Does race mixing increase physical attractiveness?

Posted by john fitzgerald on May 28, 2005, 03:00 PM | #

Wow, that’s quite a posting. Look foreward to the follow up.

Posted by edgar on May 28, 2005, 05:08 PM | #

You undermine your argument by posting photos of distinctly unimpressive white women.

Posted by GayLikeAFox on May 28, 2005, 05:14 PM | #

I’m surprised you didn’t mention the obvious: the phenotypic expression of some recessive genes (such as the ones that code for non-brown eyes or blonde hair) can be quite attractive.  A world of mixed-race individuals would lose that beauty forever.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on May 28, 2005, 06:13 PM | #

That was a good log entry for many reasons and a well-deserved slap right back in the face of brazen radical-left-wing rag Newsweek for its unprovoked attack on the white race in publishing that piece of crap cover story.

That was a very interesting analysis of white women’s beauty (incidentally, I didn’t know there were those nostril differences).  It’s about time people began responding to the race-replacers and their constant bombardment of anti-white propaganda and its genocidal message, both implicit and explicit, that white women should be race-replaced with non-white women and white people in general should be race-replaced.  We’re all sick and tired of it.  You’ve rendered a valuable service to us all in posting that log entry.

Posted by Sybach on May 28, 2005, 06:16 PM | #

As Edgar’s comment proves, I’m not the only who thinks those white women you show us aren’t really very “beautiful.” Why you didn’t find some pictures of, say, Julia Roberts or Monica Bellucci is beyond me.

Secondly, Ms. Mohan is a New York supermodel. Whether she adheres to European standards of “beauty” (or maybe just your personal tastes) or not, apparently a few people must find her feminine if they’re willing to pay her good money to be a model.

P.S: What’s with “Hindoo?” ‘Hindu’ is a good letter smaller, but you have a thing for the letter ‘o,’ I guess.

Posted by ben tillman on May 28, 2005, 07:24 PM | #

Indeed, it has been shown that beautiful faces--within a race--tend to have multiple anatomical traits close to the center of the trait distributions in their race.

This is not due solely to the “canalizing of development” you mention.  It is also due to the fact that the central appearance of these people marks them as socially central; i.e., they are the people whom strangers will be most likely to infer kinship with.

Posted by ben tillman on May 28, 2005, 07:41 PM | #

Why you didn’t find some pictures of, say, Julia Roberts or Monica Bellucci is beyond me.

De gustibus non disputandum est.  I would have selected other models, but Julia Roberts (a/k/a “Horsemouth") would not have been among them.

Posted by Svigor on May 28, 2005, 07:54 PM | #

Yeah I’ve never understood the Julia Roberts phenomenon.

Re Newsweek cover: lemme get this straight, racemixing produces beauty, but for its example the mag chooses a mix of two relatively closely related groups?  Selection bias aside (I’ve seen more than a few butt-ugly mulattos), this isn’t a convincing example.

The last image on the left, presumably of some practically unknown white woman, shows me a more attractive image than any non-white I’ve ever seen.  She isn’t a poster child for race-replacement though, so she doesn’t get the cover of Newsweek.

Secondly, Ms. Mohan is a New York supermodel. Whether she adheres to European standards of “beauty” (or maybe just your personal tastes) or not, apparently a few people must find her feminine if they’re willing to pay her good money to be a model.

Homosexuals pay her good money to be a model, that doesn’t make her particularly feminine or representitive of feminine beauty.

Posted by Svigor on May 28, 2005, 07:58 PM | #

I should add that I, like most men around the world, find fairer-skinned women more attractive.  Steve Sailer has written a bit about this as manifested in film.  I think Steve ignores the fact that Hollywood promotes race-war and its own fantasies with its pairing of fair women and darker men (see the scads of romantic comedies targetting our youth for details), but he still has a point.

Posted by TDA on May 28, 2005, 08:18 PM | #

Julia Roberts is Jewish. Does that explain the overpromotion?

Posted by Svigor on May 28, 2005, 08:26 PM | #

Do you have a source TDA?  I doubt her Jewishness has much to do with it, but it’s within the realm of possibility for sure.

Posted by Tournament of Champions on May 28, 2005, 08:28 PM | #

From what I can tell, GNXP seems to have gone down the crapper recently. Some combination of the disappearance of godless and the departure of any whites with a semblance of honor. Right now whats left of the commentators is strictly the B-team.

Posted by chris w on May 28, 2005, 08:30 PM | #

I believe that your evolutionary “argument” is no more than a rationalization for your aesthetic preferences.  If it is your dream to live in a nation full of blonde-haired, blue-eyed women, why don’t you just come out and say it?  I don’t think that your primary motivation is science—you are merely using it as a tool in an attempt to make your own aesthetic preferences more compelling to others (and not very successfully, I might add).

As for myself, I’m a dark-haired caucasian person of English and Portuguese extraction (many English and Welsh people are dark-haired, due to Iberian migrations prior to the Celts), and I find dark-haired Caucasian and Eurasian women to be the most attractive—far more so than the washed-out looking Nordic women that you posted.  If we had more Eurasians and fewer blondes, I would have no problem with that.

However, you might be surprised to know that I also favor severe restrictions upon immigration, in spite of my rejection of white nationalism.  My ideal immigration policy would limit the level of immigration such that it would be equivalent to the previous year’s level of emmigration.  Also, one would have to be fluent in the English language to enter, in addition to having either a college education or a useful skill to offer.  However, I do not favor the anti-miscegenation laws that you propose.  If the current white population intermarried with the current population of Asian-Americans (which isn’t very high, percentage-wise) and Latinos, blonde hair and red hair would likely become much more rare, but we would still be a light-skinned, albeit dark-haired, caucasoid people.  (Perhaps many of us will have the “Slavic look,” due to intermarriage with Asians.) I suppose you find the disappearance of red and blonde hair to be quite horrifying—that’s fine, I can respect that.  However, most blondes—men and women alike—don’t seem to share your horror at this prospect, as is seen by their willingness to mate with people who are not likely even carriers for blondness.

The prospect of us becoming a dark-haired caucasian people doesn’t horrify me either, especially when I look at these pictures of Lebanese women, half of whom are very very hot:

http://www.michaeltotten.com/archives/000813.html

And can you explain to me why I, as a dark-haired caucasian, should necessarily feel a greater “loyalty” or affinity for Nordics than for people with a phenotype commonly found in the Caucasus or the Middle East (leaving aside the fact that those are Muslim territories)?  Do the latter really possess more genetic commonalities with me than the former? 

With respect to your concerns regarding “race replacement”, I think that would only concern people if we were to be replaced by a phenotype that we don’t regard as aesthetically pleasing.  Most whites do not find blacks to be aesthically pleasing, but America is not likely to witness the rise of a black majority ever.  (Black American fertility rates are currently far below replacement level.)

I acknowledge that people prefer their “own kind” and do not wish to be dominated by peoples they consider alien to them.  The inevitability of tribal behavior is a very good reason to place severe limits upon immigration.  The number of newcomers that we accept should not be in excess of the number that we can successfully absorb and assimilate The formation of demographic groups who regard us as the Other is not desirable.  White Americans may very well become increasingly alarmed by the Balkanization of the country, but I don’t think they will ever share your alarm regarding the Mediterranean-ization or Eurasian-ization of the predominant national phenotype.  Nobody cares about that.  There are plenty of reasons to oppose our current levels of immigration—urban sprawl, overcrowding, cultural balkanization, identity politics, high home and utility prices, traffic jams, overburdened schools and hospitals, crime, etc—all of which are far more compelling than any concerns regarding racial “purity” (a non-existent quality).

I am a tribalist, not a racialist.

Posted by Sybach on May 28, 2005, 08:42 PM | #

Not big Julia Roberts fans, are we? Doesn’t change my point--ol’ Richards had far better paragons of White beauty to choose from other than his mostly sub-par selections. Monica Bellucci, Jenna Jameson, Angelica Bridges...the list goes on.

Homosexuals pay her good money to be a model, that doesn’t make her particularly feminine or representitive of feminine beauty.

Leaving aside the question of how you’re so absolutely sure Ms. Mohan’s employers are gay, the fact remains that even if they are, homosexuals care about making money, same as everyone else. Profitable models are appealing and feminine, so if her homosexual employers hired her because they thought she was butch, they’re probably pretty stupid for gay people.

Posted by chris w on May 28, 2005, 09:22 PM | #

Sybach:

Good point.  The people who post on this board don’t seem to be particularly aware of the preferences of the general population.  In the course of my discussions with numerous white people of a wide variety of political persuasions, most of them agree that caucasian/asian hybrids are attractive, and are not at all disturbed by the prospect of today’s predominant Nordic phenotype being “replaced” by a Eurasian one.  I recognize that most majorityrights.com posters find the idea disturbing—however, their preferences are not representative of that of the general population.

