Good looking people should be careful of the company they keep. Hiding among you, the good looking, are the envious who feel they have missed out on promised greatness. They are in perpetual despair because they failed in their beauty goals and are on a crusade against the attractive, motivated by the basic human emotion: jealousy, anger, despair.
These characters work with their tongues, speaking of your attributes with the condescension of self-greatness despite no evidence of themselves being great. What are their beauty qualifications? They attempt to be the jurors of physical beauty despite never having been beautiful.
These angry souls turn to action, working to eviscerate your outward attribute, and to have the poor beauty work they have done elevated to adoration.
Part ways with the uninspired who do not pursue their own physical greatness—but want the rewards. Think of the cook who burns dinner but smiles as the defective meal is placed in front of you as though you do not notice it’s glaring error. They seek praise for sub-standard work.
These wounded birds tug at our hearts. You may see in them a sadness that will make you feel guilty and hold you back. In some cases, they mean you no intentional harm, but their pain will become a weight you have to pull. If treated incorrectly, they move into anger, and their goal becomes to define a world in which they do not participate.
They work to dislodge the prevailing standard of beauty and replace it with a new description and a lower bar that may be manipulated, a bar that a hippopotamus could hurdle. Men and women who fit these descriptions are in every corner of society secretly seething at their exclusion. They want the spotlight without paying the dues.
As may be interpreted, the belief, and sometimes the reality, is that the attractive of our world wield power and receive favor, but a lower bar would help the unattractive achieve those. Indeed, there is a natural pecking order that exists in the human condition, and one of the large influences is attractiveness, whatever the current dominant standard of attractiveness may be.
But how?
Entertainment and media have been infiltrated. From news outlets to sitcoms to film to musical performance, it appears that the bar is a lot lower. The beauty purge has begun.
In male circles, the well dressed and groomed man will be met with ridicule by his peers. For women, in an apparent bid to appeal to a new wave of militant feminism, adoration of the attractive is scorned. Faced with the empowered feminist, the promotion of women that men would describe as beautiful has ended, seen as submitting to patriarchal standards.
Note that the reciprocal has not occurred: overweight, ‘short’, or ‘unattractive’ men will not be tolerated (unless rich). Men who are attractive will be allowed entry only if they entertain and obey feminist ideals.
“Feminism was created to give unattractive women access to the mainstream of society.” – Rush Limbaugh
This movement is comprised first and foremost of women or men who have not achieved their social goals.
They attribute their lack of success to having been robbed by, or for the sake of, a ‘good looking person’. Hardcore rainbow flag waving Lesbians are the backbone of this movement for obvious reasons. Interestingly, gay men are rarely in this group—but only as long as the beautiful keep them as friends and emplace the gay male on the judge’s panel to decide who is beautiful. Otherwise they will turn on you and slit your throats with social media knives.
Ironically, the rest of the beauty hating cadre does include a few attractive women and handsome well-dressed men who have been shamed by the other groups for their beauty, which is why I start off with ‘be careful of the company you keep’. This group will be socially beaten until they lower their personal standard to that of those around them, victimized because they were not careful of the company they kept.
Males targeted by, and if not careful are later associated with, the anti-beauty crusade are almost entirely men who have been shamed for liking what they like, and cave in when criticized for what they like. To deflect criticism, these men date against their instincts, for fear of disappointing female colleagues and family members with their ‘shallow’ personal tastes. Instead, they choose a mate based on those people’s social agenda, ensuring the consequence of later regret.
The envious unhappy souls, not satisfied with their work ruining that group, next infiltrate social circles, whispering into the ear of empathetic people that the concept of beauty is unfair. Rather than develop their own attractiveness, which requires personal effort, they attack beauty in general. The beauty purge now opens a new front in their war. Once the beauty standard has been lowered or destroyed entirely, they blend themselves in to the mainstream of society, with the tacit agreement that for them helping you today, you will nominate them as beautiful tomorrow. On that day, they remove you, the good looking, to promote themselves and their standard instead.
“United Airlines was sued by two veteran flight attendants who wanted assignment to National Football League flights: a Black woman who has worked for the airline for 28 years and a Jewish woman with 34 years of tenure — say that they both tried repeatedly and unsuccessfully to get assigned to work the charter flights. They alleged that United ‘stacked’ the flights with ‘young hot blondes'”. The beauty purge has a new angle of attack. Assuming they began their flight attendant careers at twenty, that would make these two women forty-eight and fifty-four. (Burnson/Bloomberg).
They’ve convinced the population that there is an 
unfair advantage that is unconsciously applied to the beautiful, that not all are able to achieve their social goals due to the limits of their attractiveness. Their envy directs them to suggest that by being attractive, you are participating in, or if you appreciate beauty you are cooperating with, a bourgeois power structure. Then, you are guilted until you accept that your attractiveness or like thereof is conceit or shallowness on your part, you should like what they feel is important.
The beauty standard has been lowered to accommodate them. They have given up on establishing their own beauty, they seek to discredit yours.
We appreciate beauty in animals, but what about people?
And so, aspiring Social planners and socialists have strategized unseating the attractive.
jurisdiction of men. 
The male has done it for so long, and made it look so easy, that women believe being a man is a costume that may be put on for fun or personal gain. I direct you to the trailer of any feature film of the last five years. The advertised popular culture seeks to demonstrate that anyone can be a man—failing to mention this fantasy exists in the safety of a realm built by men.
West Point man, he was clearly more impressive than Barack Obama. Yet, I do not recall any national promotion from the party frequently accused of being unfriendly to blacks (In a later blog post, I will be holding the Black community’s feet to the fire for this same crime, not promoting our stars).
pporting Law Enforcement should have been promoted. Aside from his radio show, I’ve never heard the film mentioned. He used to be a contributor to Fox News, but was banned after a nasty comment about Kristine Blasey Ford, the woman who and accused Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh of rape almost forty years ago. No spoken outrage anywhere at Kevin’s treatment.
However, Republicans when they did have the spotlight, only occasionally touted Ben Carson and Surgeon General Jerome Adams. 
Marine Corps first Black female one-star General, Lorna M. Mahlock went unnoticed.
The plan included incentives for 47 Historically Black Colleges/Universities. His now retired partner Senator from that state, Trey Gowdy, stated: “Senator Scott is the future of the Republican party”. I hope to hear the louder and more powerful Republican voices assign Mr. Scott such acclaim.
Granted, his conservatism was inconsistent and perplexing. It may be better stated he was more a Liberal Republican rather than a Conservative. To address dissatisfaction with Steele’s confounding political positions, Ian Walters of the American Conservative Union admitted, “We elected Mike Steele as chairman because he was a black guy, that was the wrong thing to do.” He probably meant to say that Steele’s race was considered before his politics, and that this was their version of outreach, but that may have been almost as bad. He could have expressed displeasure by saying, “I/we should have looked more closely at his policy beliefs”, but that would admit bad decision making on his/their part. By saying Steele’s race was a factor infers that the choice of Michael Steele is not really their fault, but the fault of making a public appeal. 
endment advocate and national spokesperson for ‘Gun Owners of A
merica’ (GOA)? 
Have Republicans reached out to Candace Owens and began a grooming process? Mrs Owens converted from democrat to republican, and along with Brandon Tatum initiated the ‘BLEXIT’ movement, ‘Blacks exiting the Democrat party’. This position has made her a pariah in the Black community.
