Does race mixing increase physical attractiveness?

Posted by Yarus on June 04, 2006, 02:22 PM | #

Ok, I’m gonna have another go at this…

J,

For along time Russia was rather backward in comparison to Western Europe. Whereas the West had benefited from the Renaissance, Russia was still a Medieval culture in most respects. It was only until the time of Peter the Great that the doors of Western knowledge were blown open to Russia, but it took quite a while for the country to catch up to the West, in both methods of thinking and appliance of technology. If one were living in, say, the UK 70 years after Russia had absorbed Western knowledge, one could easily say that those Russians are dreadfully uncreative and steal from us noble Westerners. The same thing is happening in China today, I think.

It’s innaccurate of you to say both countries were in similar environments to each other in the 20th century. The forms of communism were very different, for one thing, and the culture was immensely different. Westernisation was still taking place in China - and arguably still is today as well - but Russia was very much Westernized.

And let us not use terminology such as ‘stolen’ when referring to the accumulation of knowledge, technology and the knowledge to build such technology, sheesh. Did Westerners not ‘steal’ paper, modern numerals, crossbows, stirrups, fenestrated rudders and even the first rockets etc. etc.?

The huge population of urban Chinese hasn’t passed me by, but just what makes you think that most of these residents are going to be wealthy and educated? Are such cities at the same level of wealth as cities in Western nations? Unlikely.

I am aware of the impracticality of advanced math. I’m also aware that culturally China and Japan tend to be more practical and less individualistic, which possibly could lead to less students being taught such subjects. The educational practices of East and West are likely to be very different; many Chinese schools utilize rote memorizing as a way of teaching pupils, for example. While this is for the most part impossible at university, it may discourage divergent thinking among the populace, at least to levels lower than people in the West.

Looking at those programming competition stats, the amount of East Asians winning each year on average seems to have increased quite a bit since the competition began. Similarly, the average amount of Nobel Prizes (other than in literature) won by Japan per year seems to have increased in recent years. This could reflect better methods of education and less restraint of individualism.

You mention androgens, and I thank you for doing so for that’s an extremely interesting topic and I should’ve brought that up sooner. As you know, an expert can usually determine the gender of a person’s brain through either sampling some of the neurons or analyzing the person’s behaviour, but it’s not as simple as “huurrr, I’m a macho man!!” or “oooh, I’m a flowery lady”. For instance, a beefy jock type man could be great at socializing but not be good academically, while a skinny quiet guy who’s not too good at being popular may be the one to turn to with your advanced calculus homework (hypothetically they are both white). The former has more testosterone flowing through him, but his brain isn’t as male as the latter. Lemme explain…

The more male a brain is, the better it is at systemizing than empathizing, in other words thinking in terms of things rather than people. As you go further along the male scale (I am so sorry...>_<), you get into mild autism territory, i.e. Asperger's. This type of person isn't the best to invite to a uni dorm party but is usually quite a bit above average academically. If the brain is even more male, it's autistic, which can be disadvantageous but occasionally produces autistic savants.

On the other hand, if the brain is female, it's better at empathy and socializing, but worse with systematic stuff. Women and campy men (those evil, EVIL gays ) tend to be great with being social and being good with appearences, i.e. fashion, hair-styling etc, but stereotypically not so good with fixing the car.

Such differences are evident in child hood. Boys, usually with male brains, will more than likely play with toy trucks cars, and if they use human figurines like Action Men, they will make up awesome adventurous storylines with explosions and fighting and laser beams etc. All of that is evidence of a brain that systemizes alot. Girls, usually with female brains, will use dolls and stuff to play 'Family', or organize fake social situations, i.e. tea parties. When I was a young 'un, around 5 years old, for some strange reason I gave a truck for a girl to play with. She talked to it as if it were a child, essentially using it as a doll. This is all evidence for a brain that empathizes alot.

I do not think it's as simple as "more testosterone = more systemization". The people with the most male brains aren't always the most male in the traditional sense, infact they tend to be a bit weedy, hence the smart-but-socially-clueless nerd stereotype. Thus, the theory of more super-geniuses correllating with more masculine types in a population is to me an oversimplification.

I think it's the amount of testosterone exposed to the fetus at a certain time, as apposed to the amount of testosterone exposed all together, that causes a brain to become abnormally male and high IQ.

If males with very high IQ within a breeding population happen to be more masculine physically than the average male of the population, then your theory may have some ground. Until then, I’m not certain.

I highly recommend reading material by Simon Baron Cohen, who is an expert on all this.

....Oh! And about the Romans…

Well, yeah, the Latins came from North of the Alps, but it’s theorized they didn’t come from very far north; a Central-Eastern European point of origin is the most likely place, not a Northern European place.

Similarly, the Etruscans, the indigenous population of Northern and Central Italy, had a great role to play in the early stages of Rome. Two of the last three kings were said to have been of Etruscan or semi-Etruscan lineage, and the language of Latin itself was greatly influenced by Etruscan, in addition to the IE proto-Latin. Etruscan architecture was also very influential in bringing about the classic Roman stlye, as was Greek.

The main ethnicity of the first Romans is by no means clear, and the early IE Italic tribes were in no way the sole creators of Rome. Both the Etruscans and Latins intermixed early on, both in the cultural sense and in the sexual sense.

Similarly, I’ve seen many examples of Roman sculpture, and depictions of Germanic tribesmen do indeed look Northern/Central European. But then I look at statues of Roman emperors and soldiers, and the two peoples clearly look different physically. Many Roman authors described their fellow citizens as different in physical appearence to the Germans of the period, and their artwork clearly reinforces such writings.

Posted by Yarus on June 08, 2006, 01:58 AM | #

Hmm....

Come to think of it, looking at the evidence that you have cited - which is impressive in it’s size - supposedly proving the Germanic ancestry of Northern Italians, it’s not as solid as I first thought.

The C282Y mutation is most commonly thought of as Celtic in origin, not Scandanavian. Even though levels of the mutation are quite abundant in Viking Land, they aren’t as high as in countries such as Ireland, which are Celtic to the core.

As you know, the Celtic peoples covered most of Western Europe in ancient times, while the ancestors of the Germanic tribes were still confined to Sweden and Northern Germany. Celtic peoples even populated the Northern-most parts of Italy.

The Celts were indeed ancestors of the paleolithic population of Europe, and the Greeks and other ‘Meds’ were not.

All of your evidence is good, but in all likelyhood it proves an ancient Celtic lineage in Northern Italy rather than a Germanic one, thus I don’t think the ‘Lombardic rejuvenation’ theory makes that much sense anymore. Do you honestly suppose influential Renaissance men like Raphael (one on the left) look Germanic?

I’ve also come to learn that Southern Italy, especially Sicily, has large Greek ancestry, from the time of the Ancient Greek colonists (who were mainly Dorian...heheheh). Click, y’all. Does this not prove a definate Southern European character of the Ancient Greeks?

While it has mainly been Central/Northern European countries that have helped shape the West in most recent times, we should give credit to those of more swarthy persuasion for the Greek and Roman civilizations, without which we would more than likely be conquered by the Chinese by now due to our backwardness. Of course, we could’ve advanced to somesort of civilization resembling Gondor/Rohan out of LotR, which is a weak plus. However: no dwarves. :(

I look forward to your reply.

Posted by Yarus on June 11, 2006, 03:14 PM | #

Perhaps I shouldn’t of been so eager to attribute the autistic spectrum as purely a result of androgens, there may very well be environmental factors at play here.

Still looking forward to your reply, Mr Richards.

Posted by Michelle on June 21, 2006, 12:56 AM | #

Ummm, I am latino but my health is excellent! I never get sick or anything, you said health is much worse besides those south asians and north western europeans.

Posted by Dee on June 23, 2006, 04:02 AM | #

In response to the claim that Black men find unattractive white women more attractive than unattractive black women.  What a crock!  First off, black men see sleeping with white women as a way to get back at the white race.  Second, Black men see white women as easy and gullible, thus, they can use them moreso than they can use black women...So, get over yourself.

btw..looks like you get the pictures of “beautiful” white women off of porno sites

Posted by J Richards on July 07, 2006, 02:51 AM | #

Michelle,

It is good that you are healthy.  Nobody is saying that race mixing invariably results in poor health; the odds of poor health are increased though.

-----------------

Dee,

You believe that black men view white women as easier to get?  Are you insane?  Black men typically know that most white women wouldn’t have anything to do with black men, but obese and unattractive white women whom no white man would want to deal with are a different matter.  Trust me, many white men are fed up with the rampant criminality of black men, yet wouldn’t even think of sleeping with black women to get back at black men.  Similarly, black men primarily fantasize about white women because they like their looks, not because they want to get back at the white man, and would prefer a 250-pound white woman to a 350-pound black woman any day.  Besides, it was necessary to look up some lewd pictures to obtain photos of nostril shapes.

