Does race mixing increase physical attractiveness?

Arcane:
What questions would you like answered?

You honestly don’t see your own dodges, or how you strawmanize so many opinions?

JWHollidayn and Fred Scrooby, for instance. And no, I meant any white.

Well, that makes it rather problematic, doesn’t it?  Natvan’s first post was shot through with the Heimy thing.  It gave every indication that he was a Linderite, and trust me, that’s a real bore.

This isn’t quite the same as an occasional accusation of “extended phenotype,” now is it?

If anyone thinks the level of discussion here is too heated, methinks a perspective adjustment is needed.  Try around the ‘Net, people are at each other’s throats over comic books and video games for God’s sake.

Of course, perhaps I’m wrong. You’ve been at MR for quite a while, Svigor. Could you link me to a thread where anyone, white or otherwise, who dissented with MR’s position was treated courteously and respectfully?

If this thread is any indication, vulgarity and ad hominem attacks seem to be the norm.

I think vulgarity and ad hominem is called for in some cases.  I think it’s precisely what the Lindsays of the world demand.  That said, I don’t approve of scatalogical attacks and the like.  I make an effort to keep things logical and civil, but by no means do I try to handle anyone with kid gloves.  (I should point out here the distinct difference between calling someone stupid and calling his ideas stupid) If I think someone is playing games, as Arcane does, I feel no motivation to treat him as an honest opponent.

Added to this is the fact that nearly all the “home team” here is fed up with the crap, right up to the goddamn eyeballs.  If the “away team” players would keep this well in mind, things might go more smoothly for them.

All of the ‘Net is out there if they want someone to agree with them.  They need only turn on their teevees or pop in a DVD if that’s what they’re after.

Also, I should add that THE FACT THAT EVERYONE HERE DOESN’T AGREE OR FEEL WARM AND FUZZY ABOUT EVERYONE ELSE IS A DIRECT RESULT OF THE FREE SPEECH DEDICATION OF THIS SITE, WHICH IS AS RARE AS HEN’S TEETH.

I have to wonder whether accusing any white who disagrees with you of being an “extended phenotype” of some hostile ethny or another differs from Natvan’s rhetoric in any significant respect other than the use of scientific terminology. -Anonymous

It’s not that diferent, except that Natvan was wrong in his characterization.  I may prefer “pod people” as a term for those whose bodies have been hijacked by hostile memes (propagated by hostile organisms), but “extended phenotypes” is just fine with me.

The question to ask yourself is, how could self-sacrificial behavior of this sort evolve?  How could it be selected for?  How could so many whites have evolved to work for their own extinction?  I’m serious.  I’m asking you to provide a mechanism or model of this phenomenon.

Evolutionary biologists will tell you that the phenomenon is presumed to be due to manipulation.  G.C. Williams:  “As a general rule, a modern biologist seeing an animal doing something to benefit another assumes either that it is being manipulated by the other individual or that it is being subtly selfish.” The “subtly selfish” part accounts for within-group (intraorganismic) “altruism” as discussed by D.S. Wilson.  The manipulation part explains the actions of whites who “willingly” participate in their own genocide.

This is an example of Dawkins’s “extended phenotype” concept every bit as much as his example of monomorium santschii: 

“But sawing off heads is a bit of a chore. Parasites are not accustomed to exerting themselves if they can coerce a stand-in. My favourite character in [E.O.] Wilson’s The Insect Societies is Monomorium santschii. This species, over evolutionary time, has lost its worker caste altogether. The host workers do everything for their parasites, even the most terrible task of all. At the behest of the invading parasite queen, they actually perform the deed of murdering their own mother. The usurper doesn’t need to use her jaws. She uses mind-control.”

Could you link me to a thread where anyone, white or otherwise, who dissented with MR’s position was treated courteously and respectfully? -Anonymous

First, MR does not have positions.  But for the examples you seek, take a look at this thread.  I believe my comments meet that standard.

Well, that makes it rather problematic, doesn’t it?  Natvan’s first post was shot through with the Heimy thing.  It gave every indication that he was a Linderite, and trust me, that’s a real bore.

This isn’t quite the same as an occasional accusation of “extended phenotype,” now is it?

This would be accurate is the allegation of “extended phenotype” actually was occaisonal. Unfortunately, from what I have seen of MR’s interactions with not only GNXPers, but any white who does not agree with it, that term is bandied about quite frequently.

Natvan was banned for “the Heimy thing” as you said. If he called Mr. Richards a “Jewish extended phenotype” instead, he would likely not have been banned. His arguments would still have been as spurious.

If anyone thinks the level of discussion here is too heated, methinks a perspective adjustment is needed.  Try around the ‘Net, people are at each other’s throats over comic books and video games for God’s sake.

You’re right--this sort of behavior is common around the Internet in general. Which is why I’m surprised to see it so prevalent among the commenters and bloggers at MR, whites who supposedly pride themselves on the civility and gentlemanliness.

In any case, you still haven’t answered my question, which I postulate out of sincere curiosity--as I said, you have been here longer than I. Are there any threads you can link me to in which discussion between the denizens of MR and a dissenter have been civilized and respectful, and which have not degenerated into vulgarity and ad hominem attacks?

I quoted Dawkins from The Selfish Gene before; this is Dawkins from The Extended Phenotype:

Let me stress again what a feat of mind-control the Monomorium santschii
queen achieves.  To a sterile worker ant, her mother is a kind of genetic
gold-mine.  For a worker ant to kill her own mother is an act of genetic
madness.