Posted by Kubilai on May 28, 2005, 09:35 PM | #

Who cares what pictures of White women JR posted?  Though for the record, figure 7, bottom left, is my cup of tea. Regardless what I think is the most attractive, the bottom line is that White women are THE most attractive women on the planet.  I’m sure many, many, many others think the same way as well.  Otherwise, why would so many men of different races always look to hook up with our women?  Even the “picture of beauty” on the Newsweek cover is a mix between a White woman and a Hindu.  I find the arguments against White beauty quite wanting and bordering on sour grapes.  These pictures of normal average White women compared to normal average women of other ethnicities are far more desirable and THAT is how they should be judged.  Not against the “supermodel” of the multi-cults, though they all do a great job holding their own against her.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on May 28, 2005, 09:35 PM | #

“White Americans may very well become increasingly alarmed by the Balkanization of the country, but I don’t think they will ever share your alarm regarding the Mediterranean-ization or Eurasian-ization of the predominant national phenotype.” (—chris w)

Good.  How about we let them vote on race-replacement “immigration” in a binding referendum then, Chris?  Incidentally, if you wish to change the northern-European percentage of the U.S.’s race you should get the hell out of this country or be kicked the hell out, and into some country which has a percentage of non-northern types you feel more comfortable with.  Stop trying to change countries’ races or ethnicities please, you ill-bred narcissist.  People like you are definitely not needed here—or in any country for that matter.  I am racially more like you: not northern-European, with black hair, dark-brown eyes, darkish skin that used to get so tan even in the anemic Belgian summers that the Arabs in Brussels used to assume I was an Arab from my looks and would just come up to me on the street or in trains and start talking to me in Arabic.  But I have something you lack, you espèce de malcontent:  I have something called respect:  respect for myself and respect for others.  Go figure out what respect is, and try to get some, and lose the self-pity while you’re at it.  You make yourself seem pathetic, like a beaten, cringing dog.  Learn to be a man for a change.  And learn something about fair play.  You want nordic types to start replacing the darker white-Euros in the places you like better?  What would you say if that process were undertaken?  Can you stand a taste of your own race-replacement medicine, you whining weakling? 

“There are plenty of reasons to oppose our current levels of immigration—urban sprawl, overcrowding, cultural balkanization, identity politics, high home and utility prices, traffic jams, overburdened schools and hospitals, crime, etc”

Oh?  How come we never, ever see you attack the population-transfer “immigration” that’s going on all over the West nowadays, if you see so many reasons to oppose it?  I can answer that for you—it’s because you’re so insecure about your dark hair and complexion, and feel so inferior and defensive about them, that you won’t utter a word in defense of more nothern-looking folk whom you in your weakness have always seen as “persecuting” you, “tormenting” you with their “greater whiteness,” so to speak.  You’ll be DAMNED if you’re going to post a single word anywhere that might help your lifelong “tormentors.”

“-- all of which are far more compelling than any concerns regarding racial ‘purity’ (a non-existent quality).”

A non-existent quality, yes, which no one here claims to deal in but which is a straw man trotted out all the time by know-nothings like yourself.  Here everyone deals with race, not pure race.  Race all by itself amply serves our purposes, thank you very much.  Now go find another straw man please.  “Pure races” is all worn out and the only place we hear that nowadays is from leftists and dark-white malcontents.

“I am a tribalist, not a racialist.”

Tribalist is actually a better thing to be than a “racialist” though I would decline to describe myself as either, considering myself nothing other than normal.  It’s normal to oppose genocide against your race.  You needn’t find some special name for yourself like “Tribalist” or “Racialist” to oppose others mounting a genocidal attack on your community and nation-state.

Posted by onetwothree on May 28, 2005, 09:41 PM | #

most of them agree that caucasian/asian hybrids are attractive, and are not at all disturbed by the prospect of today’s predominant Nordic phenotype being “replaced”...

“Most of them”, by which we could say 95 percent or more, wouldn’t even know what you are talking about.  “Replaced”?  “Huh”? 

Few people have the intestinal strength to pretend *that this is somehow a good paring*.  But that sort of thing is the goal, even if mild white/asian mixes are the public face.

Yes, the pictures presented above are pretty bad.  *Here is my alternative.*

Posted by Kubilai on May 28, 2005, 09:44 PM | #

The people who post on this board don’t seem to be particularly aware of the preferences of the general population.  In the course of my discussions with numerous white people of a wide variety of political persuasions, most of them agree that caucasian/asian hybrids are attractive, and are not at all disturbed by the prospect of today’s predominant Nordic phenotype being “replaced” by a Eurasian one.

Gee, you think just maybe you have selection bias going for your cohort there which is NOT representative of widespread, blinded, randomly selected study?  Also, did you notice that one of the two people in this new “breed” happened to be White?  Chris, I do believe you are a GNXPer and this infatuation with breeding Whites out of existence, especially with Asians, is not only disturbing but also quite puerile.  Once done, it CANNOT be undone.  Stop treating the White race as your next high school science project.  That goes for the rest of the “I think a White and ‘blank’ would make pretty babies” crowd.

Posted by ben tillman on May 28, 2005, 09:44 PM | #

I believe that your evolutionary “argument” is no more than a rationalization for your aesthetic preferences.

You seem to be projecting:

With respect to your concerns regarding “race replacement”, I think that would only concern people if we were to be replaced by a phenotype that we don’t regard as aesthetically pleasing.

Posted by ben tillman on May 28, 2005, 09:47 PM | #

White Americans may very well become increasingly alarmed by the Balkanization of the country, but I don’t think they will ever share your alarm regarding the Mediterranean-ization or Eurasian-ization of the predominant national phenotype.  Nobody cares about that.

Where are your data?  What is your sample?  Certainly some care, and it’s a safe bet that it’s an overwhelming majority.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on May 28, 2005, 09:54 PM | #

“Though for the record, figure 7, bottom left, is my cup of tea.” (—Kub)

That girl’s a delight to look at, Kub, and so are all the rest of them, including the mixed Hindu-white one on the Newsweek cover.  (I find Punjabi women among the world’s most gorgeous, incidentally.  Ditto Lebanese women, a race of women someone mentioned in this thread, I forget who.) But that’s beside the point, which is, there’s no excuse for promoting race-replacement of whites as Chris w and Newsweek do, out of jealousy, revenge for imagined scorn (Chris w’s reason), general dislike/fear of white Christianity (many Jews’ motivation—were any of the editors or string-pullers at Newsweek who approved that article Jewish anti-Christians?), or other reason on earth.  No excuse for it.  Period.  Full stop.  End of story.  It’s as legitimate as any other genocide, all comments to the contrary by whining babies such as chris w notwithstanding.

Posted by Sybach on May 28, 2005, 09:55 PM | #

Care to provide a sample of your own, tillman? It’s easy enough to attack someone else’s assertion; the more intellectually rigorous part is continuing on to defend yours.

Posted by Kubilai on May 28, 2005, 10:03 PM | #

Care to provide a sample of your own, tillman? It’s easy enough to attack someone else’s assertion; the more intellectually rigorous part is continuing on to defend yours. - Sybach

He need not to, though I do not want to speak for Ben.  Your assertion goes AGAINST the norm, as we currently know it.  The onus is upon you to prove what you say has merit.  We can rest on what is currently the standard if we so wish.  Your argument is akin to stating Americans don’t care if we all start eating Chinese food instead of McDonalds.  Well, PROVE IT.

Posted by ben tillman on May 28, 2005, 10:04 PM | #

...all of which are far more compelling than any concerns regarding racial ‘purity’....

Racial purity is not a concern.  The concern is racial self-determnination.  If our race is to change, we shall change it ourselves.

Posted by jonjayray on May 28, 2005, 10:05 PM | #

I prefer blondes, myself.  I had an Indian girlfriend once, though.  An “interesting” experience it was too.

Posted by Kubilai on May 28, 2005, 10:10 PM | #

I find Punjabi women among the world’s most gorgeous, incidentally.  Ditto Lebanese women, a race of women someone mentioned in this thread, I forget who - Fred

Fred, as I stated in the log entry that Phil had about the Miss Universe ladies.  I have no problem with any of them and as a man that has been led by his “secondary brain” more times than I care to admit, I have data to back it up. However, as you rightfully state, that is not the issue, namely selfish, animalistic desires of the flesh.  We need not promote the extinction of an entire race in hand-holding fashion just because some Asian chick is “hot”.  We need to be more cognizant of the fact that there is an all out war against us and act accordingly.

Posted by Sybach on May 28, 2005, 10:12 PM | #

Your assertion goes AGAINST the norm, as we currently know it.  The onus is upon you to prove what you say has merit.  We can rest on what is currently the standard if we so wish.  Your argument is akin to stating Americans don’t care if we all start eating Chinese food instead of McDonalds.  Well, PROVE IT.

I wasn’t requesting anything particularly difficult--if the attitudes most MR readers hold really are the norm, it oughta be child’s play for tillman to find a sample to back up his assertion, isn’t? He may not need to, but if he so chooses, it’s not exactly hard.

Posted by ben tillman on May 28, 2005, 10:21 PM | #

I wasn’t requesting anything particularly difficult--if the attitudes most MR readers hold really are the norm, it oughta be child’s play for tillman to find a sample to back up his assertion....

I don’t really follow you here.  It is easy to find such a sample—the problem is describing the sample and proving that it is representative.

Posted by Svigor on May 28, 2005, 10:31 PM | #

The Nord vs. Med argument raises its ugly head.  I am a Nord, and I confess that I prefer the looks of Nords.  I assume that most Meds prefer the looks of Meds.  I’m for pan-white solidarity on one hand, and preservation of intra-white groups on the other:

http://theoccidentalquarterly.com/vol3no1/mxr-genetic.html

Using appeals to authority regarding which human group is most attractive is problematic in part because we’ve had a group waging hostile race war in control of our social nervous system for the better part of a century now.

Another problem is that males have an instinct towards one-way gene flow; we all instinctively love the idea of mating with exotics because that instinct is under certain circumstances adaptive (as is the instinct to prevent exotic males from mating with our females).  KMac makes a great deal of sense on this issue (vis a vis Jewry).

Posted by Svigor on May 28, 2005, 10:37 PM | #

Sorry, appeals to popularity not “appeals to authority.”

Posted by Svigor on May 28, 2005, 10:59 PM | #

Leaving aside the question of how you’re so absolutely sure Ms. Mohan’s employers are gay, the fact remains that even if they are, homosexuals care about making money, same as everyone else. Profitable models are appealing and feminine, so if her homosexual employers hired her because they thought she was butch, they’re probably pretty stupid for gay people.

