Eugenics. Racism. White supremacy. Hitler. Nazism. MAGA. Trump's bigotry and ICE raids...
.
She seems like a nice girl.
What kind of Anti-Israel Nazi is this Aryan Goddess Sydney Sweeney? - Why what happened? - Have you seen her new ad campaign? - With boobs? - No, butt! She's flouting some Germanic American Eagle jeans. - Genes, you mean? - That's what I thought.
Anjelah Johnson on being pretty at the nail salon
It seems diarrhea is a genetic condition. - No, it isn't! - Yeah, it runs in your jeans. - You mean genes. - Do I?
American Eagle's sexualizing ads for Trump?
Ha ha ha. - Trump wears adult diapers because he craps himself, no bowel control due to being really old and abusing stimulants for so long. - Yeah, whistleblower Caspar outed him, butt no one seems to care that he stinks, stands like that to deal with their bulk.
We were being ironic, thinking all the hubbub was just about a single poster. But this commercial has words and is obviously playing off of Nazi (Nordic elitist) ideals and Neo-Nazi fantasies and eugenic aspirations. Even Megyn Kelly can't help but come to her defense: "This is obviously a reference to her body, not to her skin color!" Obviously, American Eagle's ad agency (or PR firm) is getting risqué with racialized double entendres, not satisfied to leverage her boobs and beauty.
First we wipe out the Indigenous then we create our Utopia.
LM; Sydney Sweeney (American Eagle, Inc.); Ana Kasparian and Cenk Uygur, The Young Turks, July 30, 2025; Desi Lydic, The Daily Show; Ashley Wells, Ananda (Dharma Buddhist Meditation) (eds.), Wisdom Quarterly
I'm a beneficiary as half white and only half Asian
White worship is internalized racism, a form of internalized oppression, defined by sociologist Karen D. Pyke as the "internalization of racial oppression by the racially subordinated" [1].
Robin Nicole Johnson in her study The Psychology of Racism, emphasizes that internalized racism involves both "conscious and unconscious acceptance of a racial hierarchy in which a presumed superior race [is] consistently ranked above other races."
thinking that supports the status quo (i.e., denying that racism exists) [2].
We're "status symbols" in Korea
Internalized racism as a phenomenon is a direct product of a racial classification system and is found across different racial groups and regions around the world where "race" exists as a social construct [1].
In these places, internalized racism can have adverse effects on those who experience it. For example, high internalized racism scores have been linked to poor health outcomes among
Caribbean Black women,
higher propensity for violence among African American young males, and
increased domestic violence among Native American populations in the US [3, 4, 5]. More
"Latin has no [single] skin tone." (Latin America has ALL of the colors, shades, and tones).
Colorism: racist legacy brought from Europe to Americas
Casta (Spanish "caste") is a term that means "lineage" [institutional racism] in Spanish and Portuguese and has historically been used as a racial and social identifier.
In the context of the European Spanish Empire in the Americas, the term also refers to a theoretical framework which says that colonial society operated under a hierarchical race-based "caste "caste system."
From the outset, colonial Spanish America resulted in widespread intermarriage: unions of Spaniards (Españoles), indigenous people (Indios, "Indians," indigenas), and Africans (Negros, lit. "Blacks").
Colonists, do we internalize racism?
Basic mixed-race categories that appeared in official colonial documentation were mestizo("Mixed," "Blended"), generally offspring of a Spaniard and an Indigenous person; and mulatto, offspring of a Spaniard and a black African.
Many terms were used for people of mixed Spanish, Indigenous, and African ancestry in 18th-century casta paintings... More
CC Liu, Crystal Quintero, Seth Auberon (eds.), Wisdom Quarterly
They've done nothing for me. I mean, not that I know of.
I'm not going to buy more fruit just because she's pretty and in a skimpy top though, you know, I may make conversation and, come to think of it, I do need more oranges.
Reverse true for males: flatter=better?