And from Matt Ridley’s excellent “The Origins of Virtue”:

There was a revolution in biology in the mid 1960s, pioneered especially by two men, George Williams and William Hamilton. This revolution is best known by Richard Dawkins’s phrase ‘The Selfish Gene’, and at its core lies the idea that individuals do not consistently do things for the good of their group, or their families, or even themselves. They consistently do things that benefit their genes, because they are all inevitably descended from those that did the same. None of your ancestors died celibate....  [A]lways, without exception, living things are designed to do things that enhance the chances of their genes or copies of their genes surviving and replicating.

And Dawkins again:

We are survival machines - robot vehicles blindly programmed to preserve the selfish molecules known as genes.

Manipulation is the answer.

You’re right--this sort of behavior is common around the Internet in general. Which is why I’m surprised to see it so prevalent among the commenters and bloggers at MR, whites who supposedly pride themselves on the civility and gentlemanliness.

Speaking only for myself (as is usual unless stated otherwise), allow me to disabuse you.  I am very much in favor of ingroup morality (i.e., dual standards; see Judaism and the history of Judaism for details).  My civility and gentlemanliness are reserved for those I deem members of my ingroup or those I wish to persuade into it.

Chivalry is only applicable to those who operate within its sphere.  It is reciprocal.  It does not apply to the “other,” nor should it.

In any case, you still haven’t answered my question

I didn’t answer it because I can’t; I don’t monitor threads using this criterion, so I don’t know.

Looking at history, I must consider factors other than hostile, manipulative ethnies to explain the “suicidal” tendencies of whites.

I don’t object to that at all.  In fact, I think the selfish, short-sighted tendencies of white elites are in the same ballpark as hostile ethnies in terms of power and effect.  I think that the two factors are quite different in nature though; hostile ethnies are collectives and operate more or less deliberately, our own elites operate selfishly and out of ignorance.

I don’t think any of that actually disputes the term “extended phenotype.” As far as I am aware, the term has little to do with intent and everything to do with behavior and effect.  One need not be a conscious extended phenotype to be an extended phenotype.

The whole idea of constitutional patriotism or propositional nationhood is, in my view, hostile to my genetic interests.  I believe that it was only popularized as such.

Your message seems to be that ignoring genetic interests in the public sphere exists without the help of hostile ethnies.

My message is that genetic interests should be of primary concern and that any influence to the contrary should be removed.

So, the difficulty in disentangling the sources becomes less important in my view.  I also find it disingenous of anyone to argue that x or y isn’t a necessary factor or whatever because what I’m really hearing is “I don’t give a shit,” even if it’s spoken sotto voce.  If white elites are pouring gas on the fire, and Jews are pouring gas on the fire, the fact remains that preventing Jews from pouring gas on the fire reduces the amount of gas available to the fire.

I would find the concept of “extended phenotypes” to be much more convincing if whites did not act in a seemingly self-destructive manner without the influence of “hostile ethnies.”

We can always expect competition within groups as well as between groups.  Such competition will exist to one degree or another even without manipulation form the outside.  Either type of competition is vastly different from suigenocide.

For the Union forces, the Second War of Secession was fought for control of, and to maintain the unity of, a group; for the Confederacy the war was fought to establish itself as a separate entity.  That is not self-destruction, in either case. 

The result of the Union regime’s victory was a larger biological unit (good) and the loss of bidirectional control—i.e., acceleration of centralization and a concomitant erosion of moral enforcement mechanisms (bad).  There is an evolutionary tradeoff between size and structural stability.  Was a larger union in fact adaptive for the Northern interests that pushed for the war?  Who can say?  But no one will allege that humans possess perfect information about the world—especially about the future!  We are evolved to make decisions based only on what we know. 

Nor would I simply assume that there were no hostile memes at work.  The New England abolitionists were certainly influenced by “British Israel” and “Tikkun Olam” concepts that passed from Holland through England in the 17th century.  There is much more to say, but I’ll leave it at that. 

Regarding the Aryans, I just don’t know the facts.  I would presume they left behind an Aryan population wherever they embarked from, but I don’t know.  If not, where did we come from?

Nor would I simply assume that there were no hostile memes at work.  The New England abolitionists were certainly influenced by “British Israel” and “Tikkun Olam” concepts that passed from Holland through England in the 17th century.  There is much more to say, but I’ll leave it at that. 

If you could expound on those concepts, I’d appreciate it. I’d never heard of them before.

And in any case, I suppose I could cite examples of “suigenocide” on a smaller scale--European tribal units. Take the Frankish migration into Celtic Gaul. I am quoting W. Scott Haines, “The History of France:”

“Aside from bequeathing their name to the nation, the Franks had only a minimal long-term demographic impact on France. Historians estimate the number of invading Franks to have been in the range of 150,000 to 200,000, perhaps 2 to 3 percent of a population between 6 and 7 million.” (29)

Thus, although the Franks definately left their mark culturally on Celtic Gaul (as the Merovingian dynasty and the fact we refer to the area as France now attests) genetically, they were as doomed as the Aryans. Their distinctive “Germanness” so to speak, was swallowed up by the native Celts. The Aryans spread west, so perhaps their migration into India was not an act of suigenocide on their part. The Franks left no settlements behind them, and were entirely swallowed up by the Celts...without the influence of Jews. Now, the Celts and the Germanic tribes were far more closely related than the Aryans and the Dravidians, but they were still two distinct peoples, which they ceased to be of their own volition, apparently.

I don’t object to that at all.  In fact, I think the selfish, short-sighted tendencies of white elites are in the same ballpark as hostile ethnies in terms of power and effect.  I think that the two factors are quite different in nature though....