Beat that strawman well while you’re about it, eh?  The high fashion industry is dominated by homosexuals.  The idea that subverting a population’s aesthetic tastes towards one’s own conflicts with profit-making is absurd.  All of Hollywood and Madison Avenue stand in contradiction of the idea.

Posted by Phil Peterson on May 28, 2005, 11:00 PM | #

I prefer blondes, myself.  I had an Indian girlfriend once, though.  An “interesting” experience it was too.

I personally like Brunettes but its not set in stone. It all depends on the woman.

Armand Marie Leroi, a developmental biologist at Imperial College, London, seems to think so, and as proof he offers the example of the “world’s most beautiful woman”

Its funny that a question which will always be a purely subjective question is now masquarading as basis for “science”. While one can agree that broad definitions of beauty can be judged fairly objectively, it is absurd to argue that the question of deciding who is the world’s “most beautiful woman” can ever be judged objectively. Its not like measuring height with an inch tape. 

Saira Mohan is the most beautiful woman in the world? Ummm, I don’t think so. Is she better than Monica?

http://www.monicabellucci.it/gallery/images/M_Bellucci_122.jpg

Case closed.

Incidentally this is what Leroi looks like. Any comments guys?

http://www.knightayton.co.uk/armandleroi.jpg

Posted by JW Holliday on May 28, 2005, 11:35 PM | #

Considering JR vs. Chris – while I believe JR to be fundamentally correct, Chris’ comments underscore a problem with the post itself.

While JR does of course talk about genes, the post – similar to the previous one about the beauty contestants – ultimately revolves around a gallery of blonde Nordic women and a proximate concern with NW European phenotypes.  Now, since a love for phenotype can motivate people to act adaptively with respect to their genetic interests, this is not per se a problem, if this blog was exclusively focused on peoples of NW European descent.  My understanding, however, is that it is interested in “the West” in general, that is “European Christendom”, or, more secularly, in all European-derived whites and their civilization.  A narrower focus fails to be a compelling argument to this larger group.

More to the point, ultimate interests – genetic interests – should be emphasized, and, instead of various speculations of the outcome of different mixes with respect to physical appearance, the genetic interests of all involved can be considered.

Once you base a post on pictures and Sailerian analyses of what people think other people look like, you open the door to guys like Chris saying that Eurasian mixes will look like Slavs and other such anecdotal, subjective comments.  It’s 2005 guys, not 1905 or 1935.  Give me a choice between Salter and Coon and I pick Salter.  If others prefer Coon, so be it.  Do they think that Michael Jackson is “whiter” now than he was when he was in the Jackson Five?

Chris’ arguments themselves are irrelevant.  It is the same as with JJR – confusing what is popular, or what they think is popular, with what is correct.  Whether or not degenerate whites prefer Eurasian mixes to Nordics (which I doubt) is not relevant to whether such admixture is in the interests of the population.  It is not in the interest of a diabetic with high cholesterol to eat a stack of pancakes smothered with butter and syrup.  However, I know people who do so.  So what?  They are self-destructive and stupid.  As are miscegenationists.

Another thing.  Besides the fact that this LeRoi-ian implication of benefits of admixture is inconsistent with the last paragraph of his NY Times article, which suggests that genetic preservation is important (or is it, only Negritoes and not whites should be thus preserved?), it is also irrelevant.  Any group’s interest in its own continuity is independent of whatever anyone – LeRoi, JR, Razib, Chris, or JW – thinks of their phenotype (or genotype!).  Beautiful or ugly, every group has an interest in its own genetic survival. 

Now, if physical beauty led to increased reproduction, then the genes coding for this phenotype can be an adaptive genetic interest.  However, we live in a world in which grotesque, obese welfare mamas reproduce far more than do supermodels and, even more to the point, what evidence is there that multiracial people are more attractive?  I agree with JR’s points here. LeRoi can talk all he wishes about mutations and beauty, but the fact is that there is no evidence that people – independent of media brainwashing – will prefer a heterozygous mongrel to a more homozygous purebred.  Besides which, most fairly large ethnies have sufficient genetic diversity that recessive mutations are not so much an issue.  I thought there was “more genetic variation within groups compared to between groups.” Of course, the relevance of this variation is questionable (as I’ve posted about), but if folks wish to make this argument then they need to follow through on its implications.  So much diversity within groups – means that admixture is not needed in most cases to produce LeRoi’s heterozygotic beauty.

Posted by jonjayray on May 28, 2005, 11:37 PM | #

Leroi obviously likes women who look rather like him.  He is entitled to that view but he is not a real “Roi” so can be disregarded.

Good point about the mulatto girl looking masculine but I saw no mention of her chin.  A recessive chin is feminine but hers is fairly “strong”

Posted by Svigor on May 29, 2005, 12:01 AM | #

I thought there was “more genetic variation within groups compared to between groups.” Of course, the relevance of this variation is questionable (as I’ve posted about), but if folks wish to make this argument then they need to follow through on its implications.  So much diversity within groups – means that admixture is not needed in most cases to produce LeRoi’s heterozygotic beauty.

Ahahahaha!  Why didn’t I think of that?  Damn that’s a good one JW!

Posted by Fred Scrooby on May 29, 2005, 12:20 AM | #

I agree, Svigor—that’s an excellent point to throw back in the faces of the race-replacers, who are simply green with envy at the beauty of white women.  You know, I used to wonder if each race found its women the most beautiful in the world.  Now I know the answer:  each race doesn’t find its own women the most beautiful in the world, but finds white women the most beautiful in the world, the proof being that, were it otherwise, all the jealous people of other races out there wouldn’t be driven so hysterically to try to destroy the white race—which they’re clearly doing out of purest jealousy.  Knowing that, there’s no more need to ask “Who are the fairest women in the eyes of non-white races?”—the intensity of their jealousy gives us the answer to that ...

Posted by chris w on May 29, 2005, 12:25 AM | #

Fred Scrooby:
“Good.  How about we let them vote on race-replacement “immigration” in a binding referendum then, Chris?”

Sure—as I said, I’m in favor of restricting immigration.

“Incidentally, if you wish to change the northern-European percentage of the U.S.’s race you should get the hell out of this country or be kicked the hell out, and into some country which has a percentage of non-northern types you feel more comfortable with.”

I didn’t say that it was my *goal* to change the predominant phenotype from an Nordic one to a Mediterranean or Eurasian one.  I said that I wouldn’t have a problem if things happened to evolve that way, and that it has been my observation that most other people would not have a problem with it.

“Stop trying to change countries’ races or ethnicities please, you ill-bred narcissist.”

What activities do you think I’m engaging in in order to “try[...] to change countries’ races or ethnicities”?  I’m not *trying* to change anything.  However, it does appear that the Nordic phenotype *will* become less dominant as time goes on, and that most people are not particularly bent out of shape about it.

<>

“Oh?  How come we never, ever see you attack the population-transfer “immigration” that’s going on all over the West nowadays, if you see so many reasons to oppose it?”

Never ever?  This is only the second blog entry I’ve commented on, and I have voiced my opposition to unchecked immigration.

“I can answer that for you—it’s because you’re so insecure about your dark hair and complexion, and feel so inferior and defensive about them, that you won’t utter a word in defense of more nothern-looking folk whom you in your weakness have always seen as “persecuting” you, “tormenting” you with their “greater whiteness,” so to speak.  You’ll be DAMNED if you’re going to post a single word anywhere that might help your lifelong “tormentors.”

lol.  This has to be one of the most paranoid hallucinatory comments I’ve ever read. 

I certainly don’t feel oppressed by Nordics--I’m not sure what gave you that idea.  At any rate, if blonde-haired blue-eyed Nordics are sufficiently concerned about reproducing themselves, then they should mate with those who are at least carriers for blondeness.  If they aren’t concerned, they won’t.  It seems to me that a few are concerned about reproducing the Nordic phenotype, but that most aren’t.  Let those who are concerned choose their partners as they will.

Posted by chris w on May 29, 2005, 12:32 AM | #

Kubilai:
Chris, I do believe you are a GNXPer and this infatuation with breeding Whites out of existence, especially with Asians, is not only disturbing but also quite puerile.  Once done, it CANNOT be undone.  Stop treating the White race as your next high school science project.

lol.  You seem to have the impression that I’m advocating a Eugenic program to force reproduction between Nordics and Asians. Yup, first I’m going to establish a Eurasian Nationalist Bolshevik Vanguard Party, and we’re going to enact a putsch against the Russian government.  Once we secure our control of Russia, we’ll conquer all of Eurasia—from Shanghai to Gibraltar—for a new Eurasian superstate.  Then we’ll force Norwegians to live in Beijing, and Chinese to live in Stockholm, so that gradually, a new Eurasian master race shall arise!  Muahahahahahahaha!

No, seriously, I’m not advocating any such thing.  As I said earlier, I’m in favor of a fairly restrictive immigration policy, and I’m not in favor of forcing any group to intermingle with any other group.  So if you’re concerned about preserving your Nordic phenotype, go out and and father lots of Nordic children with a Nordic women.  You have my assurances that I won’t organize a plot to stop you

Posted by chris w on May 29, 2005, 12:43 AM | #

I wrote:
White Americans may very well become increasingly alarmed by the Balkanization of the country, but I don’t think they will ever share your alarm regarding the Mediterranean-ization or Eurasian-ization of the predominant national phenotype.  Nobody cares about that.

Ben Tillman responded:
Where are your data?  What is your sample?  Certainly some care, and it’s a safe bet that it’s an overwhelming majority.

