it take to return Michael Jackson to his original state of nature? Was he trying to perfect the acorn through all that bleaching and plastic surgery? Would it really be an improvement of th ideal to have David slay Goliath while the Hebrew hero was decked out with a broad flat nose, kinky hair and an organ politically corrected by Lorena Bobbitt? Would you feel better about yourself (not to mention the human race), if Ronald Colman and Errol Flynn were politically corrected to look like Yaphet Kotto or Dennis Rodman? Would you denominate Alan Greenspan and Arik Sharon as models of male beauty?
If you need to denigrate Barbie in order to raise your self-esteem, you may lose whatever self-esteem you had.
V.S. STINGER
20 April, 2006 at 10:48 pm
http://www.awfulplasticsurgery.com
21 April, 2006 at 5:43 am
Some White women today will dye their hair blonde to appear more “White” to attract more males. But the odd thing about this is their trying to attract the dark skinned males.
Where I live there are a lot of Southern Italians, Arabs, and Mexicans. Many of the Southern Italians are darker than the Arabs or Mexicans.
The women are falling all over themselves to marry one of these dark skinned males. The White women want to appear more White to be more attractive, yet their children end up being dark skinned like the fathers. You would think that they would try to marry as White as possible so that their children would be as White as possible. (hence, more attractive)
This must be part of the culture of White self destruction that is happening in the U.S.
I have 3 sisters who are all racially aware. They wouldn’t think of marrying a dark skinned male. They all married northern Europeans. I asked them why they would only marry N.Euro, and they said they want their kids to be as White and intelligent as possible. Preferably blue eyed, blonde hair.
21 April, 2006 at 7:12 am
This latest outrage (to White family life) ties in directly to the intended plan described in detail in ‘PROTOCOLS OF ZION’ published over a 100 years ago. With that kind of accuracy, wonder why that is?
21 April, 2006 at 8:12 am
…because the author of that book wrote a whole lot of things so something will always fit, and he wrote about the psychological warfare that is only logical, and that he had already witnessed.
21 April, 2006 at 8:23 am
Good essay. It symbolizes the difference between the only two ideologies, left and right if you will. The left goes fishing for support by offering an end to standards and demands, Feel-Good instead of Duty. The right will always strive for something higher, even when it is hard.
It is clever to appeal to women by saying there is no natural beauty, it’s all subjective, the evil corporations and patriarchy want you to achieve the impossible as a way of keeping you down. (“So they’ll sell make-up and clothes,” the feminists say. And you can’t do that when women are fat? The food industry has far more cash than cosmetics; wouldn’t they want to sell obesity as a beauty ideal? If it’s all subjective, why couldn’t they? And the clothes manufacturers would sell larger and hence more expensive clothing to an obese population. More medicines would sell too, so the medical industry would like to sponsor obesity-is-beauty as an ideal too. And yet, noone does. Because what we think of as beautiful is not subjective, it is objective. Whatever little variations there are, they pale in comparison to the major ground rules.)
Funny, I have never heard men complain about male athletes setting impossible standards for us. Never heard men complain about Michelangelo’s David. It used to be that we could appreciate these things without a fight.
21 April, 2006 at 8:24 am
I think most people see that there is something wrong with the feminist lie about subjective beauty, oppression etc, but they have no way of expressing counter-arguments. I suggest you all read http://www.beautyanalysis.com/ to study just what makes a certain symmetry in the human face attractive; the Golden Cut appears in it frequently. It turns out, we like the face that is close to the human archetype, which stands to reason: those cavemen who recognized and sought the company of other humans would interact with them, have a better chance of survival therefore, and have more offspring. At Beauty Analysis you can read of just how that human archetypal face is composed.
21 April, 2006 at 8:57 am
I once got into an argument at Uni. I said that it is possible to be objective about aesthetics, though not so rigorously as the sciences. I said that Beethoven is better than the Beatles. The girls said ‘it’s all subjective’. So a deaf man writes the 9th symphony – hundreds of instruments and voices all written to note – and that’s only ‘equal’ to two fuckers with guitars strumming some chords and two other fuckers adding a beat and a lead? Come on, that’s just hubris.
21 April, 2006 at 11:58 am
So what does a wog ninja suit do for self esteem,apart from protecting society from a sight that is truly frightfull.