Let's get one thing straight. Breast size doesn't matter at all, not a bit. They affect nothing, certainly not attention, stares, tips, comments, date requests, marriage proposals, catcalls, jeers, backaches, or popularity. There is no Boobie Industrial Complex (fashions, bikinis, braziers, stuffing, silicone cups, tape, wires, pulleys, wonder pills, creams, exercises, surgical augmentations, lingerie sales, saline implants, Erin Brockovich rentals...) supporting them. It's only a myth! Discovery's Mythbusters conducted a scientific test.
Bigger tipsbreasts equal bigger tips?
Yet again, science confirms that life imitates art just as consumers imitate mainstream media.
I'm not jealous or envious. I'm just curious. How can she stand being such an attention whooer?
.
SCIENCE: busting the myth of bust size
(MythBustersDiscovery) Kari Byron and crew put the "bigger boobs better tips" hypothesis through a rigorous scientific social science experimentation with silicone mammalian augmentations that will ascertain the consumer capitalist engagement of a subset of the population of restaurant diners where tipping is obligatory. The conclusion has a twist that may come as a surprise to viewers. Who's actually doing the covert leering and paying for the privilege?
This anecdotal test attempts to see how long viewers will watch without understanding a word of what's going on simply because the fruit-buying influencer hired a bouncy sidekick to play along.
DANGER: Bikinis are a magnetic distraction to men, who are mysteriously drawn in by them.
.
Clumsy man goes overboard for a red bikini.
Since July 5, 1946, females have been hitting the beaches and pool sides scantily clad in "bikinis" (floss and patches).
National Bikini Day marks the anniversary of the invention of the revealing two-piece bathing suit.
Named after the Bikini Atoll, where the United States military annihilated indigenous land by conducting atomic and nuclear bomb tests, the two-piece bathing suit made its debut in Paris in 1946.
[This was possibly to distract US soldiers with pin up girls while they traveled the world, met new people, and killed them; after all, up until then the Marilyn Monroe and Jane Mansfield posters had too much on].
French designer Jaques Heim wanted to name revealing bits of fabric "atom" [as in atomic bombs falling on Bikini Atoll?], but designer Louis Réard named his piece, revealed on this day (July 5th) in 1946, with the name "bikini" and the word stuck.
By World War II [because war and carnage have an odd way of wearing away at a nation's morals], sunbathers cast aside the chaste one-piece bathing costumes for simple two-piece bathing suits.
Is that Atom Atoll, Mom? - No, it's Bikini Atoll, Honey. - I'd like to wear one. - Me, too.
.
Should I come out, Claudia? - Why, Bil?
However, nothing prepared the United States for the revealing bikini when it hit the beaches on July 5, 1946.
[It wasn't even the Fifties yet, and eyes were bulging out of boy's and men's heads. Then the hippies in the Sixties went from two-piece down to no-piece in their efforts to help the USA wage peace.]
The skimpy strips of fabric were seen as less than a women's unmentionables [britches, panties, undergarments, lingerie].
We prefer modern Jain nuns
While Europe [which is cool with toplessness and has always had nude beaches] enthusiastically donned the bikini after a long and arduous world war, American's sense of [Puritanical] "decency" kept them from accepting the bikini until the 1960s.
[Hippies saved the day again because tooth floss bottoms and eye patch tops were seen as an improvement over pure nudity. Ah, hypocrisy, we're all for violence on TV but T&A? No way! Sex on the silver screen? Maybe, but only with an R, NC-17, X, or XXX rating, but carnage, slasher flicks, gore, sadistic violence? Sure, it's good for the kids. It makes them better soldiers, drinkers, and gun owners when they grow up.]
The model above is stripping off this inappropriate "Buddha kimono" from Buddha Beach.
Well, that's not so bad.
Please avoid Buddha Bikinis, as they are very offensive to the spiritual lives of more than a billion Buddhists in the world today. There are more than a billion uncounted Buddhism in communist China alone, so the true number of Buddhists worldwide is unknown but could be two billion.
And also please avoid places that call themselves Buddha Bar because it is an oxymoron given that the Buddha spelled out Five Precepts, things to abstain from doing:
Okay, now we're offended.
killing
stealing
sexual misconduct
lying
alcohol.