Posted by J Richards on July 07, 2006, 03:00 AM | #

Yarus,

Sorry for taking so long to get back to you.  You have raised many points, and it will take some lengthy comments to address them.  Let us start with the ancient Greeks. 

Dienekes Pontikos has written:

The most complete study of Greek skeletal material from Neolithic to modern times was carried out by American anthropologist J. Lawrence Angel [6] who found that in the early age racial variability in Greece was 7% above average, indicating that the Greeks had multiple origins within the Europid racial family. Angel noted that from the earliest times to the present “racial continuity in Greece is striking.”

Well, Angel classified ancient Greek skulls into 6 groups:

Basic white – sturdy, large and long heads, somewhat low and receding bony foreheads, massive browridges, angular features, almost trapezoid faces lacking height, rectangular orbits; short, straight and coarse noses; robust jaws, strong chin and teeth, back of the head projecting.  A little above medium stature, strong, and estimated to be dark-brown haired and swarthy.  Similar to Chalcolithic (3rd millennium) Palestinians, Siculans, Chalcolithic Sardinians, Neolithic-type British, and comparable to Atlanto-Mediterraneans in Mesopotamia.

Classic Mediterranean – light bones, almost fragile; low and almost vertical rounded foreheads; small skull, barely long in side view, and pentagonoid in outline in both vertical view and view from the back; slender, gracile faces; squared orbits, thin noses that are smooth and low at the point where the nose meets the forehead, small and straight foreheads, face triangularly tapers down to pinched jaws with a shallow and pointed chin, weakly protruding jaws and an overbite.  Just below medium stature, gracile, slender-necked, and estimated to be brunet, with black or dark hair.  Similar to ancient Libyans, modern Sicilians, modern Spanish, and upper Egyptians of prehistoric and early dynasties.

Nordic-Iranian – long and high heads with smooth ovoid-ellipsoid contour, back of the head especially projecting (long skull in side view), sharply-cut muscle impressions, strong browridges, somewhat tilted and wide foreheads, long and rectangular faces, narrow cheeks with large but retreating cheekbones; big, salient and aquiline noses; long-arched palates, muscular jaws wide at the angles, cleft chins lacking prominence, rugged and deep-chinned jaw.  Tall and muscular, strong-necked, and estimated to be tawny-haired blue- or green-eyed blonds as well as brunets.  Similar to Anglo-Saxons, Frankish Bajuvars and Reihengrabers, medieval Irish monks, and Hissar III (Bronze age) North Iranian proto-Nordics. 

Dinaric-Mediterranean – short and relatively high pinched and flatly sloping foreheads, back of the head does not protrude, big and drooping houndlike faces with an elongated hexagonal outline, flared cheekbones, long and thin noses pulled down almost parallel with the foreheads, high palates, long and deep jaws.  Medium tall, long-necked and estimated to be mainly brunet.  Similar to lower Egyptian (3rd and 2nd millennium B.C.) dinaricised Mediterraneans, modern northwest Balkan Dinarics (Serbs, Croats, Solvenes), and modern Greeks of Anatolia and European Turkey.

Mixed Alpine – large heads that are neither long nor short and neither broad nor narrow, very large and wide foreheads with little slope, wide and sloping orbits, low faces with an inverted trapezoid outline and a retreating profile, high-rooted but insignificant noses, shallow and relatively delicate jaws despite respectable size. Not especially short but probably heavy-bodied, and estimated to have a brunet majority with some mixed blonds.  Similar to Etrusco-Roman Tarquinians, Merovingian Franks, Bessarabian Scythians, Carniola Illyrians, Basques, Teneriffe Guanche. 

Alpine – short heads bulging at the sides, short and ovoid- to wedge-shaped vaults, full foreheads that are narrow relative to bulging sidewalls, back of the head flattened, non-salient concave nose with a low root, short palate, prominent chin; low, flat and straight face with a rounded hexagonal outline; non-retreating cheekbones.  Short, stocky build and estimated to have been dominantly brunet.  Similar to Bronze age east Cypriotes, Central European Alpines as in foothill Bavarians, Carinthian villagers, and medieval citizens of Hythe in Kent.

Ref:
Angel, J. L. Skeletal material from Attica. Hesperia, 1945;14(4):279-363.
Angle, J. L. Social biology of Greek culture growth. American Anthropologist, 1946;48(4 part 1):493-533.

Here is the prevalence of these types of skulls through various periods in ancient Greece (From Angel, J.L. American Anthropologist, 1946;48(4 part 1):493-533):

Notice that in the classical Greek period, approximately one-fourth were of the Nordic-Iranian type.  Now, the six types of skulls described by Angel are the six basic tendencies in skull shape variability, and the skulls in reality are sometimes mixes of different groups.  Thus, in classical Greece and earlier times, the Nordic-Iranian skulls are mostly Nordic skulls as in Anglo-Saxon, Keltic Nordic and corded types, but toward the later periods, i.e., the Roman and Byzantine periods, many of these skulls lean away from modern Nordics and toward a large, hook-nosed Iranian form, and Dienekes Pontikos tells us that no more than a few percent of modern Greeks can be classified as Nordic types.

Next, let us consider some Greek figures that Dienekes Pontikos has not shown on the pages that you have linked to, and see which of the 6 types of skulls described by Angel these figures overall best approximate.

Apollo Belvedere, based on the bronze Greek original from 350-325 B.C.

Aphrodite, Kaufmann head (150 B.C.).

Sophocles, Athenian (490s – 406 B.C.)

Pericles, Athenian (495 – 429 B.C.)

Euripides (480-406 B.C.)

Xenophon (430-354 B.C.)

Demosthenes (386-322 B.C.)

Antiochus III the Great (241-187 B.C.)

And like the aristocratic individuals considered above, we shouldn’t forget the royalty from neighboring Macedonia.

Alexander the Great bust from Hellenistic Greece (bust from 2nd to 1st century B.C.).

Top generals of Alexander the Great: first row, Seleucus Nicator; second row, Lysimachus; third row, Cassander; fourth row, Ptolemy.

There are other examples, of course, and I don’t think I need to say which of the 6 types of skulls in Angel’s classification these samples fall into.

The more interesting data is something that Dienekes is unlikely to admit to.  Angel examined the remains of the Mycenaean shaft grave royalty and found none of them to be classic Mediterranean types; 38% of them were Nordic types and the rest were Dinaroid-Mixed Alpine types, i.e., the royalty was descended from the Indo-Europeans that had migrated to the region:

Angel, J. L. Human skeletons from grave circles at Mycenae. In G. E. Mylonas (ed.), Ho Taphikos Kyklos B ton Mykenon, Athens: Athenais Archaiologikes Etaireias, 1973; Vol. 1:379-397.

Dienekes does cite the study above, but this is what he writes:

Moreover, the burials at the Royal Graves of Mycenae, c. 1600BC [12] show a variety of stature and head form representing multiple subracial types. Thus, it is safe to assume that from earliest times, the Greek aristocracy didn’t belong to a particular physical type. The main difference between aristocrats and commoners was the slightly larger size of the former, which he explains as due to better diet and social selection for positions of leadership in warfare.

You can see here that the aristocracy in classical Greece was disproportionately Nordic.  Dienekes Pontikos is obviously aware of the Nordic busts above and many more like them, but has chosen to ignore them on the page where he addresses the racial composition of the Hellenes.  Take a look at what he has shown as examples of ancient Greek types.

Dienekes calls Pericles a Mediterranean, even though Angel specified the classic Mediterranean type as having both a low nasal root (less prominent upper nasal region) than the Nordic type, a weaker chin and a somewhat weakly protruding jaw, none of which characterize the bust of Pericles.  Dienekes ignores the Nordic Aristotle, and shows the broad-faced Plato.  I do not know where he got the bust of Plato from, but the following bust of Plato from Musei Capitolini, Roma, does not show him to be broad-faced, though he certainly doesn’t have a narrow face.

Posted by J Richards on July 07, 2006, 03:05 AM | #

Yarus,

Take a look at the following woman and guess her ancestry.

The woman shown above is a Greek woman, Katerina Georgiadou.  Dienekes has featured her on his page showing pictures of attractive Greek women.  If you go through the women shown on this page, you will note plenty of masculine-looking women, but the more interesting examples of the Greek women that he shows are depicted in the following collage.