I’m not sure they can be separated at all.  The “white elite” is the traditional point of Jewish entry into a white community.  See Shahak, Netanyahu, MacDonald, et al.  What is exploited is the greater standard deviation in intelligence (and perhaps other characteristics) among whites, combined with our greater individualism and our lesser ethnocentrism (though these are interrelated concepts).  The tendency of white elites to exploit their poor relations (or engage in group-forming behavior, in the words of Arthur Keith) is not dependent on Jewish influence.  What the Jewish entry into the community has done traditionally, however, is to drive a wedge between the white elite and the lower orders.  The wedge severs or at least weakens the bidirectional social controls whereby group-orientedness (i.e., morality) is enforced.  See D.S. Wilson.  This accelerates the process of centralization, i.e., the growth of a “state”.  See Benjamin Ginsberg.

As group size increases (again assuming the absence of a cohesive invading group), “structural stability” (Seeley, after Bronowski)or “hierarchic harmony” (MacDonald) becomes more difficult to achieve.  Over time, even without outside intervention, these ties will erode, power will centralize (and internal parasitism will grow), and the society will head toward collapse (see Tainter), although self-correction is possible if the group’s degenerating structure endangers the existence of the group – i.e., puts both the elite and the lower orders in the same boat.  This is all part of the evolutionary process whereby, over time, larger groups gain greater structural stability through competition among groups.  It is part of a general increase in complexity.

Suigenocide is something else entirely.  It is not in the evolutionary interest of the white elite.

Also, I believe my point about the Franks still stands. They didn’t have a “elite” in the sense we’d think of--Germanic kings and elites were relatively close to the common tribesmen, a fact Tacitus attests to in his Germania. And, of course, there were no Jews in the tribe. Unlike the Aryans, the Franks left nothing behind them--their migration led to them being completely consumed by the Celts. Now, even if that isn’t “suigenocide” in and of itself, it is not unreasonable to say it was definately detrimental to Frankish genetic interests, as the citation from Haine seems to prove. It seems to be a telling reminder that Jews, or even “elites,” or outside manipulation in general, are not at all required for an ethny to act in a manner contrary to its “ethnic genetic interests.”

Thus, although the Franks definately left their mark culturally on Celtic Gaul (as the Merovingian dynasty and the fact we refer to the area as France now attests) genetically, they were as doomed as the Aryans. Their distinctive “Germanness” so to speak, was swallowed up by the native Celts.

But what did they know when they did this?  Did they know they were outnumbered?  What were their alternatives?  Could the maladaptiveness be readily determined ahead of time, as the maladaptiveness of the multicultural ideology can be?  How do we know it was maladaptive, even in hindsight?  What would have become of them otherwise?  And what was the gebetic gradient between the two populations?  Again, this seems very different.

But what did they know when they did this?  Did they know they were outnumbered?  What were their alternatives?  Could the maladaptiveness be readily determined ahead of time, as the maladaptiveness of the multicultural ideology can be?  How do we know it was maladaptive, even in hindsight?  What would have become of them otherwise?  And what was the gebetic gradient between the two populations?  Again, this seems very different.

I don’t think so. Germanic tribes had been squabbling with the Romans for centuries, so the Franks should have had a pretty good idea of what to expect when they poured into Gaul. The Frankish invasion, along with Germanic migration in general, seems to have been caused by the Huns, but in this case, it seems like running from the frying pan into the fire--either way, the Franks were doomed.

Heinrich Graetz’s “History of the Jews” is avaliable online:

http://www.saltshakers.com/lm/GraetzD.rtf

Excerpts from Volume V:

The central point of the later Kabbala was most intense expectation of the Messiah; Lurya, Vital, and their disciples and followers proclaimed anew, “The kingdom of heaven is at hand.”

***

SETTLEMENT OF THE JEWS IN ENGLAND AND MANASSEH BEN ISRAEL.

1655-1657 C.E.

At the very time when the Jews of Poland were trodden down, slaughtered, or driven through Europe like terrified wild beasts, a land of freedom was opened, from which the Jews had been banished for more than three centuries and a half.  England, which the wise queen Elizabeth and the brave Cromwell had raised to be the first power in Europe, a position very different from that of crumbling Poland, again admitted Jews, not indeed through the great portal, yet through the back door.  But this admission was so bruited abroad, that it was like a triumph for Judaism.  The Jews of Amsterdam and Hamburg looked with longing to this island, to which they were so near, with whose merchants, shipowners, and scholars they were in connection, and which promised wide scope for the exercise of their varied abilities.  But settlement there seemed beset with insuperable obstacles.  The English episcopal church, which exercised sway over

RESETTLEMENT OF JEWS IN ENGLAND. 

the English conscience, was even more intolerant than the popery which it persecuted, Not grantlng freedom to Catholics and Dissenters, would it tolerate the descendants of those aspersed in the New Testament? The English people, who for centuries had seen no Jew, shared to the full the antipathy of the clergy. 

***

Who would undertake to banish this strong prejudice in order to render people and rulers favorable to the descendants of Israel? The man who undertook and executed this difficult task did not belong to the first rank of intellectual men, but possessed the right measure of insight and narrowness, strength of will and flexibility, knowledge and imagination, self-denial and vanity, required for so arduous an undertaking. Manasseh ben Israel, second or third rabbi at Amsterdam, who at home played only a. subordinate part, the poor preacher who, to support his family, was obliged to resort to printing, but obtained so little profit from it, that he wished to exchange pulpit oratory for mercantile speculation, and was near settling in Brazil; he it was who won England for Judaism....