It is true that my observations haven’t been scientifically rigorous.  However, there is an easy way to determine the importance that people place upon replicating their phenotype: Let people choose the marriage partner they find appropriate (of whatever ethnicity they find appropriate), and have as many children that they find appropriate.  Those are are concerned about replicating their phenotype will mate with those who are least a carrier of those phenotypic traits, whereas those who are not concerned won’t.

Posted by Svigor on May 29, 2005, 12:52 AM | #

Chris, is there not a difference between an informed opinion and an uninformed one?  Is there not a difference between a white population subjected to 50+ years of hostile race-indoctrination and one not?  Is there not a difference between a population made aware of Salter’s theories and a population prevented from being aware of them?

Is there not a difference between a person who “chooses” to put a gun to his head believing it shoots joy bullet and a person who knows precisely what a gun does?

Posted by Fred Scrooby on May 29, 2005, 12:55 AM | #

It’s clear this guy chris w is a complete zero.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on May 29, 2005, 12:58 AM | #

He’s getting his fifteen minutes of fame here.

Posted by GayLikeAFox on May 29, 2005, 01:07 AM | #

Just a few loose ends worth tying up…

For one, the African-American birth rate is not “far below replacement” as Chris W. asserted.  Blacks are actually the only ethnic group in the U.S. that we can be certain is replacing itself--the Afro-American tfr is 2.2, whereas the tfr for whites and Asians is around 1.8.  (Though the black birth rate is falling whereas the birth rates for whites and Asians have stabilized.) Hispanics have a higher tfr than blacks, but they aren’t really an ethnic group and so many of them are illegal immigrants, not Americans, that it’s difficult to talk confidently of Hispanic-American fertility.

As for homosexuals dominating the fashion industry, this is pretty obvious and it may account for some of the disconnection between what the modelling industry and the majority find ideal.  (If you want to see what most heterosexual men are lusting after, look at the pin-up girls on the walls in college dorms.  High-end fashion models, in comparison, are an acquired taste.)

On the other hand, such quasi-attractive supermodels may be successful because the appreciation of uncommon aesthetics serves to seperate the elite from the hoi-polloi.  In other words, maybe the unusual-looking model is just a walking, breathing equivalent of all sorts of avant-garde art movements in that the upper classes teach themselves to appreciate her appearance so they can define themselves as seperate from/superior to the blue-collar guys down the street drooling over the big-boobed blonde girl-next-door type.

Finally, I’m a dark-haired, dark-eyed Med and while I personally find Nordics and Meds equally attractive (in general) and wouldn’t personally care if one type replaced the other in the U.S., I sympathize with people who want to preserve the Nordic component in this country.  If this were any country but the U.S. and the group in question were any race except white, the idea that massive immigration should be allowed to dissolve a distinct people would be unthinkable.  Besides, the people who want to usher in this brave new raceless world aren’t going to stop at Nords.  They seem to want to mix all the races into one giant pot, which would just be a disaster.  (Humankind, like any species, benefits immensely from biodiversity.) So even if you prefer Lebanese or Chinese or black women to Nords, you might as well stand up for the preservation of the latter just for the sake of principle.  Otherwise, your own people (or the type you prefer) may be the next to fall to the “one world, one people” juggernaut.

Posted by chris on May 29, 2005, 01:09 AM | #

JW Holiday:
Chris’ arguments themselves are irrelevant.  It is the same as with JJR – confusing what is popular, or what they think is popular, with what is correct.  Whether or not degenerate whites prefer Eurasian mixes to Nordics (which I doubt) is not relevant to whether such admixture is in the interests of the population.  It is not in the interest of a diabetic with high cholesterol to eat a stack of pancakes smothered with butter and syrup.  However, I know people who do so.  So what?  They are self-destructive and stupid.  As are miscegenationists.

I thought you guys were attacking multiculturalism on the grounds that it is an imposition that interferes with people’s natural tendency to associate with their own kind.  If people are naturally inclinded to associate with a person of the same racial phenotype, that would indicate that the number of “degenerates” who partake in miscegenation would remain small enough to become negligible.  If the number of “degenerates” who race-mix becomes sufficiently large to cause a particular phenotype to disappear, perhaps that is an indication that people have no “natural” inclinatation to preserve their phenotype at all.

Posted by chris w on May 29, 2005, 01:13 AM | #

gaylikeafox:
For one, the African-American birth rate is not “far below replacement” as Chris W. asserted.  Blacks are actually the only ethnic group in the U.S. that we can be certain is replacing itself--the Afro-American tfr is 2.2, whereas the tfr for whites and Asians is around 1.8

My mistake—nonetheless, it is down from 2.5 in 1990:

http://www.prcdc.org/summaries/blacks/blacks.html

Posted by Sybach on May 29, 2005, 01:17 AM | #

Beat that strawman well while you’re about it, eh?  The high fashion industry is dominated by homosexuals.  The idea that subverting a population’s aesthetic tastes towards one’s own conflicts with profit-making is absurd.  All of Hollywood and Madison Avenue stand in contradiction of the idea.

I don’t see your point. Hollywood makes money by pandering to the aesthetic tastes of the general populace. If whites really found non-whites like Ms. Mohan so masculine, or, in the context of Hollywood, glorification of inter-racial relationships in movies, TV shows, etc. so disgusting, all we’d have to do is boycott their products. Regardless of what the fruticakes in Hollywood and the fashion world think of feminine beauty, if whites simply stopped consuming any and all media revolving around non-whites, these gays would scramble to hire white models, actresses, etc. The fact that whites have yet to do so is an indication that most of us don’t find other races as horridly unpalatable as you do.

Personally, I can’t say that mixed-race people are as utterly abhorrent as you guys say they are. Having a few white genes is better than none, in my view.

Tillman: I still don’t believe I’m asking anything very difficult, but perhaps you’ve misunderstood me. What studies have you consulted that actively disprove chris_w’s assertion and show that whites would be very concerned regarding the Mediterranean-ization or Eurasian-ization of the predominant national phenotype? I’m actually curious; if somebody’s done a study on this, it would make fascinating reading.

Posted by James Bowery on May 29, 2005, 01:22 AM | #

This is actually pretty hilarious.  Newsweek’s circulation is flagging and what they’re doing to try and ramp it up is make more noise than the next rag.  They’re also trying to appeal to the “new Americans” since they don’t know how to appeal to anyone else and its easier to appeal to new Americans with race baiting crap like this since the new Americans are a lot more racist than the original Americans—and their hypocrisy is without any comparison at all.

Indeed a lot of the media bias toward this sort of racial destruction of their homeland is probably so they can have a larger and easier market base to sell to.

Posted by chris w on May 29, 2005, 01:25 AM | #

Svigor:
Chris, is there not a difference between an informed opinion and an uninformed one?  Is there not a difference between a white population subjected to 50+ years of hostile race-indoctrination and one not?  Is there not a difference between a population made aware of Salter’s theories and a population prevented from being aware of them?

Ah, but I thought it was people’s natural inclination to breed with their own racial type.  If that’s the case, then they shouldn’t have to be versed in a specific evolutionary theory before doing so.  Remember, scientific theory isn’t normative, but descriptive.

Your argument that pro-miscegenation media propaganda is responsible for current race-mixing isn’t convincing, because it ignores the fact that race-mixing also occured when white supremacy was the dominant paradigm.  From the beginning of the early colonial period, numerous American Indians detribalized themselves, joined white settlements, and intermarried with white settlers.  After General Sheridan defeated the Minnesota Sioux, the Dawes Act was passed, which allowed scores of thousands of American Indians to acquire plots of private land for farming and to become American citizens.  They also intermarried with the white settlers of the upper midwest.  If people were naturally inclined to mate with their racial types prior to the dissemination of pro-miscegenation propaganda, why did individual states feel the need to draft anti-miscegenation laws, if not to stop people who miscegenated in spite of white supremacist paradigm that society at large accepted?

Posted by Svigor on May 29, 2005, 01:42 AM | #

Chris:
If the number of “degenerates” who race-mix becomes sufficiently large to cause a particular phenotype to disappear, perhaps that is an indication that people have no “natural” inclinatation to preserve their phenotype at all.

All said while neatly avoiding my questions, which go right to the heart of the matter.

I don’t see your point. Hollywood makes money by pandering to the aesthetic tastes of the general populace.

Hollywood makes money by perpetrating race/culture-war while seeing how far from the tastes of the general populace it can diverge.  Despite losers like Alexander, they continue to pump out their propaganda.  They refused to bankroll or distribute The Passion of the Christ, despite how gloriously obvious it is that America is starving for honest Christian entertainment (rather than race-culture warfare like The Last Temptation of Christ).  We see how much money Hollywood made pandering to popular tastes with that one (what, 600 million in box office sales alone into Mel’s pocket?).

Want another?  How about The Chronicles of Riddick starring outlier poster-boy Vin Diesel, which never made its money back at the box office either?

If whites really found non-whites like Ms. Mohan so masculine,

She’s relatively masculine, she isn’t absolutely masculine.  She’s an attractive woman, and that is the context of the discussion - attractive women.

or, in the context of Hollywood, glorification of inter-racial relationships in movies, TV shows, etc. so disgusting, all we’d have to do is boycott their products.

That’s nice.  Spoken like someone who’s given no thought to the issue.  Btw, if Alexander’s “success” isn’t in effect a boycott, what is?

The fact that whites have yet to do so is an indication that most of us don’t find other races as horridly unpalatable as you do.

I don’t find other races horridly unpalatable, nor do I think your opinions (or popular opinions) of them were formed in a vacuum.

GayLikeAFox:
I sympathize with people who want to preserve the component in this country.

That’s all anyone can reasonably demand. (I edited your quote only to make it non-specific).

Posted by Svigor on May 29, 2005, 01:48 AM | #

Ah, but I thought it was people’s natural inclination to breed with their own racial type.