Dienekes has gone to great lengths to deny Nordic presence in classical Greece, but he features a Nordic type in his collection of attractive Greek women, and heavily oversamples women with looks characteristic of the populations north of Greece.  What is one to make of Dienekes?

Like Dienekes, Angel was well aware of “Nordicist interpretations” of the achievements of classical Greece, and strongly disliked them.  His studies cited above were undertaken by him to counter the Nordicists, but unlike Dienekes, he acknowledged significant Nordic presence in classical Greece.  However, Angel was quick to attempt to explain the achievements of classical Greece in terms of three factors.  The first factor was presumably the destruction wrought by the invading tribes, which prompted people to rebuild society, presumably with a strong determination to build something better than before.  Now, it is true that a setback sometimes drives people to excel themselves, but Angel ignored the most obvious explanation, namely that the victorious invaders would have formed the aristocracy and assigned the conquered people to work the menial jobs, freeing themselves to pursue issues such as philosophy, artistic design, mathematical proof, etc.  The second factor proposed by Angel was the challenge posed by having to interact with different ethnic groups, the mental gymnastics of which resulted in some invigorating energy.  This is an absurd notion.  The third factor proposed by Angel was hybrid vigor resulting from the mixing of different European populations.  To this day there is no evidence of hybrid vigor in humans resulting from the mixing of different populations.  If the different populations are separate races, then the offspring have worse health; corroborating evidence in this regard is found from some loss of morphological integration in the skull resulting from race mixing, and there is more to this issue that I will address later.  I would not expect the mixing of different geographic populations within Europe to increase the likelihood of negative health effects, but I am not aware of any evidence for increased positive outcomes.  Besides, if hybrid vigor is indeed a factor in explaining the achievements of classical Greece, then how come since the decline of this civilization, Greece has gone downhill and remained at the bottom of European inventiveness and innovativeness?

For instance, I will list four statistics, in order, about some nations; number of Nobel laureates, number of Nobel laureates in science, number of Nobel laureates in economics and population size: Norway (9, 1, 3, 4.6 million), Sweden (18, 6, 0, 9 million), Finland (3, 2, 0, 5.2 million), Denmark (14, 9, 0, 5.4 million), Greece (2, 0, 0, 10.7 million). 

In short, Angel certainly didn’t undermine “Nordicist interpretations” of the achievements of classical Greece.

You have mentioned seeing dark hair pigmentation in paintings from ancient Greece.  There are indeed many such examples, but there are also paintings showing hair coloration most extensively characteristic of Nordics, as in some examples below.

Dionysos from Pella, Macedonia, 4th century B.C.

Deer hunt from Pella, Macedonia, 4th century B.C.

Lion hunt from Pella, Macedonia, 4th century B.C.

Close ups of the Deer hunt and Lion hunt mosaics from Pella, Macedonia.

Red-haired Peplos Kore from Athens (530 B.C.).

Ecstatic Maenad, 5th century B.C.

Tondo sick reveler in Kylix by the Brygos Painter, 5th century B.C.

5th century B.C. Lekythos.

Painting on a Grecian pot, 4th century B.C.

More light-haired individuals from classical Greece.

Obviously, ancient Greece did have a significant Nordic element, and liar Dienekes’ arguments in this regard are simply not worth lending any credence to.

Posted by J Richards on July 07, 2006, 03:13 AM | #

Yarus,

I will now address the northern Italy issue. 

You mention a probable Celtic origin of the C282Y mutation rather than Scandinavian and then argue that the evidence concerning this mutation proves an ancient Celtic lineage in Northern Italy rather than a Germanic one, which in turn undermines the Germanic rejuvenation idea.  To start with, the paper that you cited mentions a prevalence of 6.88% among the Celtic NW Europeans and 6.4% among Scandinavians, averaged over several studies, and these figures are not statistically different in the paper.  Besides, the Celtic and light-haired Nordic populations are closely related.  Thus, your assertion is neither proven nor even suggested by the data.  How is it not possible for Germanic tribes migrating down south to have been responsible for the high prevalence of the C282Y mutation in Northern Italy?

You have attempted to undermine the notion of a predominantly Northern European contribution to the Italian Renaissance by citing the looks of Michelangelo and Raphael.  Regarding Raphael, take a look at 4 of his portraits on this page, which includes his self-portrait that you linked to.  In his painting by Pintorocchio, he is shown as having blond hair as a child; in his self-sketch of his boyhood, Raphael sketched light hair on himself; in his self-portrait of his young adulthood, Raphael painted facial features that could easily be Northern European and a lighter shade of brown hair than in his painting depicting an older self, which is the one you linked to.  Now, several Northern Europeans have blond hair as children, which turns brown in adulthood, even dark brown as the person approaches middle age.  Therefore, there is no guarantee that Raphael was of overwhelmingly non-Northern-European stock. 

Besides, speaking of anecdotal examples, here is a self-portrait of the light-haired Sandro Botticelli, the person responsible for the artwork you see at the top of the left column. 

And here is one of the greatest scientific geniuses of all time, Galileo.

Systematic evidence would be more useful here.  Woltmann attempted to determine the physical appearance of key Renaissance figures from their paintings, busts and historical descriptions, and he reported that in 1) 125 men whose eye color could be assessed, 102 had blue, blue-grey or blue-green eyes; 18 had brown or brown-grey eyes; and 5 had eyes of mixed color; 2) in 108 men whose hair color could be assessed, 68 had blond or red hair; 26 had brown hair; and 14 had black hair; and 3) the noble families of Northern Italy produced plenty of blond individuals:

Woltmann, L. (1905) Die Germanen und die Renaissance in Italien (Leipzig: Thüringische Verlagsanstalt).

I have no idea how reliable Woltmann’s data are, but I see no reason to doubt the idea that the Italian Renaissance was primarily a product of individuals of Northern European stock, which is not to say that non-Nordics were not involved at all.
Next, it is time to address the Etruscans, from whom the Romans borrowed some cultural elements.  One cannot assume that the ancient Etruscans were a uniformly dark people.  Artistic depictions of the Etruscans dating to the 6th-3rd century B.C. show some light-haired individuals:

The ancient Etruscans were a heterogeneous people that included Alpine, Dinaric, Phalian and Nordic elements in addition to the Mediterranean types; related citation:

Angel, J. L. Book Review: Ciba Foundation Symposium on Medical Biology and Etruscan Origins. American Antiquity. 1960;25(4):612-613.

In addition, the best genetic evidence so far shows that modern Tuscans are not the descendents of the ancient Etruscans:

Belle EM, Ramakrishnan U, Mountain JL, Barbujani G. Serial coalescent simulations suggest a weak genealogical relationship between Etruscans and modern Tuscans. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2006 May 23;103(21):8012-7. Epub 2006 May 15.

Similarly, there is plenty of evidence showing that the Roman Patricians were of Northern ancestry, comprising of mostly Nordic types, and included some Nordic-Alpine and Phalian elements.  Therefore, once again, the elite/aristocracy was disproportionately Nordic.

Posted by J Richards on July 07, 2006, 03:19 AM | #

Yarus,

In light of all the evidence above, it is time to address the following statement by you.

While it has mainly been Central/Northern European countries that have helped shape the West in most recent times, we should give credit to those of more swarthy persuasion for the Greek and Roman civilizations, without which we would more than likely be conquered by the Chinese by now due to our backwardness. Of course, we could’ve advanced to somesort of civilization resembling Gondor/Rohan out of LotR, which is a weak plus. However: no dwarves.

The “we” above presumably refers to Northern Europeans.  Two things need to be said about your statement.  Firstly, it takes more brain power to handle Schrodinger’s equation than to handle Pythagoras’ theorem, i.e., those that can handle Schrodinger’s equation can easily handle Pythagoras’ theorem but the reverse is not necessarily true.  Therefore, if Northern Europeans have proven their intellectual prowess by being almost entirely responsible for modern civilization, then their ancestors within recorded history were surely intelligent enough to produce on their own the philosophical, scientific and technical achievements of earlier civilizations.  Therefore, the statement that without the early contributions of a presumably swarthy southern people, modern Northern Europeans would be living in some backward society is absurd.  Secondly, where is the evidence that swarthy people were entirely behind the achievements of classical Greece and Rome?  The evidence—and what is cited above is but a sampler—points to the overwhelming contribution of people from the north of Southern European, especially Nordic types, to the high points of the Roman and Greek civilizations.  This, of course, leads to your previous question about what the Northern Europeans had achieved in Northern Europe a few thousand years ago.  You appear satisfied with the explanation that there were very few inhabitants in Scandinavia in the past, but have asked what about Britain?