***

Manasseh ben Israel had complete grasp of Jewish literature., and knew the Christian theology of his time, and what was to be said on each point, i. e., what had been said by his predecessors.

***

THE PURITANS. 

The greatest number of ardent admirers of “God’s people” were to be found in England, precisely among those who now had powerful influence in the army council and the camp. 

***

A desire was excited in the hearts of the Puritans to see this living wonder, the Jewish people, with their own eyes, to bring Jews to England, and, by making them part of the theocratic community about to be established, stamp it with the seal of completion. The sentiments of the Puritans towards the Jews were expressed in Oliver Cromwell’s observation, “ Great is my sympathy with this poor people, whom God chose, and to whom He gave His law; it rejects Jesus, because it does not recognize him as the Messiah.” Cromwell dreamt of a reconciliation of the Old and the New Testament,of an intimate connection between the Jewish people of God and the English Puritan theocracy.  But other Puritans were so absorbed in the Old Testament that the New Testament was of no importance. Especially the visionaries in Cromwell’s army and among the members of Parliament, who were hoping for the Fifth Monarchy, or the reign of the saints, assigned to the Jewish people a glorious position in the expected millennium.  A Puritan preacher, Nathaniel Holmes (Holmesius), wished, according to the letter of many prophetic verses, to become the servant of Israel, and serve him on bended knees.  The more the tension in England increased through the imprisonment of the king, the dissensions between the Presbyterian Long Parliament and the Puritan army, the civil war, the execution of King Charles, and the establishment of a republic in England, the more public life and religious thought assumed Jewish coloring.

Again, thanks very much for the sources, ben. I’m in your debt.

Concerning outside manipulation of EGIs, however, I’ve found some interesting examples from Roman history that also seem interesting. For instance, look at how the Roman Empire treated citizenship. It must be said at once that Jews were present in the Empire, but they definately didn’t hold the same influence they’ve had since the Middle Ages during the time period I’m referring to. The Romans held a concept of citizenship that seems almost like todays “proposition nation.” Roman law stated that anyone who served 20 years in the Roman army was eligible for Roman citizenship, This applied to Barbarian auxilliaries as well! Thus, we see the Romans acting in a curiously self-destructive way. They dominated the barbarian tribes of Europe and Britain, they were under no obligation to extend citizenship to these “out” groups. However, they ended up doing so anyways, and thus opened the door to an influx of foreign genes, since these barbarian “citizens” could now marry good Roman women. It is easy to see what that practice would lead to, so it is reasonable to assume the Romans realized foreigners would intermarry with them. However, even without a extremely influential Jewish ethny controlling their decisions, the Romans still decided NOT to make citizenship based on race. This wasn’t exactly “suigenocide,” but it came very close, since Roman ethnic genetic interests would be decimated by the influx of foreign blood. Yet this seems to have been lost on them. Apparently, centuries before the “proposition nation” came into vogue, the Romans were valuing military service more than genetic proximity, and were fully aware of it, too!

NOTE: Although the genetic distance between the Romans and the barbarian tribes is hard to precisely gauge, it is reasonable to assume the gulf was sizable, given Tacitus’ descriptions of the people. He describes the Germanic barbarians as much larger and sturdier than the Romans, and also, ill-adapted to warm climates. Perhaps the genetic distance between Roman and Goth was not insurmountable, but it was considerable.

I think Geoff Beck might disagree with you…

I wouldn’t entirely disagree, sir. As my example of the Roman practice of extending citizenship to genetically distant “out-group” members seems to show, people can think in terms unrelated to “genetic interest,” without the influence of hostile ethnies.

Gentlemen,

Thank you for a debate of the highest standards.  It has been a pleasure to read.  But, if only out of fairness to Svigor and his 56k connection, I think it’s time to declare the thread CLOSED.

Ben, if you want to cull something from this and make it into something we can post just send it to me.  Maybe then you two can pick-up again on the new thread.

Although it is time to stop commenting on this thread, since I am responsible for the post, there is one question above that I haven’t yet answered, and I need to answer it.  People with comments/queries related to my post may leave comments, but please, no off-topic comments on this thread anymore. 

Amman,

If China and Japan were to be the leading economic and military powers in the world, I would not expect white women to try to surgically acquire the normal upper eyelids of Asians.  For instance, when the physical features of Asians are made fun of among whites, the two features of their face that are made the most fun of are their slanted eyes and facial flatness because these traits are among the least visually appealing in the Asian face--from the perspective of whites.  A white Northern European (elongated crania) could also make fun of the roundish crania of Asians, but roundish crania do not appear to be visually repulsive to most whites.  Additionally, the slanted-eyed appearance in Asians is due to the eyelid structures known as epicanthal folds; these folds are physical defects when they occur in white persons, and one does not expect nature to normally make somebody find physical defects visually appealing.  Further, more prominent cheekbones are an ancestral trait, and within any race, cheekbones more prominent than the norm are considered less attractive.  Therefore, given that Asians have more prominent cheekbones than whites, it is highly unlikely that whites would want more prominent cheekbones if Asians were economically and militarily the most dominant. 

You have correctly pointed out that many non-white populations possess a crease/fold in the upper eyelid; so, why do I say that the Asians who try to have this crease surgically created are trying to look white?  Well, Asians tend to hold the looks of whites in higher regard than that of blacks or non-Caucasoid dark-skinned people; some Asians have their cheekbones reduced in size and even have some of their cheek muscles atrophied* to achieve a narrower face and/or try to obtain a projecting nose/longer nose, too.  Therefore, when the totality of cosmetic surgical procedures concerning alteration of racial features is considered, then it becomes clear that the Asians undergoing these procedures are trying to look whiter. 