Again you treat a complex issue as if it was a simple one.  Yes, that is the natural inclination, just as most people are naturally inclined against suicide.  However, groups depend on interaction to erect barriers against the inflow of alien genes, and this group interaction is massively propagandized against.

For example, it is a group’s natural instinct to round up a posse and lynch aliens for sleeping with or chasing their women, but this is both illegal and, more importantly socially taboo because of the media.  Similarly, group opprobrium against miscegenation is vital in protecting group genetic interests, but propaganda has led people to erect and obey taboos against that opprobrium.

I’m not a genetic determinist, and I don’t know how to satisfy you if that’s who you’re looking to argue with because I don’t know any.

Posted by Sybach on May 29, 2005, 02:01 AM | #

Svigor, you would have a point if the failure of “Alexander” and “The Chronicles of Riddick” were representative of all movies starring non-whites. Unfortunately, it seems you haven’t really done much research. For instance, “Are we there yet?” a film starring a Negro, has made quite a bit of money--82,301,521 dollars, so far. “Guess Who’s Coming to Dinner,” a movie revolving entirely around an inter-racial relationship, has grossed a total of 67,962,333 dollars. Quite good. If whites in general share your racial views, why have these two movies done so well?

Posted by Fred Scrooby on May 29, 2005, 02:05 AM | #

For the record, btw, I find all types of white women equally attractive, without any preference whatsoever for or against blonde or red hair, blue eyes, or fair skin.  I’ve always found dark Mediterranean women equal to fair Scandinavian women in physical attractiveness, no more and no less (and every variety of white women in between).  What I will say is I’ve always found white women in general, be they fair or dark, the most attractive physically of the world’s races and it’s not even close.  I’ll add that for me, that doesn’t depend at all on the color of their skin, hair, or eyes.  A white woman I find attractive could have jet-black skin and I’d find her—all other things about her being equal—exactly as attractive as with white skin.

Posted by Lurker on May 29, 2005, 02:16 AM | #

Julia Roberts - its great to hear that Im not the only bloke never to have found old horse face attractive!

Posted by Sybach on May 29, 2005, 02:17 AM | #

Similarly, group opprobrium against miscegenation is vital in protecting group genetic interests, but propaganda has led people to erect and obey taboos against that opprobrium.

I’ll notice you don’t really address chris_w’s example, Svigor. During the days of the Dawes Act, there was no Hollywood pumping out “anti-white” propaganda. There was nothing coercing whites to intermarry with Native Americans. So then why did whites marry these non-whites if the media wasn’t encouraging them to?

Posted by Svigor on May 29, 2005, 02:22 AM | #

Sybach, my point is that Hollywood accepts the risks involved because it has more interests than just money, and that movies that consist of warfare against the majority succeed in spite of this not because of it.

Look at how many movies have been made about THE Holocaust; are you suggesting that profit is the only motive here?  If so, why don’t we have any flicks about the Holodomor, or the Soviet gulags?

I think it’s you who hasn’t thought this through properly.

Have you ever considered why Jews flock to Hollywood as if obeying some biological imperative, like lemmings over a cliff?  If profit is their only motive, why are they not more evenly distributed in other industries?

They want to control what we think, that’s why; that’s EGI at work right there, right under your nose.  The short-term profits of moviemaking are one thing, long-term profits of group safety granted by controlling how others see you (among other things) is a whole other ball game.

Posted by Svigor on May 29, 2005, 02:27 AM | #

Sorry, I must’ve missed the example in question because I don’t know what you’re referring to.

I don’t know anything about the time in question so how can I answer?  My guess is that the numbers were minimal and occurred at the fringes.  Humans are notorious sluts ( ), and I don’t pretend that a tendency is a hard rule as your strawman does.

Posted by Sybach on May 29, 2005, 02:38 AM | #

Look at how many movies have been made about THE Holocaust; are you suggesting that profit is the only motive here?  If so, why don’t we have any flicks about the Holodomor, or the Soviet gulags?

An astute question, but one I have a answer for. Americans just don’t care about Stalin’s gulags. Remember, in WWII, the USSR was our ally and Nazi Germany our enemy. (Now, whether the U.S was engineered into that war or not is something I don’t want to get into here...there are a few other threads in MR which deal with that )Thus, films exaggerating Nazi crimes, such as the Holocaust, will make more money because Americans want to be reassured that the power they fought in WWII was the bad guy.

Have you ever considered why Jews flock to Hollywood as if obeying some biological imperative, like lemmings over a cliff?  If profit is their only motive, why are they not more evenly distributed in other industries?

Simple--for the same reasons blacks flock to the NFL and Indians to hotel management. Jews are attracted to media because they have skills which they can profit off most of in that field. They’re not active in other professions (such as professional sports) because they’re just not good at them. Jews have very high verbal IQs, so it makes sense for them to flock to fields where they can capitalize on that trait.

As for chris_w’s example, since you overlooked it, here it is:
From the beginning of the early colonial period, numerous American Indians detribalized themselves, joined white settlements, and intermarried with white settlers.  After General Sheridan defeated the Minnesota Sioux, the Dawes Act was passed, which allowed scores of thousands of American Indians to acquire plots of private land for farming and to become American citizens.  They also intermarried with the white settlers of the upper midwest.

chris_w’s question (and mine) still stands--if it’s Hollywood propaganda that’s encouraging miscegenation among whites, why were we marrying Indians years before Hollywood rose to power?

Posted by Svigor on May 29, 2005, 02:59 AM | #

Your question is flawed.  If I gave the impression that the mass media is the only cause of intermarriage, then I was wrong to do so.  That said, your question falls flat.

An astute question, but one I have a answer for. Americans just don’t care about Stalin’s gulags.

I’m starting to doubt your sincerity.  I know that’s not intellectually rigorous, but really, what am I to think?  Americans only care about the Third Reich’s camps and not about the Soviet (they weren’t just Stalin’s) camps because Jews only make movies about the former, and have a taboo on the latter.  Tell me about this grass-roots interest in THE Holocaust that predated the Jewish onlsaught, I’m interested now.

Remember, in WWII, the USSR was our ally and Nazi Germany our enemy.

Translation: remember the Soviets were our erstwhile ally during WWII, and please forget the Cold War.

With regard to GWCTD, just speculating here, but shock value does sell sometimes, and this might’ve been especially so back then when we were all still much less aware of how the left operates.

Regarding AWTY, I think white America is far less averse to paying to see negro antics when miscegenation isn’t involved (Vanessa’s whiteness notwithstanding). 

Still, even you must acknowledge that Hollywood faces limits to its efforts at social engineering; Will Smith admits publically that Hollywood doesn’t put non-white males with white females because it pisses off white ticket-buyers.

Simple--for the same reasons blacks flock to the NFL and Indians to hotel management.

Indians flock to hotel management because of government handouts (sorry can’t remember my source). 

Jews are attracted to media because they have skills which they can profit off most of in that field. They’re not active in other professions (such as professional sports) because they’re just not good at them. Jews have very high verbal IQs, so it makes sense for them to flock to fields where they can capitalize on that trait.

You can’t explain Hollywood’s overwhelming ethnic character away without nepotism, and simple talent isn’t good enough.  60% Jewish in a 2-3% Jewish nation?  Sorry, their verbal IQs aren’t that friggin’ high - run the numbers, there are millions more high IQ white non-Jews in this country than high IQ Jews.

Your football vs. Hollywood bit doesn’t explain why Jews don’t flock to areas where they can’t influence public opinion or seek tribal advantage.

Posted by Sybach on May 29, 2005, 03:16 AM | #

Translation: remember the Soviets were our erstwhile ally during WWII, and please forget the Cold War.

Actually, there were quite a few anti-Soviet movies during the Cold War--Red Dawn deals with the prospect of Soviet invasion, for instance.

Tell me about this grass-roots interest in THE Holocaust that predated the Jewish onlsaught, I’m interested now.

One more thing to remember is that American soldiers actually *saw* Hitler’s concentration camps. American soldiers marching through Germany gave many candid accounts of Hitler’s concentration camps and their inmates. The same cannot be said of the USSR’s gulags, since American soldiers didn’t set foot in them Thus, many whites watch Holocaust movies could say, “hey! That’s what my grandpappy saw!” but they won’t have the same visceral reaction to Stalin’s gulags.

You can’t explain Hollywood’s overwhelming ethnic character away without nepotism, and simple talent isn’t good enough.  60% Jewish in a 2-3% Jewish nation?  Sorry, their verbal IQs aren’t that friggin’ high - run the numbers, there are millions more high IQ white non-Jews in this country than high IQ Jews.

If I implied that ethnic nepotism played absolutely no part in the Jewish dominance of the media, I was wrong to do so, and I apologize. However, I should add that Jews are over-represented in other fields beyond the media. They are disproportionately represented in medecine, for instance. I don’t have the exact citation with me (Give me some time to dig through my books, I should be able to find it within a couple of days) but as I recall, FAR more than 2-3% of Jews were doctors.

Posted by gaylikeafox on May 29, 2005, 03:26 AM | #

In regards to interracial mating, it has existed since the dawn of time and will exist forever.  Nonetheless, the desire to associate with one’s own kind is still very real.  I was in college a mere five years ago and High School ten years ago, and despite all the talk about diversity and inclusion, the social groups pretty much divided up along racial lines in both instances--sure, there were a few blacks in the “white” groups and more whites in the “black” groups, and the other minority individuals kind of fell wherever, but the human tendency to segregate was nevertheless in evidence.  What impresses me in retrospect is how accepted this was, and how no one really saw it as a problem until some ideologues at my college tried to make it one.  So I don’t think that a history of interracial dating really disproves the idea that people USUALLY act on shared genetic (i.e. tribal) intersts.  The question is, if not for the massive propaganda machine that is the mass media and Hollywood, would interracial couples become the norm?  There’s really no way of testing that question, but my suspicion, just from what I’ve seen in my own life, is “No”.