Well, the achievements of the ancient Northern Europeans have increasingly come to light in the past couple of years.  The Celts had better helmets, better shields and better chariots than the Romans, and they were more adept at using the chariots.  An Iron Age road at Corlea in Ireland has recently been dated to 148 B.C., and wooden roads built in the same way and around the same time have been found in other parts of Northern Europe.  The first important Roman road was the Appian Way, built in 312BC, but the “Upton Track” wooden road in south Wales dates to the 5th century B.C.  The ancient Celts were also excellent metal craftsmen, and they used their skills to build sophisticated arable farms using iron ploughshares (4th century B.C.) and a harvesting machine similar to a comb on wheels that beat off the ears of corn and deposited them in a container like the grass box of a lawnmower.

The earliest sewage system has been found in Skara Brae, predating that at the palace of Knossos by about 1,500 years.  Take a look at the sophistication of Bronze Age Danes here and here.  The Nebra disk in Saxony-Anhalt, about 3,600 years old, is probably the oldest concrete representation of the cosmos.  And, one shouldn’t forget the technical prowess required to erect massive megaliths in Northern Europe.

Northern Europeans were far from a backward people thousands of years ago, and their Nordic relatives were disproportionately behind the high points of a number of the noteworthy achievements in Southern Europe.  On the other hand, several achievements of classical Greece were the first of their kind, and it may be asked why the Nordics elsewhere did not first come up with these achievements.  Well, the achievements of classical Greece were not built from scratch; they were built upon pre-existing achievements.  The Mediterranean region was certainly ideally poised to come up with early noteworthy achievements given its large numbers of white people and multiple ethnic groups, allowing people to borrow something useful from various cultures, something that would not be possible for more isolated populations.  In addition, with a large variety of people, it would be easy for some groups to dominate others, thereby resulting in the aristocracy or ruling class having plenty of free time to pursue philosophy and science.  Nordics in Northern Europe were an independently living people a few thousand years ago and did not have the advantage of slaves doing their menial jobs.

You have mentioned Ibn Fadhlan’s account of a Norse slave-girl accompanying her dead lord to be burnt in a ship burial as a good indicator of barbaric Norse practices.  There is no indication how prevalent this practice was, and was it even true?  Ibn Fadhlan described the Vikings as the dirtiest creatures of God, people with no shame in voiding their bowels and bladder, people who washed their heads and faces daily in the dirtiest and filthiest possible manner, people who did not wash their hands after eating, people who did not wash themselves when polluted by the emission of semen, and people who were like asses gone astray.  Is this load of bull from Ibn Fadhlan to be believed?

I do not know why you call the Viking longships inferior to the Chinese junk.  The combination of width, stability, lightweight, speed and agility in the longships was unmatched; the longships were outstanding in multiple features whereas the Chinese junks were primarily meant for seafaring but were also sometimes used during warfare.  The Vikings also built large versions of longships for seafaring.

I have no idea how you have managed to come up with the bizarre statement that I have used the Brace et al. paper to argue for a Northern European ancient Greek/Roman population.  I cited the Brace et al. paper to cite evidence for a higher frequency of fine facial features in modern Northern and Central Europeans compared to modern Southern Europeans.

Regarding my calling Dienekes a Greek propagandist, I should have been more accurate in calling him a propagandist for dark Greeks.  I have addressed the points above in response to your accusing me of espousing Nordicism, whereas Dienekes put up his lies and distortions a long time ago on his own initiative, and apparently has no intentions of changing.  Having a picture of Norse warriors as my avatar hardly makes me some kind of Nordic propagandist.

Posted by J Richards on July 07, 2006, 03:30 AM | #

Yarus,

Regarding Russia, Russia was indeed lagging behind the West prior to Peter the Great, but a lot of this undoubtedly had to do with the devastation wrought about by the Mongol invaders.  White Russians had the intellectual capability of other whites, and they showed this capability by eventually catching with the West and outshining many Western nations in the 20th century.
I have not implied that the Chinese and the Russians had the same environment in the 20th century.  What I said was that Communism did not devastate Russia any less than it did China.  The number of deaths per capita from Communism was greater in Russia.

When I mentioned the Chinese stealing Western technology, I wasn’t implying borrowing knowledge/technology.  China is extensively involved in espionage, and has literally stolen Western military technology (see here, here, here and here for some examples).  The West has not stolen its technology.  As far as I know, Johannes Gutenberg came up with the printing press on his own, and certainly didn’t “steal” Chinese technology.  Similarly, the West did not steal the technology behind the crossbow and rockets from China as in the Chinese recently spying in the West and stealing classified military information.  Anyway, when it comes to launching rockets into space, the Chinese, along with other northeast Asians, have notably lagged behind the West, especially Russia.

Regarding the huge urban Chinese population, I have not implied that all Chinese urban dwellers are wealthy and well-educated.  On the other hand, Russia is a fraction of the Chinese population, a fourth of Russians live in villages and many urban-dwelling Russians live in destitution.  Additionally, people with higher IQs also tend to come from upper class backgrounds, and in both Russia and China, it cannot be assumed that a large number of highly intelligent individuals are mired in poverty.  Further, intelligent students from middle class backgrounds will typically find their way to decent educational institutions.  Therefore, your excuses for explaining the Chinese deficit in the ACM placings and equivalent, notwithstanding their superior average IQ, especially math IQ, are extremely poor.  A less individualistic culture in China and Japan could lead to fewer students being taught advanced math?  What is this?  A stronger emphasis on rote learning discouraging divergent thinking among the Chinese?  I am sorry, but society can force people to behave in a given manner, but it cannot force people to think along given “conformist” lines unless most people do not have the intelligence to figure out things for themselves.  More intelligent people will be less easily manipulated into thinking along the lines others want them to.  Besides, societal pressures to conform to some thoughts and behaviors but not others will almost never have anything to do with the highly abstract and often impractical nature of advanced math.  Other than the Chinese, the Japanese are a First World nation, well in excess of a 100 million people, and only about 10 million less than the Russians.  They did not make it in the top 10 in the 2006 ACM competition, and generally do not place well in equivalent competitions.

Your conclusions about NE Asians having improved their placement in the ACM competitions and winning more Nobel Prizes of late are not warranted from the data.  For instance, of the 9 Nobel prizes won by Japan in science, 4 of them have been during 2000-2002.  This could have been a random spike for all one knows, and it is premature to assume any increasing trend.  NE Asians are bound to improve in recent decades compared to the mid-20th century, but they are nowhere in the neighborhood of whites at present.  You have also mentioned that Nobel Prizes are awarded for lifetime work, and hence one will see relatively more NE Asians in coming years.  Well, Nobel prizes may be awarded for relatively recent work or older work; it varies, and even if there is a relative increase in the number of NE Asian Nobel prize winners in the future, it would hardly be impressive unless they exceed whites, which is what one would normally expect from their average IQ advantage.

Regarding what I said about testosterone, you have jumped to ridiculous interpretations as usual.  I have not talked about male and female brains and neither do I believe in such simplistic ideas.  I have not implied anything along the lines of more testosterone equals more systemization or more super-geniuses correlate with more masculine types.  There is evidence for sex hormones influencing cognitive abilities, racial differences in exposure to sex hormones, and sex hormones are implicated in sexual selection.  How these possibly contribute to the IQ advantage of whites in the extremely high IQ range is something that I will address in the future, in a separate entry.

Regarding India, you make the absurd point about the allegation that the upper castes have generally become duller with time as a result of absorbing the darker natives being inconsistent with the frequency and potency of mathematical discovery increasing with time till the Islamic invasions.  You did not cite any source to show the latter.  Besides, given that people build upon the achievements of ancestral humans, should it be surprising if the pace of mathematical discovery increases over a period?  Noteworthy contributions are the product of a select few, usually of upper class background, and even if the absorption of the darker natives increases with time, if the population is large enough, there could still be enough lighter upper class individuals to advance math over a period by adding to prior achievements.

You have mentioned some of the achievements of the Dravidian Cholas, claiming them to be the aboriginal natives of India.  Well, humans in India came from elsewhere.  The very first types were undoubtedly Negroid/Australoid in looks.  It is unclear what the Dravidian elite look like before they settled in India, and it is quite likely that the Dravidians being an earlier arrival into India than the Aryans, they miscegenated with the Negroid- or Australoid-looking natives to a greater extent, thereby shifting their physical appearance toward these dark types much more than the Northern caste groups.  Therefore, it is possibly incorrect to ascribe the achievements of the Dravidian elite in the past to the dark Dravidians of today.