*See the article titled “Changing faces” in the July 29, 2002, Time-Asia magazine if the link is no longer functioning.

Edit: I see a picture of an actress in there, so make that “all the pictures of the nostrils of white women,” notably figure 5. You yourself mentioned that it was difficult to find good pictures of nostrils outside of X-rated sources, thus, the overall “beauty” of these women beyond their nostrils may have been obscured.

Sachi Lovatt,

My post above is concerned with whether race mixing could enhance the beauty of whites, not which race is the most attractive.  I am addressing whether the most attractive whites could become more beautiful if they absorbed non-white genetics into their gene pool, and do not deny that some whites are ugly.  Armand Marie Leroi has used an example of a Caucasoid non-white female, and she can be compared to beautiful white women using objective criteria.  I have not argued that the attractiveness of different races can be compared using standard or objective criteria; you should read this post for more on this issue.

You are correct that people find average faces more attractive than outliers, but this applies to within a race, not to the human species as a whole, for which an average face has no meaning given tremendous racial variation in facial features and that Caucasoid/non-Caucasoid mixes look more like the non-Caucasoid parent, on average (I have not implied that this is always the case).  Some Japanese are not the most Mongoloid-looking people around, and their offspring with whites could look closer to whites than Japanese, but if large-scale race-mixing between Japanese and whites were to occur, the offspring would, on average, look more Japanese than white.

Your note on recessive mutations is a reiteration of Armand Marie Leroi’s argument and ignores shape-aspects of facial features, which are crucial to attractiveness.  Besides, race mixing is known to be associated with an increased likelihood of adverse health effects related to developmental disruptions, which generally do not enhance attractiveness.  Related to this post are my posts on a study of Eurasian beauty and racial variation in the chewing apparatus.  This post is actually a first in a series, and I will be coming up with more related posts.

F***youracist,

You have spewed a bunch of nonsense.  Where is the racism?  White Greeks belong to the same race as white Northern Europeans.  If you—presumably a woman—look masculine and unattractive, it is not my fault.

you are a bunch of racists, all of you assholes see Saira, and say she looks masculine because of her inferior “indian” heritage- THAT is RACICST- just because someone is not northern european- which this article has defined as idea- and NO GREEKS as well as OTHER SOUTHERN EUROPEANS ARE NOT OF THE SAME LINEAGE- according to you RACISTS- YOU DEFINE THEM AS MASCULINE> SAIRA IS ANYTHING BUT MASCULINE- you are a bunch of racist idiots- her nose, hair face, chin EVERYTHING IS BEAUTIFUL- those white “perfect” girls DONT MATCH UP

and no i am not ugly you asshole- but racists such as yourself have used the fact that anyone who looks different from their “english” and north european beauties as reason enough to say I look “ethnic” and therefore masculine.

you bunch of idiots call supermodels ugly and masculine- you are probably jealous because you could never get a woman as beautiful as that. and have to settle for your meat and potato girls- with their huge “feminine” asses.

Svyatoslav Igorevich is my Web handle, genius.  I chose it as a deliberate expression of pan-European solidarity (also because he was the first (I think?) Christian king of Kievan Rus and he smashed the Khazars), to combat precisely the kind of stupid maladaptive racialism forwarded by Hitler and, more to the point, his extant well-wishers.

I myself am as Anglo-Saxon as Americans come.

I see, it’s bad to state that race-mixing decreases attractiveness, but it’s a-okay to say that it increases attractiveness, or at least tacitly approve via omission.  A-ha.

As for the rest of your post - thanks for representing your side well.

first christian king huh? no wonder i had not idea what your “name” meant- religion means as little to me as equality does to you all

Italics have gone berserk on this thread! Someone needs to add a closing !

first christian king huh? no wonder i had not idea what your “name” meant- religion means as little to me as equality does to you all

Well, I’m an agnostic, but I’m not a west-hating psychopathic leftist, rather I’m a west-loving traditionalist, so I see the value of Christianity.

Plus I have this whole thing about taking a second look at what my mortal enemies hate, and most of them seem to have a real rod up their asses about Christianity (not, repeat not the oxymoronic invention “Judeo-Christianity").

As for equality, that’s yet another leftist chimera - equal means identical, it means the same.  Obviously human groups aren’t equal.

Btw, there’s nothing equal, or even reciprocal, about masses of non-whites invading all white living spaces while...no one invades non-white living spaces.

And yes Alex, I should’ve made that clearer.

i have seen ALOT of butt ugly northern europeans and so called “all americans” (which is just another way of saying north european) that are so damn ugly, and could use a little race mixing so they wouldn’t look like such horsefaces.

Why do the models in all countries look whiter than their general populations?

Just wondering.

I take it, Mr Houser, that you don’t possess the intellectual equipment to raise your game above ad hominem.

Art Castillo:

Remember what happens to a species that does not seek diversity for its gene pool? No? Bubba, you need to read the basics of evolution again!

NCS,

I trust that you, your husband and your future offspring will live - and stay living - in India, where you can keep well away from ugly Northern Europeans.  Pity for Spanish EGI, though.

India will not “shine” because the mean IQ level is too low.  Some limited areas may do OK, if their IQ level is fairly comparable to European/East Asian levels.  Certainly, the rest will be utilised by global capitilism, and contribute nothing much of itself to Man’s progress.