21 April, 2006 at 12:21 pm
It’s just cunt. Hubris requires a measure of intellect.
21 April, 2006 at 12:33 pm
Not all women can look like Barbie. I seriously wonder whether Barbie is a symbol of decadent West (or “Modernity”), where image of “perfection” is everything, and honest qualities in a woman are not important anymore (a robust woman who will bear and feed robust children, for example). So you may be picking the wrong fight.
@Whitepride: The conclusion is that those women don’t think much about their children, more about themselves. They want to be like this actress!
21 April, 2006 at 8:41 pm
The pursuit of physical beauty, a symbol of decadent West? Century after century, we have loved physical beauty. If that’s decadent, then the history not only of the White race but of all races has been decadent every year for millennia now.
You say we should celebrate robust women instead, because of their ability to rear children – a survival trait. Does the sight of a robust woman make you hornier than a slim, sexy one? Do you think the instinct in you to desire the sexy is a temporary thing only – that such an instinct has been implanted in you by a decadent environment? Evolution, not environment, creates instincts. That’s the difference in belief between us and the enemy right there.
We find a certain hip-to-waist ratio attractive because it shows child-rearing capability, and that ratio doesn’t have to be what you would call robust. We find firm breasts attractive as a sign of health, same as with smooth and unblemished skin, uncracked nails, clear eyes, a clean breath, whole teeth, a symmetric body, untwisted limbs, hair, etc. It is not a sign of decadence, but the opposite.
We also find paedomorphic traits in women attractive – child-like traits – because it is our male instinct to protect the weak woman. Women know this instinctively, which is where the fluttering of eyelashes, the raising of eyebrows to make eyes appear larger, the lowering of heads to make the eyes appear to be farther down in the face like in a child’s face, comes from. All of this and more is instinct.
There is so much more to say in this matter, so many more details in our behavior to study – all of this should be taught to kids in grade school. Evolutionary psychology is extremely important to nationalism, as it shows where our behavior comes from, and unmasks the Marxist lie that “oppression” shapes us and society.
21 April, 2006 at 10:40 pm
The married couple who designed and marketed the Barbie doll back in the 1950’s USA, patterned Barbie after Bild Lili. Bild Lili was a post-2nd world war German newspaper (hence the Bild in her name) caricature of a young German lady who earns her money by being promiscous with Allied Occupation Forces. There was a Bild Lili doll marketed to adult German men, but not to children as this was late 1940’s. Whether Bild Lili’s creators were Jewish or not is unknown to me. Barbie’s creators almost certainly were. A documentary about the origins of Barbie that I saw recently was most revealing. Barbie was lauded as being a prototype “Sex in the City girl” by the various Jewish, Feminist and/or Homosexual commentators.
22 April, 2006 at 7:03 am
“Does the sight of a robust woman make you hornier than a slim, sexy one? ”
Sometimes, dude. Come on. Kate Winslett? There’s much to be said for curves and “soft billowy flesh”. They usually have bigger tits. Give me a robust Scottish bitch over a tanned mallrat blond any day.
“We also find paedomorphic traits in women attractive – child-like traits – because it is our male instinct to protect the weak woman.”
Are you sure it’s so honorable? It may be in part, or in certain cases, but have you considered that simply find a youthful look more attractive? does the sight of a business executive-type femme pushing 30 excite you more than a 15 year old in hip-huggers with glitter on her cheeks?
“and unmasks the Marxist lie that “oppressionâ€? shapes us and society.”
But of course it does. There has always been an upper class and lower class, mutatis mutandis. We are the present lower class. Are we not shaped by this experience? The error of Marxism is believing this state of affairs can be abolished, that oppression is unconditionally “evil”. Otherwise it is mere power-relations: it would be illogical to claim that individuals are *not* shaped by their status.
23 April, 2006 at 9:17 pm
Sometimes, dude. Come on. Kate Winslett? There’s much to be said for curves and “soft billowy flesh�.
Eeep, strawman right there. I didn’t say anything against curves. You’re having me talk about very slim women in this discussion, but I’m not.
Are you sure it’s so honorable?
