Why Putin Hates Sydney Sweeney and Wants You to Get Facial Surgery

The most controversial tweet of the week is this one from 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 frog’s colors Phyllobates terribilisthe most poisonous on the planet.

In his tweet, Khan compares the actress Sidney Sweeney with Danish Victoria Kjaer 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 to the second.

Apparently, on the rest of the planet, men like Victoria Kjær Theilvig more.

But apparently not. Overwhelmingly, men from every country and every culture 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 for a matter of taste, but of speciesism: Kjær Theilvig doesn’t even seem human to me, but rather a member of a species related to the Homo sapiensbut far enough down the evolutionary tree, crosses produce only non-viable 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 dwellers to appreciate the beauty of a specimen of a human being from the year 35,756 AD.

In any case, The important thing is that heterosexual men’s sexual tastes seem to be more universal than Sameera Khan would like..

Therefore, it is not “America” that Sydney Sweeney prefers, but heterosexuality.

(The exception is Mario Diazdeputy director of EL ESPAÑOL, whose resounding heterosexuality does not prevent him from contemplating Sydney Sweeney with the indifference of someone watching it rain).

But why does Sweeney sweep Victoria Kjær Theilvig among men?

I put forward a hypothesis.

Because even though she takes makeup and filters for granted, and although unattainable due to her movie star status, Sydney Sweeney is much closer to the stereotypical girl you fell in love with as a teenager than the typical Hollywood actress.

(Lorena G. Maldonado He has another theory about this. I recommend reading it).

Furthermore, Sweeney is not only a universal beauty icon, but also timeless.

Victoria Kjær Theilvig is a manufactured, darning 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, who has always extolled the kind of beauty that Danish women should represent.

Never.

Plain and simple, no one has ever liked this “beauty”. In large part, too, because this type of beauty never existed until the invention of cosmetic surgery.

In fact, Kjær Theilvig meets several of the parameters we assume for aliens in science fiction films:

1. Elongated bulb-shaped skull, the famous “bulb head”.

2. Oval, almond-shaped eyes, with irises and sclera more similar to those of a cat than those of a human being.

3. Absolute facial symmetry, which fits directly into the mysterious valley of perfection (he mysterious 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 they encounter robots or anthropomorphic figures that look very much like humans, but not enough to pass as one of us).

4. Blank and inexpressive facial expression, denoting a lack of emotionality, without visible eyebrows or facial muscles.

5. False and artificial smiles and gestures, devoid of true humanity.

6. Nose reduced to two small or non-existent holes.

7. Ears absent or converted into minimal protuberances.

8. Characteristics that convey 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: stereotypical appearance that converts all members into the same race in a single indistinguishable (and replaceable) individual at the service of a totalitarian collective mind. That is, in an insectoid with remotely human characteristics.

(I’m exaggerating this animus iocandibut I think you understand me).

For me, the fact that a Kremlin propagandist like Khan tries to convince us that men prefer synthetic beauty to natural beauty makes me suspect that the imposition of harmful beauty ideals on women and the destruction of the most intuitive aesthetic canons harbors a destructive potential greater than any war.

Why else would that propagandist of Putin called Sameera Khan to convince us that beauty lies at the tip of a surgeon’s scalpel?

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-harm.

And self-mutilation, the destruction of oneself for the benefit of artificial and polarizing identities designed in the catacombs of the State. The primordial broth from which progressivism springs.

First, all of the individual’s ties to the solid are severed. And then he is immersed in a viscous but compact molasses from which he can never escape and which will exhaust him to death.

Let’s understand each other. Putin is not progressive. But as a good former member of the KGB and an expert on the underbelly of real communism, he knows the destructive potential of progressivism.

And that’s why he encourages it (in the West, not in Russia).

Because no society destroys itself faster than the one that destroys itself..

***

Sameera Khan’s tweet reminded me of Instagram face. The aesthetic canon of our time.

THE Instagram face It’s that supposedly perfect face that thousands of women seek through cosmetic surgery: high cheekbones, voluminous lips, feline eyes, small nose and flawless skin.

It’s an aesthetic inspired by Instagram filters and celebrities like Kylie Jenner any Bella Hadid.

Or rather, in the cosmetic surgery operations that Jenner and Hadid had.

In fact, many Instagram filters (and many other similar apps) are named after celebrities that inspire them: Kylie Filter, Bella Filter.

The numbers are impressive. In Spain alone, more than 300,000 cosmetic surgery operations are performed every year. More than 800 daily. Between 30 and 50% more than just five years ago.

85% of customers are women.

30% of customers are under thirty years old.

One in four patients under the age of thirty requests surgery, using an Instagram filter as a model.

Bichectomies (cheek sucking) have increased by 400% in the last five years.

THE fox eye lift (almond-shaped eyes so that they tilt upwards like those of Megan Foxthe registered trademark of Instagram face), 250%.

Russian lips (hyaluronic acid injections that lift and define heart-shaped lips, like those of Irina Shayk), 180%.

The result is visible.

Actresses who, after surgery, look like a totally different person, like Bela Thorne, Amelia Gray Hamlin, Demi Lovato any Erin Moriarty.

Clone celebrities (Kendall Jenner and Emily Ratajkowski, Anya Taylor-Joy and Zoe Kravitz, Margot Robbie and Jaime Pressly).

Middle-aged women with faces in which any distinguishing features have been erased (Madonna It’s the archetype, but Meg Ryan, Uma Thurman any Nicole Kidman fit the mold).

All of this is promoted by means that oscillate between the veneration of lifestyles that are clearly toxic to health (such as body positive) and the idealization of an aesthetic that aims to sublimate natural feminine beauty, when in fact she exalts her surgical modification, turning her into an ugly caricature of herself.

Something much appreciated, in fact, by a trans movement that finds it much easier to replicate Victoria Kjær Theilvig’s beauty precisely because it is artificial. that Sydney Sweeney’s natural beauty, impossible to imitate even by the best surgeon on the planet.

In reality, in the field of aesthetic surgery, a phenomenon that we experience today in many other fields is only repeated: that of aesthetic homogenization. Which is an ideological project in itself.

The deeper we delve into globalization, which in theory would place 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 a European city, that you could be in any other identical city in any other European country?

This is aesthetic homogenization.

Multiculturalism, globalization and technology have led us to a smaller, uglier and more impersonal world, where it is increasingly difficult to find something (a face, a song, a book, an idea). that escapes the mold of that lowest common denominator that is ugliness.

And this 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 achieved by annihilating the souls of those who vote.