Always, the key is mean IQ.  No unintelligent peoples prosper.

Remember what happens to a species that does not seek diversity for its gene pool?

Art, you’re a moron.  No one is arguing that our race must remain static, only that if it is to change we shall do the changing.  And more specifically, that we should not choose to introduce mutagens from other races for the purpose of increasing our physical appearance because it won’t work.

The beautiful-sounding NCS wrote:

To all the Nordics males out there: you look dull, boring, whitewashed, and if I may add, very closely border with ugly - all of you. Beckham included. [...] the dullness that is typical of the Nordic race. [...] I myself am a North Western Indian (Punjabi) female. I am accustomed to receiving interest from males of every race and every ethnicity that exists on the planet. [And well you should:  tons of Punjabi women are drop-dead gorgeous.  You sound like one of those] I do not find the black African races in line with my tastes. [This shows you are a sensible woman whose particular taste in men is legitimate.  Non-Negro women who are attracted to Negro men, such as the German fashion model who married Seal, lack taste in men.] Similarly, I do not find Nordic blonds at all aesthetically pleasing. On the contrary, my contempt for the Nordic look has increased because of their ‘I am all that and a bag of chips attitude’ but with your yellow teeth, white eyebrows and albino like fearful whitewashed faces, you are no more than just plain boring, and many of you even scary. Blond men look too feminine and do not have the ‘manhood,’ strength, or physical beauty that a North Indian or Med male has. [All that’s fine:  that is your taste and frankly lots of white Nordic women share it.] My husband is Spaniard (Mediterranean - for Americans who don’t know the difference, Spaniards are different from Hispanic and Latinos) [This also shows you are a sensible woman, as you are aware of the important racial differences between what are called Hispanics and Latinos in the Americas, on the one hand, and European Spaniards on the other.  Not only that, but you are not cowed by PC into fearing to mention the difference.  That’s all admirable, and shows intelligence, honesty, and character] and together we will create offspring of such beauty that you Nordics can only dream of, but never can achieve… [I think your kids will be absolutely gorgeous!] Your Nordic countries had their day when they came into my country and looted, killed, raped and plundered…[Here you’re confusing the English of the British Raj with the earlier Mongol invaders or someone—apart from things like the Sepoy Mutiny, which were tragic exceptions, the English never did any of that to you, but ruled you with exemplary fairness and enlightenment.  The first part is true, however, in what it implies:  the Nordic countries have indeed “had their day” and are now headed for extinction through race-replacement, unless they wake up, which is in part what this site came into existence in order to help stimulate if possible.] now its India’s time to shine.. [We all here certainly hope India does shine.  Congratulations on the progress you’ve made already, and may you make lots more!] and we are doing that without going down to your low levels…[Please don’t:  we are about as low as you can get at present—but the BNP’s gains in the recent election were a sign of hope.] Secondly, I will ensure that my ‘ethnic’ offspring is kept away from people like you…[That’s fair:  we don’t approve of forcing races together.] while your ugly white ass can stay in your frozen hell-holes [Yes, we tend to like colder climates with four seasons and would like to stay in them—thanks for noticing.  Our Aussie brethren have adapted to the tropics but most of us don’t do well there] and just wish for mountains, deserts, rivers and oceans… and beautiful people with beautiful hearts. [The swarthy Subcon peoples certainly are often characterized by physical beauty and beautiful hearts, you’re right about that.  They’re often extremely fine folk, which the whole world admires them for] ..something you KKK bastards can never be…[As time goes by I’m starting to realise there’s not as much wrong with the KKK as I’d previously thought.  (I’m a Yankee so it’s taken me some time to figure it out)] However, being American and therefore intellectually inferior to me (and to most other nationalities), [Guessedworker isn’t American but you’re right about Americans’ being intellectually inferior—no argument there:  they’re insufferable morons (I’m one, incidentally, so I can say with authority how right you are)] I must enlighten you that according to numerous studies, ‘Asian-American children consistently obtain IQ scores 11 points higher on intelligence tests than do Euro-American children of similar socio-economic backgrounds.’ [That sounds about right:  certainly no argument there.  Yellows are smarter than whites, and so are high-caste Hindus on average] I’m afraid you (ugly [Whites like the way they look better than the way other races look by and large, and for that and other important and valid reasons don’t want to be forcibly race-replaced with those other races.  That’s all we here are saying.  We’re not into gratuitously denigrating other races.  If it sometimes sounds like that it’s because we’re mad our governments and certain behind-the-scenes forces are trying to replace us with them, that’s all] AND stupid [no argument there]) Americans dont have much of a case with a monkey like Bush as your ‘high IQ representative.’ [We agree Bush is a mental retard who looks, talks, thinks, and acts like a chimpanzee.  Some of us here call him “The Chimp.” I certainly do, at any rate.  We all want him out of office and many also want him in prison for high treason] the very Europeans that you poor Americans try so hard to emulate are those that despise you and your rotten McDonalds culture. [This is true, and it’s also true that the Europeans are in spite of themselves importing the worst influences from the U.S., such as rap music and race-replacement.  Why they’re doing it is a mystery we at MR.com are trying to get to the bottom of]

All in all, I think NCS’s points were fair and—with a few unimportant exceptions—ranged from good to excellent

I agree, by the way, that Saira Mohan has a shockingly masculine face and is very unattractive.  The only way she’s gotten anywhere is homosexual males control these things in the fashion world and always without exception prefer mannnish faces and body builds in women.  Furthermore, her face lacks refinement when looked at closely.  She’s not Quasimodo—but this is NOT some sort of beauty as the leftists, homos, and fashion-world women bimbos are trying to make her out to be.