Posted by Svigor on May 29, 2005, 03:43 AM | #

Actually, there were quite a few anti-Soviet movies during the Cold War--Red Dawn deals with the prospect of Soviet invasion, for instance.

Exceptions that prove the rule.  That’s a dodge though, I’m talking about the total lack of any Gulag or Holodomor flicks and the total hyperbolic oversaturation of Holocaust flicks.

One more thing to remember is that American soldiers actually *saw* Hitler’s concentration camps. American soldiers marching through Germany gave many candid accounts of Hitler’s concentration camps and their inmates.

The same cannot be said of the USSR’s gulags, since American soldiers didn’t set foot in them Thus, many whites watch Holocaust movies could say, “hey! That’s what my grandpappy saw!” but they won’t have the same visceral reaction to Stalin’s gulags.

This is a bit of a stretch, since the promotion of THE Holocaust industry didn’t even start until the late sixties.  Have you noticed how Hollywood’s handling of the Third Reich has trended steadily towards demonization and away from relative amity as time passes?

I’m not saying it’s an invalid point, just that it doesn’t begin to wash as an explanation.  Further, G.I.s passed on memories of the liberation of the camps, and nothing more.  Films about THE Holocaust are much broader in scope than this.

Posted by Svigor on May 29, 2005, 03:54 AM | #

I should add that I confused Are We There Yet? with another movie, the black road-trip flick with Cedric and Vanessa Williams.

Posted by J Richards on May 29, 2005, 03:57 AM | #

Response to comments on my post:

Edgar and Sybach: Figure 5 focuses on nostril shapes and Figure 6 focuses on the nasal bone; the white women in these figures do not have to be highly attractive, and I have used a mix of attractive and not very attractive white women.  Figure 7 shows beautiful white women, not the most beautiful white women, all of whom are clearly more attractive with respect to facial anatomy compared to Saira Mohan, which neither of you seems to dispute.  The fact that even more attractive white women exist underscores the absurdity of Armand Marie Leroi calling Saira Mohan a great beauty.  Besides, since Saira Mohan is somewhat masculinized, I decided to include pictures of white women with some slightly masculinized traits to show that the white women are still more attractive.  Thus, only the top-left woman in Figure 7 is overwhelmingly feminine; the top-right woman displays slight masculinization in the form of facial narrowing and a squared jaw; and the two women at the bottom manifest somewhat less feminine glabellar (forehead) projection. 

GayLikeAFox: My post does not focus on pigmentation but skeletal/soft tissue traits instead.  Therefore, I did not address some of the recessive genetics associated with pigmentation, which is well-known anyway.  There are also some recessive genes associated with skeletal/soft tissue traits and these recessive genes are more prevalent among whites, accounting for why white/non-white admixtures often overwhelmingly possess the facial features of the non-white parent.  The last statement requires extensive documentation and I will be posting it--in parts--in the future.

Sybach: Using pictures of the likes of Julia Roberts is not necessary since they are well known.  Julia Roberts, Monica Bellucci (just see her without make-up), and Angelica Bridges are less attractive than the women in Figure 7; Jenna Jameson has low-class looks; more refined looks and I could have used her.  Saira Mohan is not paid good money because some people find her feminine, but because gay men call the shots in the high fashion industry and naturally prefer women with facial masculinization; see here (a page from where I got two of the pictures in my post) and here.  Speaking of �Hindoo,� Hindoo is a variant of Hindu, and you have already figured out which variant I prefer. 

Ben Tillman: You are correct in that familiarity is somewhat related to perceived physical attractiveness.  However, my focus is on the biological correlates of multiple average traits.  You may be interested in knowing that even infants aged 14-151 hours prefer faces with multiple average traits, clearly at an age where socialization cannot be responsible for the preference [see: Infant Behav Dev 1998;21:345�54].

Posted by Svigor on May 29, 2005, 03:59 AM | #

The argument can of course be made (flying in the face of any sort of objective assessment of Jewry) that the Allied liberation of the camps allowed for an “in,” a “hook” so to speak, but that begs the question, weren’t millions of schoolkids cowering under their desks and the other popular manifestations of the Red Scare just as exploitable an “in” for Gulag or Holodomor flicks?

Posted by J Richards on May 29, 2005, 03:59 AM | #

Response to comments on my post:

Chris W: My post has almost nothing to do with evolution; I didn�t even mention evolution.  And, what is this talk about blonde women?  I have clearly asked the reader to ignore pigmentation because the focus is on skeletal and some soft tissue traits.  Besides, some of the blonde women shown are peroxide blonde, not natural blonde.  You would have obviously noted the dark-haired, dark-eyed, and dark-skinned white woman at the bottom right in Figure 7; she is from central Europe.  Nowhere in my post do I ask dark-haired white people to feel affinity for Nordics.  My post is not about Nordics.  It just happens to be the case that fine-featured people are more prevalent in Northern Europe, and if I am to display some fine-featured whites, a large proportion of them will be Northern European and hence several will also have light hair.  This doesn�t mean that I am promoting light-haired individuals; light hair is simply accompanying the facial features that I am selecting people for.  The link that you provide to some pictures of Lebanese women do an excellent job of proving my point: these women are either white or close, yet not one of them has the fine facial features that you would see in attractive Northern Europeans.  Therefore, if I select fine-featured Europeans, you know that light hair would get selected for indirectly since most such Europeans would be coming from Northern Europe.  You have to be under some major delusion if you believe that most blondes do not have a problem breeding with other races.  Besides, what is primarily at stake in race mixing is not loss of blonde hair, but the fine facial features that will be lost to the ancestral traits much more extensively retained among non-Europeans.  Most curiously, you accuse me of proposing anti-miscegenation laws!  Where did I make this proposal?  Nowhere!  The purpose of my post is to inform clueless whites, not to propose legislation. Further, what is this talk of racial �purity�?  I didn�t mention any such thing, and I don�t know what this concept is supposed to mean.  Perhaps you can explain.  Besides, it is interesting that you accuse Fred Scrooby of false representation of your motives.  How about your own representation of my motives? 

Onetwothree: If you believe that the alternative pictures that you link to are more attractive, on average, than the white women that I have shown, you likely like masculinized women because the pictures that you have linked to are those of fashion models, who typically have somewhat masculinized facial features.

JW Holliday: Read my reply to Chris W above concerning the fact that my focus is on fine-featured whites, which are most extensively found among Northern Europeans; the high prevalence of light hair is an unselected correlate that disproportionately accompanies people with the facial features that I was looking for.  You are right that genetic interests should be emphasized, and I will be translating the genetic interests to practical concerns such as aesthetics, health, IQ, etc., or else the likes of David B of GNXP will keep insisting that the notion of genetic interests is mystical.  Posting pictures is of excellent value in clarifying several issues, and when combined with the latest research in physical anthropology--which now uses lasers to measure complex structures, describing them using geometric morphometrics--provides a sophisticated understanding of physical variation that cannot be attributed to subjective perceptions; just wait for me to start posting on some of the cool recent analyses in physical anthropology.

Posted by Ephraim on May 29, 2005, 04:13 AM | #

“It is commonly observed that African-Americans generally hold the looks of notably “whitified” persons such as Halle Berry or Vanessa Williams in higher regard than the looks of the black Africans from West Africa from whom they are descended.  Similarly, some Asians undergo corrective surgery to straighten their eyelids (blepharoplasty), reduce the size of their cheekbones (malarplasty), make their nose more projecting (rhinoplasty), etc.  On the other hand, whites who undergo cosmetic facial surgery never try to acquire the facial features of black Africans or flat-faced Asians; rather, they attempt to acquire classic Northern European facial traits.”

Quick question, Mr. Richards--I notice that you’ve referenced most of your other assertions, but failed to provide a note for this one. Which studies are you citing here?

Posted by Guessedworker on May 29, 2005, 08:35 AM | #

JR,

Thanks for an excellent post giving rise to a very invigorating debate.  Your point re: Nordics is well taken.

Sybach,

Fashion models, both catwalk and photographic, are generally not selected for male delectation but to serve as “fashion foils” for other females.  Their purpose is to show off the clothes they wear, not their own sexual attractiveness which would detract from their commercial value. 

Accordingly, there are very few if any conclusions to be drawn from them viz-a-vis the miscegenative desires, or otherwise, of white males.  However, when Newsweek presses the issue beyond clothes-horses and into miscegenation as an ideal a line has been crossed - and crossed very deliberately, no doubt.

As for the true desires of white males, maybe those are more accurately reflected in the range of phenotypes of soft porn models, as JR has said.

In approaching this issue generally, the normative view should clearly be that white populations have every right to cleave to their own natures, and not to be engineered for decades towards some infernal machine bearing the name, “Murray Rothstein”.  Since healthy (ie non-liberal) heterosexual whites don’t adequately control the images and messages produced by Hollywood and the advertising, music and, yes, fashion industries there is very little that can be construed from said images about whites themselves.

To hear our real collective voice now would require a lengthy moratorium on the output of these industries.  In the absence of that, I suggest the pro-miscegenists on the thread listen very carefully to the antis.

Posted by Arcane on May 29, 2005, 09:27 AM | #

Saira Mohan is totally hot. You must be blind if you can’t see that.