The instinct to protect weak women? Yes, that’s a requisite for survival of a group. I’m not sure I follow the rest of your paragraph there, not sure what the executive-type and the girl with hip-huggers have to do with this specific question.
You actually are Marxist in your thinking, if you say that people are shaped by their position in society, not the other way around. That’s very central to Marxism, that 180 degrees turn in cause-and-effect. So Blacks would be criminal because they are at the bottom of the rung, for example.
But it is survival, not “oppression,” which explains human evolution, and how societies are made up: why there are families, for example. Not so that parents can “oppress” their children and men can “oppress” their wives, but because it makes specialization possible between the parents, and provides protection for the mother, and because those with an instinct to stick together and give their own children a good start in life have passed on their genes. So you see that survival, not “oppression,” explains families.
Same with hierarchies: evidently, only a society with specialization will survive, which will naturally place some above others in the chain of command – not because of “oppression,” though there will sometimes be that, but because it helps a people survive. George Rockwell wrote about hierarcy as one of the fundamental parts of National Socialism, which is very much based on an understanding of evolution, although Hitler et al didn’t use that specific wording; you can read what Rockwell wrote here:
http://www.nsec-88.org/engfre.html
If you are interested, go to the book White Power, and read Chapter XV, “National Socialism.” His five basic laws are thus:
(1) The law of BIOLOGICAL INTEGRITY (love inside, hate outside);
(2) The law of TERRITORY (private property);
(3) The law of LEADERSHIP (by the best);
(4) The law of STATUS (or the natural place of every individual in a group); and
(5) MOTHERHOOD for females.
So I guess I’m talking about law no 4 here, of Status, which Rockwell considered to be so necessary. William Pierce thought these laws were so important that he talked to Dr. Griffin about them, who put them in The Fame of a Dead Man’s Deeds. Good thing, otherwise I’d probably never have read White Power.
23 April, 2006 at 9:22 pm
Now I’m digressing wildly, but re-reading that chapter XV I found something that shows that Rockwell wasn’t just mindlessly repeating Mein Kampf, if anyone had thought so (and if he had, he would never have rearranged teachings in his own order) – I found his explanation to why Hitler called his new deal “National Socialism”:
National Socialism is nothing more or less than NATURAL ORDER (a name which would, in some ways, be more descriptive of the reality than “National Socialism”). Hitler had to design the name of his movement to succeed in a specific political situation, and was therefore forced to use names and terms which would accomplish his purposes. In Germany, there were millions and millions of Germans who thought of themselves as “socialists”-but were in the manipulating clutches of the Jews. Rather than fight any more battles than he had to, Hitler said, in effect, to these millions, “If you must be ‘socialists’, let us not be Jewish ‘socialists’ -Marxists——let us be ‘NATIONAL Socialists’, meaning a national society. Let us be ‘socialists’ for Germany, not the Jews.”
And it worked! Millions and millions of good men and women who had been seduced into Communism by the Jews were won back to their own people and the Natural Order of healthy group living by Hitler’s methods.
He mentions Natural Order several times; it seems he thought this name was more fitting for what he was talking about, that which Hitler had once been talking about. I tend to agree. So we’d be … “naturists,” then. Heh.
24 April, 2006 at 4:49 am
You sure did digress wildly, and seeing as you got off on entirely the wrong foot, I won’t bother reading it.
“Are you sure it’s so honorable? — The instinct to protect weak women?”
You missed my point, see. I was asking: Are you sure our attraction to young-looking females has such an honorable motive, or has such all of the time? As you evidently require it to be spelled out: Could it not be that we are attracted to young-looking women because it is sexually stimulating? But you’re the type to tack on honorable motives, so it’s pointless to bring this up.
I am partly Marxist, you’re right, that is to say if one cannot acknowledge the role of oppression, or societal influence, without being “Marxist”; which is particularly odd as I can think of a dozen other thinkers who also took for granted, or took pains to establish, society’s influence on individuals; indeed it seems the most obvious thing in the world, and to me, it is rather guys like you, with this heroic “I shape everything” attitude, who depart from reality. Anyway, you extend this line of thought too far, of course, as I wouldn’t be here if I weren’t a race realist, and nowhere have I raised “oppression” to the status of evolutionary catalyst, though it certainly has been in very many cases, and certainly at the beginning of humanity.