NCS, your vulgar anti-Americanism really cheapens your arguments and makes you look bad. It is true that many Europeans share this point of view out of ignorance and in order to puff up their own egos, but you should avoid it. Guessedworker is not American, in fact, he is British, read European.

I’d just like to say that those links to programming competition results that you gave list Universities, not people. The winners are indeed situated in Western countries, but why do you suppose the teams from the winning universities participating in the competitions are entirely white?

Universities, especially prestigious ones, commonly have international students studying there, and are very meritocratic. Considering that a very disproportionate number of Asian-Americans (Chinese, Japanese, Korean etc.) study at MIT (something like 20% of the student body?) compared to their percentage of the US population seems to invalidate the theory of a smaller SD of their IQ, which I assume is one you suscribe to. SAT scores, which correlate quite strongly with IQ, also don’t follow this theory. If, for example, the Japanese population did have a significantly smaller SD of IQ then they wouldn’t be the second most prosperous country in the world.

Modern civilization is a result of Western European culture’s inventions and innovations. Calling it a purely Northern European phenomenon is inaccurate, seeing as Scandinavian and Slavic countries only caught on later, especially in Russia’s case. Did the Renaissance not happen in Italy, a predominantly Mediterranean country? I agree that later on, economic supremacy moved upward to France, Germany and Britain, but for the most of history it didn’t move much further North, or East for that matter.

I agree that the Nordic females are pretty much the epitome of attractiveness, but from what I’ve heard, females seem to prefer darker-haired types.

I know IQ is mostly heritable, and that there are differences in IQ between breeding groups, but I’m not a WN (don’t hurt me >_<) and I also accept that IQ levels can fluctuate over time. India is a very good example of this; Northern India was home to the first universities in the world, and the Dravidian Chola Empire of Southern India successfully conquered Indonesia and produced brilliant architecture. The subcontinent was home to many important mathematicians, and at least three major religions. Sadly, large numbers of its populace do all the horrible things you’ve mentioned in modern times, but it’s foolish to assume they were always this way.

I enjoy listening to some of the scientific opinions of this board, and indeed as someone mentioned earlier such opinions are voiced rarely anywhere else, even if it is a tad biased.

Yarus,

You should not expect to be spoonfed.  You need to look up the composition of the teams yourself.  Anyway, here are some of the details.

The top 10 teams in the 2006 ACM competition, in order, were: 1) Saratov State University, 2) Jagiellonian University – Krakow, 3) Altai State Technical University, 4) University of Twente, 5) Shanghai Jiao Tong University, 6) St. Petersburg State University, 7) Warsaw University, 8) Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 9) Moscow State University, 10) Ufa State Technical University of Aviation

The Western Universities, except MIT, are from non-English-speaking nations that have few non-whites.  If you looked around, you would find the following names of the participants (you can search for their pictures if you like):

Saratov State University - Michael Mirzayanov, Igor Kulkin, Ivan Romanov, Roman Alekseenkov.

Jagiellonian University (Krakow) - Pawel Idziak, Arkadiusz Pawlik, Bartosz Walczak, Pawel Walter.

Altai State Technical University - Elena Kryuchkova, Coach; Artur Mogozov, Dmitry Gozman, Roman Gomenjuk.

University of Twente – Eljakim Schrijvers, Boris de Wilde, Erik-Jan Krijgsman, Kamiel Cornelissen.

Shanghai Jiao Tong University - Yong Yu, Bohai Yang, Chang Liu, Yuan Lin.

St. Petersburg State University – Andrew Lopatin, Gleb Leonov, Sergey Bankevich, Vitaliy Valtman.

Warsaw University – Jan Madey, Bartek Romañski, Marcin Michalski, Pawel Parys.

Massachusetts Institute of Technology – Martin Rinard, Heng Ping Nabil Christopher Moh, Hubert Hwang, Velin Tzanov.

Moscow State University - Eugueny Pankratiev, Andrey Khalyavin, Andrey Rumyantsev, Ivan Popelyshev.

Ufa State Technical University of Aviation - Alexander Fridlyand, Alexey Zhevak, Denis Nazarov, Konstantin German.

Thus, in the top 10 teams, out of a total of 40 individuals, 34 were white, 6 NE Asian and 0 South Asian.  Whites clearly dominated, and considerably so if you consider their much smaller population size compared to East and South Asians.

Similarly, regarding the topcoder.com data, of the 20 top coders at the time of this writing, 18 are white, 2 NE Asian and 0 South Asian.  The NE Asians were ranked 12th and 14th, and the white males were overwhelmingly Northern European types; there were no Southern Europeans.

I should also mention the data from the ACM software system award, the highest award for the most outstanding innovations in computing.  From 1983 to 2005, of the 63 people awarded, 58 were white males, 4 were NE Asians and 1 was South Asian.

I have never said anything about NE Asians having a smaller SD of IQ.  IQ raw scores are not normally distributed; they are normalized.  Additionally, given the really small numbers of people with 160-plus IQs, it would not be possible for population-based sampling of adults to come up with enough extremely high IQ individuals from different ethnic groups for a proper statistical comparison.  Thus, the claim of considerable white overrepresentation among the smartest people is based on computing results such as above, Nobel Prizes, Field Medals and other data documented by Charles Murray in his book, Human accomplishment. 