You have said that the Brahmin caste of Southern India looks less white than the commoners of North-Western India, yet they have higher intelligence.  In a separate entry of mine, a South Asian pointed out that there were a number of light-skinned Brahmin groups in Southern India that stand in marked contrast to the natives there and could easily pass off as northern Indian Brahmins.  I have also heard of dark Brahmins from southern India that are smarter than others, but is there any proof other than the fact that India’s silicon valley is in the South?  India has only won 3 Nobel prizes in science, and 2 of these have gone to individuals from the South and one to a Northerner.  Additionally, none of the Nobel Prizes won by Indians in literature have gone to the southerners.  These data points hardly lend themselves to any generalization, but what proof is there that southern Brahmins have higher IQs than Northern Brahmins?  And even if the darker Southern Brahmins have higher IQs than lighter Brahmins from the North, then so what?  The contribution of India’s intellectuals to worthwhile knowledge is miniscule, this contribution has disproportionately come from the upper caste people who are genetically closer to Europeans than lower caste people, and in the past, some such individuals were undoubtedly white or close.

It is another of your absurd interpretations that I somehow believe that the source of higher intelligence must be Nordic in origin.  The Ashkenazim undoubtedly have higher IQs than Nordics, but this appears to have resulted from selection pressures among the Ashkenazim rather than being a Nordic contribution.  A dark population could surely indigenously develop a higher IQ than a lighter adjacent population, but the -0.92 correlation between predominant skin color of a population and its average IQ, computed in a global sampling, should be kept in mind.  In summary, if there is evidence that the dark natives of a region were not behind the origin of a civilization that once flourished there, and that this civilization was predominantly of Nordic origin, then stating this is neither espousing Nordicism nor implying the straw man that all civilizations must somehow be the product of Nordic architects.

Posted by J. Black on July 07, 2006, 02:13 PM | #

YOU PEOPLE SUCK, WHILE YOU ARE IN HERE ARGUING ABOUT BEAUTIFUL WOMEN, NONE OF YOU EVEN HAVE HAD A CONVERSATION WITH ONE. KEEP COPYING AND PASTING PICTURES YOU LUST (EDIT) AFTER; YOU WILL DO ALL DO WELL TO BE SPERM DONORS! PATHETIC RACIST, LEFTIST, APOLOGIST, TRAIABLIST, HOMOPHOBIC, NIHILISTIC, NAZI, POWER HUNGRY, LONELY, DEGENERATES.

Posted by Guessedworker on July 07, 2006, 03:09 PM | #

You forgot WHITE, Jamal.

Posted by Aisha Nakhuda on July 15, 2006, 08:17 PM | #

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.

Hmm. Assumption rather than fact.

Well sorry to burst your Nordic bubble, some whites who undergo cosmetic facial surgery do desire to acquire the facial features of Black Africans or ‘flat-faced’ Asians.
Think big lips. A ‘Nordic’ feature indeed(!)

Another thing, please do yourself a favour and stop posting clearly pornographic pictures of white women.
Particularly those with ‘piggy noses’. Unless of course they please your aesthetic senses then keep posting.

Beauty comes in different colours; each race adding its unique touch to the individual. Deal with it.

Posted by J Richards on July 16, 2006, 12:04 AM | #

Aisha,

Within any racial group, more feminine women have thicker than average lips.  Therefore, some thin-lipped Nordic women who thicken their lips are trying to make themselves more seductive to men, not attempting to acquire the lip thickness of non-white women.  The thicker lips seen among non-whites, especially blacks, are generally not appreciated by whites.

Once again, it was necessary to look up some lewd pictures to obtain photos of nostril shapes.  I don’t understand what you mean by ‘piggy noses.’ Beauty may come in different colors, but the non-white elements had best stay outside the white gene pool.

Posted by priz on August 25, 2006, 12:02 PM | #

THERE MAY BE WHITE WOMEN WHO ARE HOTTER THAN MS. MOHAN(but definately not the plain janes in the pics provided by Richards ),............IN THE SAME TOKEN I MUST ADMIT THERE AS HEAPS OF “NON-WHITE” WOMEN WHO ARE HOTTER THAN BOTH Ms MOHAN AND THAN OTHER WHITE WOMEN AS WELL.....I beleive its more to do with the person’s beauty than the race’s in general...........
And as for those of you worried about nordic “white” america getting “mixed”......have you spared a thought for the actual original inhabitants of americe the - native Indians? there are pretty much wiped out by the whites...and now you are getting all worked about the purity of your lineage...LOL!!!! If you are so concerned about preserving your race and immigrants from other nations what are you doing in AMERICA???....y dont you go back to where your ancestors originally came from?????....

Posted by J Richards on August 25, 2006, 06:23 PM | #

Priz,

Some of the white women shown in the original entry are supposed to illustrate nostril shape and fineness of nasal bones, and have not been selected for a great level of attractiveness.  For better looking white women, see this thread.

Most American Indians that died after Columbus’ arrival died as a result of infectious diseases, and at least one of the infectious agents was indigenous to the Americas.  It is also now known that many of the earliest prehistoric fossils/artifacts found in the Americas are not those of Native Americans, i.e., they are not necessarily the first people to migrate to the Americas.

White Americans may consider going back to Europe if every non-white in Europe leaves the continent for good.

Posted by priz on August 26, 2006, 04:31 AM | #

I am not debating that there are no good looking white women. I definitly am debating your notion that white females in general are superior to the non-whites....HELL NO!!!!!!!!
The native americans could have died of infectious diseases,.....but that does not take away from the fact that the were invaded upon and killed by foreigners who have now made America their own....And if you are going into fossils and looking into who the first inhabitans were in a continent.....then, there definitly is scientific study and proof to support evidence that the humans originated and evolved from Africa...hence nullifying all the theories you have put forward...so what are you then to argue about?
And for the record it was the white americans who ventured out into other continents first with the colonisation...america, India,Australia etc....They were the ones to bring in the blacks into the America for slavery as well. So guess what you guys started the trend of going into other peoples territories and making it your own. ....Atleast the immigrants didnot come in and persecute,invade and kill your forefathers!!!!

Posted by priz on August 26, 2006, 04:34 AM | #

“but the non-white elements had best stay outside the white gene pool.”

Should have thought of that when you guys ventures into non-white territories............

Posted by J Richards on August 26, 2006, 07:36 PM | #

Priz,

Ever heard of the white man’s burden?  Whites have long been paying for the sins of some white people in the past, but things have gone too far; two wrongs do not make a right, and too many whites have suffered from criminal victimization by non-whites, affirmative action, etc.  Whites whose ancestors within the last couple of generations had nothing to do with colonizing non-whites have also suffered.  Besides, guilt is not inherited.  Should I be paying for what a distant ancestor did 300 years ago? 

As far as non-whites not victimizing whites in the past goes, this is a mistaken belief.  Muslims invaded parts of Europe in the middle ages and enslaved many Europeans.  In addition, now that there is evidence in the form of European-Ainu-type fossils such as Kennewick man, the Spirit Cave mummy, Peñon woman, etc., one can no longer argue with certainty that Native Americans were indeed the first people to colonize the Americas; the first people could very well have been European, who were exterminated by incoming Asiatic-type people, who in turn suffered a major population decline after Columbus’s arrival, mostly due to diseases.  See also this thread about European people in Mongolia in the Bronze age and whites in the Tarim Basin in China, a people that disappeared, and also learn about the Mongol attacks that devastated parts of Europe in the middle ages.

How does the ultimate origin of all human populations today in Africa undermine my arguments?  All humans have a common origin, but this was quite a while ago, and several population differences have accumulated since then.

Posted by priz on August 27, 2006, 08:25 AM | #

I AGREE......It would Definately be ridiculous to expect one to carry the guilt of ones forefathers...just as ridiculous as your notion on the superiority of the nordics goes....

Common origin was a whiile ago.....? exactly my point...whos to say how far back one can or cant go in this debate ? So why do you want to go further back into history and dig to find out who occupated america long long before the native americans? If you must do it then why dont you go back all the way????? why are you digging into history just as far back as it meets your convinience?

OMG!! You just seem to be obsessed with this idea of nordics.This discussion does not interest or stimulate my intelligence anymore...There is no point in me looking at this thread further...wont be visiting this site again.

Your quite obviously a passionate person....why dont you channelise it in the right direction? Just remember there are a lot more things you could contribute your time,intelligence and efforts to which could bring about the betterment of humanity in general...rather than arguing over the false notion that nordics are better looking or the superior race.....what is it going to acheive?