Hmmm, speaking of beautiful “non-white” women, allow me to deface your website with some more beautiful “non-whites”:

Eh, that’s enough for now…

Posted by Arcane on May 29, 2005, 09:29 AM | #

In order:

Natalie Portman: Jewish
Jessica Biel: part Native American
Paz Vega: Latino
Gwyneth Paltrow: Jewish

Posted by Arcane on May 29, 2005, 09:30 AM | #

Ugh, follow this link for the last one:
http://www.moviemaze.de/celebs/0054/main.jpg

Stupid Google…

Posted by Arcane on May 29, 2005, 09:31 AM | #

http://www.moviemaze.de/celebs/54/1.html

Posted by edgar on May 29, 2005, 10:18 AM | #

However, groups depend on interaction to erect barriers against the inflow of alien genes...

Probably he most important comment in the thread. People make all sorts of decisions detrimental to group interests in the absence of enforcement. Group morality has to shape individuals unruly proximate desires. Whining about how some woman is ‘obviously’ more beautiful than another is irrelevant, tiresome and counter-productive. My aesthetic preference is for meds but my loyalty is to English women, even the most hideously ugly, because of ethnic solidarity, or, if you prefer, EGI’s.

Posted by Phil Peterson on May 29, 2005, 10:27 AM | #

Arcane,

You’re hilarious. Arguing Jews are white one moment and then showing pictures of hot Jewish girls the next moment to prove non-white girls are hot.

Don’t you think you need to make up your mind?

Saira Mohan is totally hot. You must be blind if you can’t see that.

She is good looking but she’s a bit too scrawny for my liking. Is she the world’s most beautiful woman? That’s debatable isn’t it? Or is this also modern theocracy that such questions cannot be debated because that would amount to “racism”? (chuckle)

Posted by Tournament of Champions on May 29, 2005, 01:31 PM | #

Paltrow’s mom is wasp, and if u’ve ever seen pictures of her parents it’s clear her phenotype is from her anglo side, not her jewish looking dad. C’mon, blonde hair? That’s semitic? Look at her features, it’s all WASP.

Btw, is Leroi Jewish? I would say the odds are excellent.

Posted by Phil Peterson on May 29, 2005, 01:48 PM | #

Btw, is Leroi Jewish? I would say the odds are excellent.

That’s what I thought too. He certainly doesn’t look ethnically Dutch in any way.

Posted by JW Holliday on May 29, 2005, 02:11 PM | #

Chris:"I thought you guys were attacking multiculturalism on the grounds that it is an imposition that interferes with people’s natural tendency to associate with their own kind.”

No, Chris, I am against multiculturalism on the grounds that is destroys the genetic interests, as well as many of the proximate interests (sociopolitical/economic power, etc), of the majority ethny.  You are following the GNXP logical flaw of confusing “would” with “should.” I don’t give a rat’s ass what people “would” do; I’m concerned with what people “should” do. 

Actually though, I do think if people were freed from media manipulation and were given the opportunity to make an informed choice, many (most?), but not all, of whites would choose to reject multiculturalism.  But, of course, they are not allowed to have this opportunity.  Why not?  If the pro-multis are so confident that they have “the people” with them, let’s open up the system, and see what happens.  No more forced integration, no more PC persecution of dissenting voices, no more media monopolization by pro-diversity forces.

We can also ask if miscegenation is so normal, and Asian immigration is so desirable, why don’t we see the reverse.  Instead, we have a situation in Korea of vicious persecution of the small population of mixed racers, where 40% (!) of such individuals there attempt suicide because of Asain xenophobic prejudice.  Of course, when Koreans immigrate to America, they demand their “rights” and will of course complain about “white racism.” Of course.

As regards admixture with Indians in the past, so what?  I can imagine that a lot of horny westerners, often without avaliable white women, took advantage of the squaw’s desires to “breed up.” But, even today, most people still breed within their race.  But as I said, I don’t care what the typical Oprah-loving fatass thinks or wants.  The question is - what is right.

As regards comments about “fine featured” people and all of that, everyone can post what they like.  My personal opinion is this emphasis on “fine featured Nordics”, if unbalanced by other considerations, is going to be problemmatical. If someone like David B is so silly as to to say “genes are mystical” they expose their own ignorance.  The problem with aesthetics is that they are subjective.  JR prefers fine featured Nordics.  Chris prefers Eurasians.  Fred has his own preferences.  So do I and everyone else. 

If someone is concerned with phenotype, then the argument should be framed that “these are our phenotypes, those of our parents, grandparents, and all our ancestors throughout the ages and they should be preserved.” Saying that one set of phenotypes are “better” than another doesn’t cut it, and LeRoi falls into this trap as well.  His definition of beauty is not that of others.  And it is not relevant.  I think Negritoes are stone-ugly, and I suspect the average American dumbass would agree with me.  Does that mean Negritoes have no right to exist?  LeRoi would, probably, be offended by that argument.  Every group, regardless of phenotype, has an equal interest in its own existence as does any other group.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on May 29, 2005, 03:05 PM | #

The problem with assholes like this LeRoi character and, more especially, the editors or string-pullers at Newsweek who published that article, is they’re constantly after whites to change into some other race.  We constantly hear “whites are bad, whites have to disappear, whites have to give what they have to others, whites are the cause of the problems in the Third World, whites have to genuflect before all nonwhites”—it never ends.  For some reason these people are anti-white to the point of wanting their extermination.  People who push that stuff aren’t just evil but are playing with fire that might end up burning them.  If it does they’ll have no one to blame but themselves.  Whites are getting sick of it—and of them.

Posted by Phil Peterson on May 29, 2005, 03:57 PM | #

Fred,

Newsweek is now just a glossy rag with the credibility of “National Enquirer”. Stuff like this is a last ditch effort to scramble as much leadership in these dog days before the ship sinks.

The internet is hitting all major news media the hardest. And Americans have basically lost faith in the media as I had blogged earlier. That is a very healthy development.

Posted by Arcane on May 29, 2005, 07:30 PM | #

Phil,
Don’t you think you need to make up your mind?

I see you still haven’t learned how to read yet… I put “non-white” in quotation marks, you silly fool, because according to you guys they aren’t white.

Posted by Phil Peterson on May 29, 2005, 08:25 PM | #

I see you still haven’t learned how to read yet… I put “non-white” in quotation marks, you silly fool, because according to you guys they aren’t white.

You have been warned before for your foul mouthed behaviour. You can disagree with us and express your disagreement in a civil manner. Cross the lines of civility and you will be banned. We are not sitting here to listen to your insults and to your pontifications about your intellectual and moral superiority. You can express those virtues at GNXP, which is your natural home. 

I hope you can read that.

Ok, so the girls you showed were white according to you and therefore you put in the non-white in quotes. So how does this prove that race-mixing produces the best looking women? All the women you showed are phenotypically white and going by your thoery that Jews are white, Paltrow and Portman are fully white.

So before you shoot your mouth off like an errant teenage brat that hasn’t been taught courtesy and civility by his parents, think about these things a little.

Posted by Tournament of Champions on May 29, 2005, 08:57 PM | #

Jews are caucasiod though of another ethny, and out to exterminate all the other ethnies in teh world, except maybe blacks and hispanics, whom are congenitally too dull to ever pose a threat to them. For that reason alone they are distinct.

Even if they were wholly English, they would still have to be treated as a gang of conmen and murderous free-riders.

Posted by ben tillman on May 29, 2005, 09:17 PM | #

Tillman: I still don’t believe I’m asking anything very difficult, but perhaps you’ve misunderstood me. What studies have you consulted that actively disprove chris_w’s assertion and show that whites would be very concerned regarding the Mediterranean-ization or Eurasian-ization of the predominant national phenotype? I’m actually curious; if somebody’s done a study on this, it would make fascinating reading.

Sybach:

Unlike the other commenter, I do not think you have some burden of proof that I do not.  If I wish to convince you of something, my burden is to prove it to your satisfaction.  However, the point in contention is not sufficiently important to motivate me to expend much effort to that end.  I am not aware of studies of the sort you cite; rather, I am relying on my own observations and inferences, which I realize will not suffice to convince you of anything.

Ultimately, what people believe is interesting and important for other reasons, but cannot furnish much support for conclusions regarding “natural inclinations” under the present circumstances in which the apparatus of public opinion formation is controlled by a hostile ethny.

Posted by J Richards on May 29, 2005, 09:38 PM | #

Ephraim: The point about African-American preferences is obvious.  If you live in the U.S., you would have observed the range of African-American phenotypes, and would have noted that the women in hip-hop videos and models in miscellaneous magazines catering to African-Americans are, on average, less black African-looking than the population norm.  Black supermodel Alek Wek has traditional black African facial features, but women with her facial features are not held in high aesthetic regard in the African-American community.  Speaking of some Asians trying to look less Asian, the Newsweek article linked to at the beginning of this post mentions it.  There are plenty of other sources in this regard; see here and do an internet search for related information.

Arcane: I have not said that Saira Mohan is not hot-looking; I have said that there are many white women more attractive than her and that Armand Marie Leroi�s notion that race-mixing should increase the physical attractiveness of the mixed offspring in no way applies to the potential offspring of the most attractive white people.  Besides, you do not strike me as a person who would argue that part-Jewish ancestry in a white-looking person makes the person non-white.  All the pictures that you have posted of ‘beautiful “non-white” women’ are those of white-looking women who do not look anything like the majority of humans that are non-white.  Since my post focuses on looks, if you want to provide examples of beautiful non-white women, come up with pictures of women who do not look white.  Besides, my post is not concerned with the comparative attractiveness of different races.  There are attractive people in all races.  However, because of racial differences in facial features, which can be extensive, depending on the races compared, one cannot have the same precise standards applied to all humans to judge their physical attractiveness.  More importantly, the attractiveness of the most beautiful whites cannot be enhanced via non-white admixture and will be undermined instead, which is central to my post.  The non-white ancestry in the women that you have posted is either negligible, minor or at least negligible/minor with respect to the genetics of external physical appearance.  Ignoring skin color, whereas it is possible for some white people to produce a child with better Caucasoid facial features by breeding with select Caucasoid-featured non-whites, Caucasoid non-white/white breedings on a large scale will, on average, result in less Caucasoid features in the offspring because the Caucasoid non-whites are not as Caucasoid�featured as whites, on average.  In any case, the most beautiful white people cannot hope to enhance their physical attractiveness by breeding with non-whites and will undermine it instead, and if you can argue against this, then I will be impressed.