And while, no doubt, some Buddhists drink, it is not in keeping with the rudiments of the religion or the advice of the Enlightened One.
And while we're on the topic of things best avoided, the American habit of standing in front of a Buddha statue to take a picture is in bad form and very offensive to the locals, all the more so if you sit on his lap, put your arms around him, or heaven forbid kiss him.
Tibetan goddess in very revealing outfit
We in the West know what you mean and would love to go dry hump Dionysus in Greece or play grab@$$ with Aphrodite or get super friendly with Bacchus, but the Mediterranean Antiquities Department (MAD) would get really mad if we did. They won't even let tourists graffiti the Colosseum or deface ancient petroglyphs or take home souvenirs of ancient archeological digs like Gobekkli and Karahan Tepe. Go figure.]
(Kahmal) June 4, 2024: Drake (born Mr. Aubrey Graham, called "Drizzy" on the cold streets of Canada) is the biggest fraud of our generation. He's someone who's in a culture he doesn't understand and has no respect for. He's let his insecurities of feeling out of touch with the rap community turn him into something pretty damn bad.
0:00 Intro
0:23 Confused
12:38 Tough guy?
WARNING: Vulgar subject matter, gratuitous profanity, hate, disses, and condemnation of a culture!
The END of Drake...
(JivoDraws) June 9, 2024: The biggest rap beef of a generation has made hip-hop a topic of discussion again. This beef is not just a battle of who makes better music but has now gotten to the point of becoming extremely personal. In this animated video essay and documentary uncovers the full history of Drake's beefs, which includes Future, Metro Boomin, ASAP Rocky, Kanye West, The Weeknd, Rick Ross, and Kendrick Lamar. Why does everyone hate Drake?
Prison hazing (ritual gay rape) in pop rap music
Sponsored by Aura. Go ahead and claim a TWO-WEEK FREE TRIAL at aura.com/kahmal. Twitch: kahmalwastaken, Instagram: kahmalwastaken. Reach at kahmalofficial@gmail.com. Song titled truth by Yakuzy. For access to early and uncensored videos, become a channel member and get access to the stuff for which YouTube will cancel someone: @kahmalwastaken
Are Sydney Sweeney andWisdom Quarterly's numbers too big? Every time WQ reaches another million views, boobs. It's good for men's hearts, says science, but what about our lizard brains?
Her Instagram post comes after critics called her “not pretty.” [Do they say the same of Tate McRae, who is essentially her less well-endowed twin?]
Sydney Sweeney isn’t letting a little bit of controversy get her down. After headlines about her being “not pretty” and a bad actress made the rounds last week, she shrugged everything off and did what anyone would:
Cover up your man-boobs, Boobs!
She wore a slogan T-shirt that showed everyone that she’s staying above the fray.
Deep in a carousel of images shared over the weekend, Sweeney showed a snapshot of herself in an oversized gray sweatshirt that reads, “Sorry for having great t*ts.”
.
“Good times and tan lines,” she captioned the post.
Last week, producer Carol Baum, who worked on Father of the Bride and its sequel, said at an event that Sweeney is “not pretty” and “can’t act” — and that her hit rom-com Anyone But You was “unwatchable.”
Even with those comments, the film has earned $219 million at the box office worldwide.
According to the Daily Mail, Baum made her comments during a panel in Pleasantville, New York.
(Amy Sussman/GA/The Holly-
wood Reporter/Getty/InStyle)
“There’s an actress who everybody loves now: Sydney Sweeney. I don’t get Sydney Sweeney.
“I was watching on the plane Sydney Sweeney’s movie [Anyone But You] because I wanted to watch it,” she said.
“I wanted to know who she is and why everybody’s talking about her. I watched this unwatchable movie — sorry to people who love this…romantic comedy where they hate each other.”
It's a "man's world," right? I'm just making the most of it. "Sex sells," but who's buying?
Cover your beauty, Syd! It's distracting our eyes!
“I said to my class, ‘Explain this girl to me. She’s not pretty. She can’t act. Why is she so hot?’ Nobody had an answer. But then the question was asked, ‘Well if you could get your movie made because she was in it, would you do it?’” Baum continued.