What are you doing man!!!...Do you realise you are actually creating a devide between people from different backgrounds??? This is exactly how feelings of hatread and animosity germinate..people would definately find it offensive that you seem to think one race is superior to the other!You are never going to prove anything.... how do you define beauty?Your idea of beauty could be completely different from another persons’(as clearly seen by the comments posted by previous viewers about the pics of the women u considered attractive!!)

How can one dictate that inter cultural or racial mixed( or whatever you want to call it) parentage should be shunned upon?Let people live their lives and make their own choices....its not your decision to take....face it!!!

Good luck anyway...

Posted by J Richards on August 29, 2006, 03:58 AM | #

Priz,

The earliest people that occupied the Americas would be recognizable as human, but the most recent common ancestral population of modern humans would barely be recognizable as a human population, and this population is not relevant to your initial point about whites having recently invaded the Americas.

Your point that amity is preferable to enmity is appreciated, but the topic that started this entry is Armand Marie Leroi’s idea, which needs to be critiqued.  There is nothing in this entry that suggests that people with mixed ancestry should be shunned.  Besides, this entry is not about Nordics; the references to Nordics have come about in response to various comments.  This entry is about whether the beauty of white women could be enhanced by non-white admixture.  I should have made an effort to select very attractive women for the pictures of nostrils and fine nasal bones, which have been a source of criticism, as well as selected better looking women, but these choices do not undermine my contention that white beauty cannot be enhanced by non-white admixture.  I will probably add more pictures to the original entry to avoid having the same shortcomings repeated in newer comments.

Posted by Caroline on August 30, 2006, 04:18 AM | #

I’m mixed w/ a bunch of european ancestry.  I have a nose that doesn’t slope inward from my forehead.  It reminds of of a few of those greek pics.  What part of Europe is that from?  I’m irish, german, and french.

Posted by J Richards on August 31, 2006, 03:59 AM | #

Caroline,

The Greek figures show forehead-nose continuity and very projecting upper nasal regions.  Forehead-nose continuity is not typical of any European population, but the upper nasal region (nasal bones) is most projecting in Northern Europeans, which allows some Northern Europeans to have the forehead-nose profile of the Greek figures.  Southern Europeans have a less projecting upper nasal region and a more projecting lower nasal region compared to Northern Europeans, and when they manifest forehead-nose continuity in profile view, the appearance is typically not what you see in the ancient Greek figures.

From a racial standpoint, one can speak of a north-south distinction in Europe, with the north group comprising of populations north of southern Europe.  Based on your description, your membership appears to be in the north group.

Posted by CALIFORNIAGIRL on September 04, 2006, 12:18 AM | #

i think many of u r wrong about the nordic race being wiped out by race-mixing. ive seen MANY bi-racial kids with blonde/red/light brown hair,blue/grey/green eyes, and nordic facial features especially when the father is the white parent. i dont think mixing w/ mexican creates a darker population, u wouldnt believe how many blue eyed blonde half mexicans there are, and i very rarely see a half mexican that can pass for mexican. the asians though seem to be very dominant over white genes in terms of hair/ eye color from white ive seen of asian/white mixed breeds. also, even though blonde hair/blue eyes is supposedly recessive, most offspring of a nordic and non-nordic white look nordic. also, race mixing does increase physical attractiveness, look at the brazillians and puerto ricans for example. u posted obviously average looking white women.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on September 05, 2006, 05:27 AM | #

From Steve Sailer’s new column, up tonight at Vdare.com:

“My working hypothesis about attractiveness: multiracial people tend to be no more and no less good looking than the weighted average of their ancestors. But their greater genetic variety leads many people to assume they are more attractive on the whole.  I will explain what I think are the reasons for this in an upcoming VDARE.COM essay.”

This accords with J. Richards’ view, in that a weighted average of ancestors that includes members of a less-attractive race will yield lower attractiveness than one that doesn’t include members of a less-attractive race.

Posted by Jeugenics on September 05, 2006, 06:13 AM | #

in that a weighted average of ancestors that includes members of a less-attractive race will yield lower attractiveness than one that doesn’t include members of a less-attractive race.

Hitler also recognized this relationship in Mein Kampf, though in more general terms of the entire phenotype range. I’m sure biologists can be found stating the truism even earlier.

Posted by Téa on September 06, 2006, 03:07 AM | #

On the other hand, whites who undergo cosmetic facial surgery never try to acquire the facial features of black Africans or flat-faced Asians

I guess that you forgot about the white woman going for lip injections to get the full lips that most blacks and asians have.  Oh, I almost forgot...what about white women getting tans be them direct sun or spray on or fake and bake ones? What about them getting fake hips and butts that most black women have by nature.  I guess there are a few features in other races that most white women want because they are considered to be beautiful.

Posted by T. Flavius Vespasianus on September 06, 2006, 04:05 AM | #

J. Richards wrote:

The Greek figures show forehead-nose continuity and very projecting upper nasal regions.  Forehead-nose continuity is not typical of any European population, but the upper nasal region (nasal bones) is most projecting in Northern Europeans, which allows some Northern Europeans to have the forehead-nose profile of the Greek figures.  Southern Europeans have a less projecting upper nasal region and a more projecting lower nasal region compared to Northern Europeans, and when they manifest forehead-nose continuity in profile view, the appearance is typically not what you see in the ancient Greek figures.

http://dienekes.angeltowns.net/articles/hellenes/

“Greek art furnishes important information about the racial type of the ancient Hellenes. Coon in [4] observed that the beauty ideal of a straight nose and a lithe body was borrowed from Minoan Crete which was undisputably peopled by Mediterraneans [5,11]. The characteristic nose-forehead continuity of idealistic depictions of gods and heroes is more typical of Mediterraneans than Nordics [5], although it was rare for ancient Greeks [6] as it is for modern ones [10]. Angel [6] observes though, that his Dinaric-Mediterranean (Type F) morphological type approaches this ideal, in contrast to the Nordic-Iranian (Type D) in which the nasal bone projects at a sharp angle with the frontal bone. Indeed, Bertil Lundman, who claimed to have studied more than 20,000 individuals anthropologically [49], remarked that “the morphology of the Northlander must be assumed to be sufficiently known; it is necessary to stress only that a high nose bridge with a so-called Greek profile always points to foreign admixture.” Thus, the Greek profile is seen as evidence of the “Northern” character of the Ancient Greeks, yet a real expert on northern physical anthropology acknowledges that it is foreign to the Northern morphological type.”

[4] Coon, C.S., 1939, The Races of Europe, New York (Macmillan)
[5] Baker, J.R., 1974, Race, Oxford University Press
[6] Angel, J. Lawrence, 1944, A racial analysis of the ancient Greeks: An essay on the use of morphological types, American Journal of Physical Anthropology
[11] Poulianos, Aris N., 1999, 2nd ed., The Origin of the Cretans, Kyromanos, Thessaloniki
[49] Lundman, B.J., 1962, The Racial History of Scandinavia: An Outline, Mankind Quarterly, 3, pp. 89-97.

http://www4.stormfront.org/whitehistory/earlson/hfk/reoehchap2a.htm

“The cast of features in the Nordic race has often a characteristically bold effect owing to the threefold break in the line of the profile: first at the flattish, backward-bent forehead, then at the high-bridged nose, straight or bending outwards, and lastly at the firm, sharp-cut chin.”

Posted by T. Flavius Vespasianus on September 06, 2006, 04:13 AM | #

Classical Mediterranean type (type B)

Iron Age Nordic types (Type D1)

Source:  Skeletal Material from Attica
J. Lawrence Angel
Hesperia > Vol. 14, No. 4, The American Excavations in the Athenian Agora: Twenty-Seventh Report (Oct., 1945), pp. 279-363

Posted by T. Flavius Vespasianus on September 06, 2006, 04:27 AM | #

Greek from Ipati:

Award-winning Nordic profiles from the 1930s.

http://www.white-history.com/earlson/kop/manner.htm

http://www.white-history.com/earlson/kop/frauen.htm

Posted by Huge Heifer on September 06, 2006, 09:26 AM | #

Flavius, you have not posted any pictures of Greek women waving their naked butts into our faces.

Therefore, I cannot accept any of your points.

Posted by T. Flavius Vespasianus on September 07, 2006, 03:57 AM | #

J. Richards wrote:

The ancient Etruscans were a heterogeneous people that included Alpine, Dinaric, Phalian and Nordic elements in addition to the Mediterranean types; related citation:

Angel, J. L. Book Review: Ciba Foundation Symposium on Medical Biology and Etruscan Origins. American Antiquity. 1960;25(4):612-613.

A fabrication. Here is the cited review.