It is true that Asian-Americans outcompete American whites in the Math SAT, too, and by three-fifths of a standard deviation as opposed to the 0.2 SD advantage in IQ, but this does not translate to overrepresentation at the extremely high end of the IQ distribution.

I have not said that modern civilization is a purely Northern European phenomenon.  In science, there is a saying about standing on the shoulders of giants.  Thus, modern civilization is overwhelmingly a Northern European phenomenon.

Yes, the Renaissance began in Italy, but it was in Northern Italy, among the Germanic Lombards, who occupied the region after migrating from Germany; the darker people of Southern Italy were not behind the Renaissance.

Similarly, the busts/sculptures from the ancient Roman and Greek civilizations reveal features closer to modern Northern Europeans than modern Southern Europeans.  In a study by Hanihara cited below, ancient and modern skulls were analyzed from around the world.  Some important skull measurements of people in modern Southern Italy and modern Greece were similar to several modern Middle Eastern populations but not modern Northern Europeans, but the skulls from the Roman and classical Greek era were similar to modern Northern Europeans.  This should not be surprising.  It is known from history that the Roman and Greek civilizations were the products of Northern tribes such as the Latini and the Dorians, respectively, that settled in the South, and it is also known that in craniofacial studies, modern Southern Europeans cluster with Middle Eastern populations before they cluster with Central and Northern Europeans.  The study referenced:

Hanihara T. Frontal and facial flatness of major human populations. Am J Phys Anthropol. 2000 Jan;111(1):105-34.

As far as India is concerned, what is the point of assigning the contributions of the Aryans in Northern India and the non-aboriginal people in the South to that of the dark masses of India?  The Aryans have long disappeared, but their legacy lives on, mostly in the form of Indo-European languages and some early noteworthy achievements, and to a much smaller extent in the form of a small number of light-skinned and Caucasoid-featured people in India, disproportionately found among the upper caste people and in the Northern parts of the country. 

Regarding your comments about the British occupation of India, I have not set out to justify it, but have pointed out that it cannot be viewed as destructive when it benefited more than it harmed.  Besides, the British did not invade India.  They were mercantile people and were easily able to transform trade to occupation without a formal invasion.

I have not heard of the Norse burning the wives of kings in medieval Europe; see if you cite the source.  Also, white women do not necessarily prefer dark-haired men; hair color preference among Northern Europeans is variable among both men and women.

What do you mean by the “dark masses of India”? Are you referring to the Dravidians? If you are, you should read about the Dravidian Chola Empire. They certainly were aboriginal to the subcontinent. Notice the immensely intricate architecture. Is it not possible to imagine Dravidians designing and building such structures?

I cannot accept that the mathematical discoveries in India occured mostly ‘early on’ and then, after the presumed dreadful miscegenation of the Brahmin caste, in much smaller frequency in Northern India, where the supposed Aryan genes were most abundant. If you read up on the history of Indian mathematics, the ‘Golden Age’ was around the Gupta Period, approx. 400 AD - 1200 AD, and most of the prominent mathematicians of the age came from central India, and later on South India. One of the most important South Indian mathematicians was Madhava, who lived in the Middle Ages and is considered one of the founders of mathematical analysis, among his other important discoveries. And guess what? Not Nordic!

I would attribute the stupid Muslims (to be fair, in those days they weren’t that stupid...) for invading, messing up the country and arguably destroying the process of mathematical discovery that had been going on. I would not attribute it to miscegenation of the Brahmin caste. Your assertation that the intellectual capacity of the Brahmins, and even the lower castes such as the artisans and masons, somehow had been dulled by outbreeding with the darker lower castes doesn’t hold up. It doesn’t explain how the frequency and potency of mathematical discovery seemed to increase as time went on, up until the Islamic invasion, even though as time passed the Aryan genes became more spread out. It also doesn’t explain how large numbers of dark skinned Dravidian tribes formed large empires, made beautiful temples to rival anything that came out of Northern India, invented the catamaran design and built numerous ships using the said design to conquer Indonesia. Indonesia, for crying out loud! Look how far away it is from the Eastern coast of the subcontinent.

The Brahmin caste of Southern India looks less white than the commoners of North-Western India, yet they have higher intelligence. I would attribute this to breeding for intelligence, rather than Aryan genes. After all, you can have a whiter than white breeding population with subpar intelligence, i.e. chavs. Am I missing something, or is it impossible to think that intelligence in populations can vary without there being genetic input from outside?

Ibn Fadlan’s account of a Norse slave-girl accompanying her dead lord to be burnt in a ship burial is a good indicator of Norse practices. Human sacrifice was very common among Norse societies as well, more so than Indian ones at the time. Tell me, why weren’t these Norse and Germanic types able to form super advanced societies at the same time as the Greeks and the Romans, even though plenty of natural resources were around where they lived?

I really am sad people suscribe to Nordicist doctrine in this day and age, you seem intelligent - if biased - otherwise. I kind of understand the need to create a white ethnostate in whichever country you live in, even though I don’t agree with the proposal, but I definately don’t understand why you have to argue that “X is superior to every other group on the planet at pretty much everything” in order to sell the idea of “X should seperate from other ethnic groups”. I thought this was a white nationalist site, not a (Northern) white supremacist site?

I would like to point out to any Southern Europeans and even Indians/Middle Easterners reading this that J Richards says most of the accomplishments of Mediterranean and Indic societies are solely the work of those with substantial Northern European genes. He’s basically saying “Nordz r00l!!1”, but with clever words.

Great job attracting Southern Europeans to your cause, you wonderfully unbiased science guy, you… -_-