“That’s a very hard question to answer because we all want to get the movie made and who walks away from a green light? Nobody I know. Your job is to get the movie made.”
Sweeney clapped back, saying in a statement shared by Variety: “How sad that a woman in the position to share her expertise and experience chooses instead to attack another woman.
If that’s what she’s learned in her decades in the industry and feels is appropriate to teach to her students, that’s shameful. To unjustly disparage a fellow female producer speaks volumes about Ms. Baum’s character.”
After Baum’s statement was shared, TMZ reported that she is “already expressing regret over the whole thing” and “wishes she never would’ve made her original comments.”
For more InStyle news, make sure to sign up for newsletter. Read the original article on InStyle.
COMMENTARY
It's very interesting. Fran and I were on retreat with an enlightened Buddhist nun.
(Yes, such people exist even if no one realizes it or can bring themselves to accept that such a thing could be possible in this decadent age, the Kali Yuga. But it was decadent and overcome with lust when the Buddha awakened and attempted to teach humans and devas the way to the end of all suffering. He assumed it would be hopeless because living beings in those days were so obsessed with sex and sensuality. This is, after all, the Sensual Sphere or Kama Loka we're living in).
There was calm and bliss (piti).
She asked a very straightforward question during a Dharma talk after a long day of meditating: "Where does clinging [lust] come from, outside or inside?"
"Like rain, does it (lusting for or clinging to the delights of the senses)," I asked myself, "creep in the poorly thatched roof of the physical senses and mind (the sixth sense)? Or does it arise from within (from some innate badness) like bubbling, oozing, staining crude oil?"
We were all stumped. We had all seen beautiful things. We had all, for having seen them, experienced lust, distraction, craving, preoccupation, obsession, thirst (tanha), desire, yearning, pining, and languishing, sick when we didn't get what we wanted, thrilled-then-disappointed when we did get it.
We were all hesitant. We all wanted to be good students, wanted to be right. We did not want to disappoint her as Americans. So we were waiting for her to drop a hint. Finally, someone dared to say that clinging (like lust) had to be coming from the outside.
Why? We were all peaceful and fine until someone dared to walk around provocatively dressed, thereby ruining our calm (samatha), stillness (samadhi), onepointedness (ekagatta), mindfulness (sati), and renunciation (nekkhamma).
Is this explained anywhere? (Abhidhamma)
Just as we were starting to let go and be free of the outside world's pull on us, some clinging or lust (for food, sex, a massage, a blissful experience) got the better of us and ruined the meditation. Clinging held us like six bondage straps, making us involuntary servants to this coarse, crass, and crappy body.
We were here for the bliss and rapture of meditative absorption, the calm and cool of mindful awareness, the insight and liberating-wisdom of spiritual knowing-and-seeing. The body and all its wants stood in our way, we thought.
Seeing a lovely, hot, shiny body, a little too much skin, one button too many undone, whew, it could be days before the mind simmered down again.
Clinging (repeated craving and grasping) had to be coming from the outside! We were fine until the outside world -- the boobs of a beauty or glistening muscles of a rugged and handsome person -- ruined us. It wasn't our fault! We were mere babes in Toyland!
The skull is like a thatched roof. And we are safe inside our guarded skull, until that darn rain seeps in from the evil (lusty, sexy, and provocative) world outside.
I can't help it if people stare at me.
"Is a fully enlightened person still overcome by lust [greed, craving, grasping], aversion [anger, fear, hate], and delusion [wrong views, distortions, ignorance about ultimate matters]?" she asked in answer to our suggestion that clinging had to originate outside ourselves.
"Well, no," we answered. If such liberated folks were still obsessed with greed, hatred, or confusion just because they saw sights, heard sounds, smelled scents, tasted savors, and felt sensations (to say nothing of mental past memories and future projections of these), what hope would there be for any of us in our practice?