Posted by J Richards on September 10, 2006, 09:06 AM | #

T. Flavius Vespasianus,

You have cited a strange mix of sources: Dienekes Pontikos, Stormfront, Karl Earlson and Arthur Kemp.  This mix is curious in that Dienekes has reasons to dislike the others and vice versa.  After all, Stormfront maintains a Dienekes Pontikos exposed section, which addresses Dienekes’ numerous lies and distortions, and Arthur Kemp has specifically addressed The 12 lies of Pontikos, which documents Dienekes’ distortion of Kemp’s writings.

What Dienekes writes cannot be trusted unless one looks up the original sources themselves, but even if he has correctly represented the sources, one cannot be sure that Dienekes has not selectively cited sources.

Dienekes addresses forehead-nose continuity, but ignores other important points such as the more projecting upper noses (higher nose bridges) of the Nordics and also the Greek figures, as documented both by Angel and also Hanihara (see below).  Dienekes notes that the Dinaric-Mediterranean type came closest to forehead-nose continuity, but the rest of the description of this type, documented above, makes it clear that the Greek art figures are surely not based on it.

Some of the data from Hanihara.

Simotic subtense – roughly the projection of the nasal bones (nasals), from least nasal breadth to nasal bridge; higher values imply more absolutely projecting nasals.

Simotic index – obtained by dividing the simotic subtense by the least nasal breadth; higher values imply nasals that appear to be more projecting.  This index is useful since if one maintains absolute projection of the nose constant, then broader nasals in front view will make the nose appear relatively less projecting.

F-N ratio – obtained by dividing the maximum cranial length by the nasion-occipital length.  A value of 100.0 implies forehead-nose continuity, and higher values imply increasingly greater projection of the forehead beyond the point where the nose meets the forehead (nasion).

The figures in brackets are standard deviations.

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

In the table above, what you observe is that the nasals of both the classical Greeks and the ancient Italians were both absolutely more projecting and appeared to be more projecting than their modern counterparts, and the ancients were also closer to forehead-nose continuity.  I have addressed an English and a Norwegian sample because they had the most prominent appearing nasals in the study though the absolute projection of their nasals tended to be lower than that seen among the classical Greeks and ancient Italians, but still higher than that seen among modern Greeks and Italians.  I also included the Cyprus and Palestinian samples because although the absolute projection of their nasals is comparable to that the English and Norwegians, their nasals do not appear to be as projecting.  The forehead-nose continuity of the English and Norwegians is roughly comparable to that of modern Greeks and Italians.  The F-N ratio was not normally distributed, and hence I cannot calculate what proportion in each group would have forehead-nose continuity, but, from the F-N values and the simotic measurements, it would be obviously ridiculous for anyone to claim that “a high nose bridge with a so-called Greek profile [among Nordics] always points to foreign admixture,” assuming Bertil Lundman really wrote this.  It is not at all difficult to come across Nordics with forehead-nose continuity, often in conjunction with prominent nasals and other facial features close to the Greek figures, though the more feminine women with forehead-nose continuity will not approximate the Greek figures as well as more masculine women with the same condition.

For instance, consider the following example.

The woman shown above also has chiseled features, unlike the Greek woman that you have shown, and is a stronger candidate for inspiring artists.  She is not the only one of her kind.

The point of the above images is that Greek artists looking for inspiration would easily have found plenty of Nordics with a high nasal bridge and forehead-nose continuity or something close, and also chiseled features.  The Greek art figures in question, such as Apollo Belvedere and Aphrodite (Kaufmann head), are seen as idealized/slightly modified Nordic types rather than idealized/slightly modified non-Nordic types.

If you wish to undermine the ideas here that infuriate Dienekes, namely substantial Nordic presence in classical Greece, and the disproportionate overrepresentation of Nordics among the aristocracy and thereby people who made classical Greece famous, then you have do a much better job.

You have claimed that I fabricated the claim about “related citation” when I mentioned the heterogeneous composition of the ancient Etruscans.  Well, here is the relevant passage from the article that you have been kind enough to post:

The lock which this or a similar key must fit appeared as simple in plan: Etruscan culture, like Greek, has diverse “oriental” elements from the whole Near East (R.M. Cook, A. Piganiol, L. Banti).  But in design it was exceedingly complex, since the demographic background of the Etruscan cities involves great ecological diversity, with local growth from Neolithic and Bronze Age, direct continuity out of a Villanovan Iron Age culture with its Hungarian, Hallstatt, and Greek and other Mediterranean connections (H. Hencken, G. Foti, R. Bloch, U. Ciotti, A. Neppi Modona) and hence a truly checkered history both before and after the Renaissance (D.A. Bullough).  In fact, the evidence for multiple migrations, such as those of the Kelts, “barbarian” Roman slaves, later Ostrogoths, Byzantine garrisons, and Lombards, is so striking in post-Etruscan times than any key to the Etruscans must generalize from the people of each village or valley.  Likewise the probability of separate origins for Etruscan language, culture traits, and populations, with an upper limit of the 7th (or 8th) century B.C. (J.B. Ward Perkins, H. Hencken) and the slender later continuity even in religion and language (T. Bolelli) fits this local individuality.

Therefore, how am I unjustified in citing the article, specifically this passage in the article, as “related citation”?  I did not use “citation” or “reference” since I did not cite primary sources regarding skeletal and other evidence, but “related citation” is appropriate.  If I had anticipated you critiquing me on this issue, I would have cited some primary sources about the heterogeneity, and two of these are:

Facchini, Fiorenzo. Villanovians and Etruscans in the Bologna Area: Anthropological Features and Problems. In Schwidetzky et al. (eds.), Physical Anthropology of European Populations. The Hague: Mouton, 1980.

Gerhardt, K. (1954) “Bemerkungen zur Anthropotypologie der Etrusker.” Homo, V, 180-185.

Posted by T. Flavius Vespasianus on September 10, 2006, 10:42 AM | #

On one corner we have 5 anthropologists: Coon, Angel, Gunther, Lundman, Baker

Coon = classical ideal was borrowed from Mediterranean Minoans
Angel = forehead-nose continuity found in Dinaric-Mediterraneans
Gunther = Nordic profile exhibits three characteristic breaks, one of which is between the nose and the forehead
Lundman = Greek profile points to foreign admixture in the Northlander
Baker = Nose-forehead continuity is more typical of Mediterraneans than Nordics

Angel’s chosen pictures to illustrate Mediterraneans and Iron-Age Nordics speak for themselves. Notice nose-forehead continuity of the Mediterranean, and salient jutting nose of the Iron Age Nordic.

Angel on Nordic-Iranian nose: “markedly salient in profile, with a strongly jutting spine”.
Baker on Mediterranid vs. Nordid nose: “the forehead is slightly steeper, and tends to run with less interruption into the slope of the nose, which does not project quite so much, and is somewhat wider (though still leptorrhine). The continuity of the forehead with the nose was much admired by the classical sculptors, who exaggerated to produce the so-called ‘Greek profile’.

Posted by Raj Chanani on September 15, 2006, 06:52 PM | #

I think race mixing just creates hybrids or half breeds.  Eventually it results in a new and distinct race.  It is sort of like this,

Take a Dennys and mix it with an IHOP and the result is a Norm’s or Coco’s.

For instance a Tigon or a Liger.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tigon

Posted by Foley on October 03, 2006, 01:20 PM | #

Saira Mohan has beautiful eyes. And also her lips are quite ravishing. But thats about it. Her nose is not pretty at all. Her nostrils are a let down. If you look carefully, Saira’s nostrils are quite ugly.

Sorry if it was offensive, but that is just my opinions and also view of of some of my friends.

We think Saira has been let down by her nose. If she were to get a nose job, I think that she would have a perfect face. But at the moment, as it stands, I’m affraid she is not that beautiful. Newsweek got it wrong.

Posted by Dude on October 13, 2006, 04:20 PM | #

Pure Races
=======
African - Congo, Nigeria, Kenya
Desi - India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka
European - Germany, England, Italy, Russia
Oriental - China, Japan, Korea

New Derived Races
=============
Arabic - Iran, Syria, Turkey, Egypt
American - United States, Canada
Asean - Indonesia, Vietnam, Thailand, Laos
Hispanic - Brazil, Mexico, Columbia, Peru

Posted by Nashaad on February 01, 2007, 08:34 PM | #

You guys should really find something better to do.. Why because it’s really quite simple:

Here goes:

Finding ladies *Attractive* is part biology, part upbringing, part culture, part personal “clicks” on certain type .. (for example .."has your ex girlfriend’s eyes, or those umm legs that specifically turn you on").