Posted by J Richards on May 29, 2005, 09:43 PM | #

Response to comments on my post:

JW Holliday: Aesthetics are not entirely subjective; individuals and races vary in their own preferences, but then individuals and races also vary in their looks; however, one can come up with objective criteria to judge the attractiveness of people within a race. For instance, the facial features of Europeans differ from that of non-Europeans along certain lines such as shape, size, proportions, and gracility (the technical word that applies to how fine the facial features are), and it is very clear that along these lines, independent of my or anybody else�s personal preferences, that the most European-looking people (not just based on pigmentation) are disproportionately found among Northern Europeans.  The latter has been known for a quite a while.  For instance, an old classification of Europeans divided them into three major groups: Homo Mediterraneous (Southern Europeans), Homo Alpinus (Central Europeans), and a third group, which you may expect to have been classified as Homo Nordicus, but the term used was Homo Europeaus, clearly reflecting who is most European-looking.  Now, none of this is supposed to argue that Southern/Central/Eastern European people are somehow less European or that their genetic interests are in any way of less concern to that of Northern Europeans, but they are less European-looking than Northern Europeans with respect to a looks gradient between Europeans and non-Europeans, where the gradient distinguishes Europeans from non-Europeans with respect to both pigmentation and facial anatomy, and the Northern Europeans cluster at one end of this gradient.  Therefore, independent of my or anybody else�s personal preferences, most people referred to in an objective discussion of beautiful white people will invariably be Northern European.  This is not to argue that some European populations are more attractive than others.  Obviously, a very attractive European from any European nation would be more attractive than most Europeans in any other European nation, yet it cannot be objectively argued--with respect to the aforementioned gradient--that the most attractive Europeans will represent all European populations in the same proportions as the population size ratios; Northern Europeans will be disproportionately overrepresented.  I guess that I need to come up other posts on beauty to clarify these issues, and I will work on them.  I appreciate your point that population-typical looks, irrespective of the specifics of the looks, should be preserved with reference to genetic interests, but we all greatly appreciate beauty, and I believe that by focusing on white beauty and making it clear that white beauty cannot be enhanced and will be undermined via non-white admixture, some unconcerned people could possibly be made to reevaluate the merits of race mixing.

Phil Peterson: Arcane does resort to name-calling, but he is also an intelligent opponent, and in the spirit of free speech and also the desirability of decent critiques, which I hope he provides, just ignore his name-calling and please do not ban him.  We don�t want to end up like GNXP by banning those capable of providing decent critiques.  Let it be clear that our opponents can only resort to name-calling because they do not have a valid critique.

Posted by ben tillman on May 29, 2005, 10:18 PM | #

The short-term profits of moviemaking are one thing, long-term profits of group safety granted by controlling how others see you (among other things) is a whole other ball game.

Correct.  And this underlies the actions of both Hollywood and Madison Avenue.  Case in point:  Mel Gibson’s The Passion of the Christ.  He offered a pot of gold to every Jew in Hollywood.  And every Jew declined the offer.

Posted by Svigor on May 30, 2005, 12:32 AM | #

I see you still haven’t learned how to read yet… I put “non-white” in quotation marks, you silly fool, because according to you guys they aren’t white.

All the reading you’ve supposedly done on WNism, and you still can’t grok the simple stuff.  There’s more than one definition of white, you silly fool.  The white in White Nationalism is quited different from the white that means “Caucasoid.” When you pare away the nitwits in WNism (of which we have more than our share it seems), you end up with people who draw not a racial line between Jews and Whites, but a tribal one.  They’re politically non-white, they have chosen to be so, and I respect that choice.

Posted by Svigor on May 30, 2005, 01:01 AM | #

To those above who have pontificated as to the racial preferences of “vast majorities of whites,” let me just state that I rub elbows mostly with white working-class southerners.  I say to you, you know jack shit about what the “overwhelming majority” of them believes.  “Nigger” and “spic” are well-worn entries in their lexica.

Is that too anecdotal?  Try this on then:
http://politics.guardian.co.uk/polls/story/0,11030,1126197,00.html

If memory serves an American survey returned very similar results.

Try not to sample your own peer-group and apply it to everyone.

More on the joys of multiculturalism (and so much for “civility"):
http://www.vdare.com/sailer/honk_link.htm

Posted by Svigor on May 30, 2005, 02:00 AM | #

Lost in all this is that the ultimate, unassailable, emotional drive I have for particularism is precisely what Mr. Richards is expounding in this thread.

IQ, civility, individualism, etc., are all debatable; my aesthetic preference for my race is not.

Posted by Ephraim on May 30, 2005, 03:03 AM | #

Hmm. Interestin’ site you gave me, Richards. It mentioned how one possible explanation for Asians getting this surgery was to look more white, but it also offered up a few others. Here they are:

most common reasons for having the procedure are convenience, cutting down the time it takes to put on makeup, and ending the routine swelling and puffiness that constitute what is referred to among many Asian women as a “bad eye day.”

Funny...these seem like solid, pragmatic reasons for getting this surgery that have nothing to do with “looking more white.” Seems a lil’ odd that you neglected to mention these in your haste to support your assertions.

Posted by Random Lurker on May 30, 2005, 03:40 AM | #

Well, hey. I have to admit, this is my first time commenting, but Phil Peterson’s accusation that Arcane was “name-calling” just had to bring me out of my shell...really now, Phil. If you want some REALLY great examples of ad hominem attacks, you don’t have to look any further than your own cronies. Ladies and Gentlemen--wait, make the Gentlemen, I haven’t seen any women around here--allow me to present to you, Fred Scrooby’s Greatest Hits!

This Lindsay character is such an asshole I don’t see how anyone can take him seriously.  I also replied to him, yes, but that was before I’d fully seen how degenerate and crazy he was.

Damn, a crazy, degenerate asshole, huh? Yep, Fred’s a real paragon of tact and consideration.

The guy’s just an absolute piece of excrement.

Gotta give Fred some credit--at least he didn’t outright drop the S-bomb, right?

this Mayflower-descended Lindsay piece of mental and moral disease.

A piece of mental and moral disease? Well, while we’re on the subject of name-calling, I guess I can give Fred some credit for creativity

It is gentiles like this excrement Lindsay—a Mayflower descendant, no less! what a turd!

I never knew turds could type. I think you were confusing Robert Lindsay with Mr. Hanky the Christmas Poo, Fred.

And all this is just from one thread! http://majorityrights.com/index.php/weblog/comments/http_majorityrightscom_indexphp_geoffs_135th_post/

‘course, the are plenty of other examples I can dig up, but quite frankly, ol’ Freddykins makes Arcane look like a gosh-darn saint. Remember what they said about glass houses and stones, Peterson. If you, along with the other bloggers at MR, want to castigate Arcane for his “name-calling,” you oughta say the same to all your little buddies like Fred.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on May 30, 2005, 04:13 AM | #

I plead guilty, Random Lurker.  I’ll take the stern reprimand Phil gave Arcane as applying to me as well.  Maybe the fact I wasn’t banned over my treatment of Robert Lindsay shows that the bloggers here agreed with me that he was an especially egregious case—which, if true, would merit them a high compliment for excellent judgment.  But you’re right—I should’ve been reprimanded exactly as Arcane was tonight.  I apologise to the blog (not to Robert Lindsay, of course).

Posted by Arcane on May 30, 2005, 07:19 AM | #

Phil,
I suggest you read what Random Lurker said, and then go back to all the threads where you verbally insulted people, including me, and start practicing what you preach. I only treat you the guys the way you treated me in the past, so before you go around banning people for offending you, perhaps you should consider banning some of your own first.

So how does this prove that race-mixing produces the best looking women?

I never said that race-mixing does produce the best looking women, on average. What I was pointing out was that there are many examples of mixed races producing quite beautiful people and that beauty is not limited to racial homogenity. And let me tell you what, I don’t know where you’ve been, but there are some absolutely dro-dead UGLY white women out there.

All the women you showed are phenotypically white and going by your thoery that Jews are white, Paltrow and Portman are fully white.

Absolutely correct.

The last girl a dated, a Jewish girl, was prettier than any of the pics of non-mixed white women that J. Richards posted, and more white, too!

J. Richards, you said:

I have not said that Saira Mohan is not hot-looking; I have said that there are many white women more attractive than her and that Armand Marie Leroi?s notion that race-mixing should increase the physical attractiveness of the mixed offspring in no way applies to the potential offspring of the most attractive white people.

I agree, but I simply have to say you need to find some better pictures of white women than those. Half of them look like they’re captures from adult films, and the other half look like adolescents. The one in the top-right corner of the larger grid is especially bad (but then, she’s really very Polish looking, and I was never a big fan of Polish women, so that’s just me).

If you want to post pics of beautiful white women, then may I suggest Kate Beckinsale, Sandra Bullock, Keira Knightley, Jennifer Garner, Milla Jovovich, Marija Vujovic, or Petra Nemcova (Natalie Portman or Jessica Biel, too)? Or are they not Nordic enough?

When I was in Britain a few weeks ago, there was no shortage of beautiful women. Just go to the UK for a while with a camera.

In any case, the most beautiful white people cannot hope to enhance their physical attractiveness by breeding with non-whites and will undermine it instead, and if you can argue against this, then I will be impressed.

If I could, I would be pr