Turning away, averting one's gaze, restraining the senses is just the first step. It might be difficult, but that's not all there is. Buddhism is NOT about severe austerities, penance, pious acts of self-mortification. It is about withdrawing into mental seclusion, calming the mind, exercising mindfulness, then cultivating insight that breaks through the illusion.
One develops the ability to see through the unreal, the superficial, the misleading. If this body were beautiful, why then we should celebrate it. If this body were the way to happiness, why then we should all become hedonists and have at it. If licentiousness and easy virtue were the way to liberation, why then we should condemn anyone who stood in our way and was being a stick in the mud at the party!
It is exactly because beautiful things in the world are constituent in nature not compact, ephemeral not permanent, disappointing not satisfying that they are not at all what they seem.
They are superficial illusions, they are disappointing, they are painful and struggling to get them is painful, and not getting them when one craves them is painful, and finally getting them is ultimately disappointing and not fulfilling. And we have been treading this hamster wheel for aeons beyond measures, past lives beyond comprehension, and most of us can see no end in sight.
So if there were a way to see things as they truly are, what would happen? We would become dispassionate, disillusioned, and detached. The mind that clings would let go.
Clinging and reacting to things in the world with lust, annoyance, or confusion comes not from them but from us. And when a person becomes enlightened, one has seen through the charade. One has seen things as they really are. For example, let's get gross.
I thought you liked my poop. You bag it.
Let's say we had a naked inflatable doll, beautiful, exquisite, the perfection of proportion, complexion, and symmetry, comely, alluring, and more real than real. But inside it was full of poop and worms and a stench so foul as to make us heave involuntarily. If a little leaked, or we opened its mouth or other openings and experienced the ugly inside behind the beautiful superficial outside, how might we feel?
We might feel tricked, deceived, upset to have been taken in by a shiny exterior. Or imagine a pretty pink bag, smooth and reflective, potentially useful to carry things like our lunch or precious possessions, only to find out that bag contained dog feces. Yikes! Suddenly we turn away, clutch our stomachs, berate ourselves for almost touching it.
What's inside this body? Or that pretty body covering Sydney Sweeney? (Well, I'd rather not think about that! Of course not. That would ruin all the fun of the illusion. Flowers are pretty and alluring, but they're steeped in fertilizer, worms, fungus, dead bodies, microbes, pathogens, pale threads taking in nutrients. Most of us instinctively avoid the muck or are stained, tainted, and stink.
Conclusion
People can be free. Practice.
If beautiful objects had the intrinsic ability to grab, take hold of us, make us obsessed, we would have little to no hope of escape.
But because lust (craving) and clinging arise not due to beauty, but due to the interaction of beautiful stimuli impinging on the senses (contacting consciousness) and our response to it, which is rooted in delusion, we can escape.
That delusion, very broadly stated, is a failure to see pretty phenomena as transient (radically impermanent), incapable of satisfying or fulfilling us, and it not being real (not a self, not what it seems.
When we see things, even the most beautiful things, as they really are (impermanent, disappointing, and impersonal), then the heart/mind lets go. There is no effort to reject beautiful things, only to see them as they really are. The effort is to see clearly (vipassana).
Whether things are ugly or dull, the same is true of stimuli that provoke aversion (fear or anger) or delusion (wrong view or ignorance). "Boring" things (that provoke inattention because they neither give rise to lust or anger) are neutral and peaceful, but craving makes them dull and something to get away from as we go in search of delight.
So by calm-and-insight we can be free here and now, even if beautiful creatures parade in front of us with next to nothing on and even if Hollywood feeds us airbrushed images and AI beauty pageant winners.
All materials on this site are submitted by editors and readers. All images, unless otherwise noted, were taken from the Internet and are assumed to be in the public domain.
In the event that there is still a problem, issue, or error with copyrighted material, the break of the copyright is unintentional and noncommercial, and the material will be removed immediately upon presented proof.
Contact us by submitting a comment marked "private."
Do not follow this journal if you are under vinaya or parental restrictions. Secure protection by Sucuri.
Wisdom Quarterly: American Buddhist Journal is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike 3.0 United States License. Permissions beyond the scope of this license may be available at creativecommons.org/about/licenses.