Having lived in the US, UK, Canada and in the Indian Subcontinent and having met people with very different opinions, and having dated Nordic ladies, Native American, Persian and also North indian Punjabi ladies I have a fair idea of all their traits in general. I think women are women I can’t judge a woman’s attractiveness in terms of skin colour or eyes or hair colour or only.

They do have other features . I think to judge them from just those perspectives or say have a benchmark where the “Nordic” lady is number one and the rest rank against them is silly.

If you go to an Indian village where even the person is shorter than Nordics, most men will find the ladies unattractive and manly because they are too tall, and often too big (americans not europeans mostly are have a few more pounds). The ladies themselves want to be fairer - true - but not in order to look Nordic. Being fair implies they come from a “better off” household and to some extent show their upper caste (not so much in the modern society anymore). On top of that there are a million other things they would find “manly” - including some of the sharper features of Nordic women. In addition they tend to find Pakistani ladies with basically white skin and sharper features to be not too sharp agressive - not *sweet* and “accepting” and what not - cant find better words at this point.

There is a trend for sharper features and lighter skin but not necessarily (not at all in fact) the complete Nordic feature set - they dont really want to be Nordic per say.

I dont necessarily agree with any of these ideas, but my point here really is that if you had a Miss India pageant even without any PC (there isnt any there anyway) and had Nordic ladies in the pageant they wouldn’t stand a chance. In China the Indians or Noric ladies wouldn’t probably win - in Japan pretty much only Japs would win and so on.. So basically its a matter of culture largely.

People would be biased towards *one of their own*. This means Chinese like Chinese, Indians like Indians, Africans like Africans and Arabs like Arabs in general in their own countries respectively. Every society is racist about members of other societies. You see them in some places, in others you dont. They are often hidden by PC, and education, manners etc.

However in “more mixed” societies or places like Montreal or California this effect is less and multicultural, multiraced mingling is more common and accepted.

Then you are looking at what is basically a “free society” where anyone can become a pageant, hence you have the miss whatever pageants going on and people from India, Venezuela win who have some Nordic features and some Mongoloid features and some well .. features of their own. I think this is fair enough because Nordic ladies do win often too. And at the same time there are a majority of people who are NOT Nordic. So I don’t see anything wrong in calling the pageants’ winners.

This is because the awards are international and as much as I understand its not your fault there are 1 B Indians and many more Chinese who would gladly see an Indian or Chinese win, and since these are not Nordic pageants, and World pageants - well you gotta live with it.

Besides I’td be shallow because the pageants are gifted in many ways and the competition isn’t solely about looks.

And as far as the common Joe is concerned a man cannot honestly say Nordic ladies are by far better looking than Indians, or Chinese are better than Africans and so on...because he isnt sitting with an international panel of judges and really relies on his personal taste, upbringing, biological drives, situation at that moment, the media across which the ladies are portrayed, .. if they hit their personal spot somewhere .. billions of things.

Since you cannot possibly

1)find EVERY lady from every race,
2)classify her into a single race or even define her to be fully Nordic or not
3)find all the men in the world
4)have all the men meet all these ladies and
5)vote on this site..
6)and not rig with the votes
7)and get the votes periodically and average them ....

You can’t really come to any conclusion. Comparing random celebrities doesn’t really work lol.

Cheers!

Posted by Thomas Smith on February 04, 2007, 03:40 PM | #

Reference: Original article;

Thanks for the joke.... dont know about everyone else, but it made me chuckle.

Just laughable. You poor bastard.

Posted by Guessedworker on February 04, 2007, 04:16 PM | #

Are you a miscegenator then, Thomas?  Or are you simply incapable of taking your own people’s genetic integrity seriously?

Posted by James on February 05, 2007, 09:00 AM | #

I was researching information on plastic surgery for a college debate and I came across this site.

I just want to say that whoever posted this article is a bigot who only finds white women attractive. His picture posting and comments don’t make any sense. I see he posted some attractive blondes, and in my opinion, some not so attractive blondes. I think that girl on the cover of Newsweek is gorgeous. I’m also going to say that I’ve seen many blonde women in my life, and not all of them have noses that look like the ones on the women you posted either. Some have wide noses, big noses, small noses, button noses. There is such a variation of features in every race. If you think that this certain “Nordic” look is the ideal, so be it, but I don’t think it’s right for you to promote your white supremacy ideals over people. There are beautiful women in every race. I’ve seen some very beautiful blondes, very sexy Latinas, gorgeous Indian girls, etc. and of these I’ve also seen some very average to not so attractive women.

Your article proved nothing to me except that unfortunately there are still some white supremists out there.

Posted by Guessedworker on February 05, 2007, 10:01 AM | #

James,

Bigotry is the opinion now being ramped by various liberal-white and Jewish commentators that we Europeans, including Nordics of course, are “improved” in a variety of ways through mixing with other races.  One measure of said improvement is the beauty of our women.  If you are fully European by race for what reason would you conflate a defence of European distinctiveness with “racial supremacism”, other than by dint of you being collonised by liberal opinion?

Wake up.  We are under attack.  We will not survive far into the next century if you uncritically accept the common nostrums of this very dangerous political age.  Be more independent and think hard about your real interests and obligations.

Posted by ban on February 09, 2007, 11:22 PM | #

In my case I kinda developed a phobia on blonde hair I can’t bee near by someone that has pink skin and yellow skin.. I have no idea about the psychological causes of that. I don’t don’t have anythig deep againts blonde or red hair people but I found them ugly and non atractive at all and actually spacially i feel they are like raw meet and the blonde hair looks like urine

Posted by nick on February 18, 2007, 07:15 PM | #

It strikes me funny that you posted faces of women who obviously appeared in porno shots.

Posted by RedBaron on March 23, 2007, 02:31 AM | #

I don’t think you can define what women can be the most beautiful in the world… it all depends on what you think....

That “most beautiful women” in the world you have there in that magazine is not that impressive.

According to me, the type of women I find the most attractive is latina women....I’m white and that’s what I like....google Mindy Vega, Sofia Vergara, Jennifer Lopez, Jessica Alba and so on..

Posted by Fred Scrooby on March 23, 2007, 03:07 AM | #

“In my case I kinda developed a phobia on blonde hair I can’t bee near by someone that has pink skin and yellow skin.. I have no idea about the psychological causes of that. I don’t don’t have anythig deep againts blonde or red hair people but I found them ugly and non atractive at all and actually spacially i feel they are like raw meet and the blonde hair looks like urine” (—Ban)

You need to get out of countries where there are white people, Ban.  (If you’ll agree to a one-way-no-possibility-of-ever-coming-back ticket I’ll gladly advance you the airfare ... BYYYYEEEEEEEEE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!  Everyone wave good-bye to Ban!!!!!!!!)

Posted by Fred Scrooby on March 23, 2007, 03:11 AM | #

“According to me, the type of women I find the most attractive is latina women....I’m white and that’s what I like....google Mindy Vega, Sofia Vergara, Jennifer Lopez, Jessica Alba and so on..” (—RedBaron)

Ever considered moving to Mexico or Rio, RedBaron?  (If not, please do so now ...)

Posted by JD on March 23, 2007, 03:50 AM | #

I agree with Nashaad, that people in general may tend to find their race more attractive than others. That is what J Richards needs to understand. Blacks will find other blacks attractive, something most other races may not. I believe most races tend to find Europeans attractive but they find their own racial types attractive too.

What I am trying to say is that, we tend to see the world differently. Thus J. Richards, these people (like me) of other races will not agree with you because their brains are probably wired differently and thus cannot get your point of view.

The question is do white-other race mixed people look more attractive than their white parents? In a few cases maybe, but in most cases, obviously not. I find Saira Mohan quite attractive personally, but I do believe if her mother had married a non-ugly white man, her daughter would have been more attractive than Siara, from a white perspective at least. Even though I am Desi (Indian) who finds women from virtually all races attractive, (never found a pure aboriginal Australoid/Papuan woman attractive till now though) this is what I believe.

Armand Marie Leroi is very flawed in her reasoning. It is in the interest of pure Europeans in terms of attractiveness, health, intelligence etc… to keep themselves separate from other races. This is also true of other races, especially N.E. Asians. I am getting this strange feeling that it is in the interest of some people to prevent that happening. I know if that is to happen I will not get to date hot white and East Asian chicks but it is good from their collective racial perspective.

Posted by JD on March 23, 2007, 03:58 AM | #

Man that chiseled blond chick posted by J Richards on Sunday, September 10, 2006 at 09:06 AM, you know the pic above
“The woman shown above also has chiseled features, unlike the Greek woman that you have shown, and is a stronger candidate for inspiring artists.  She is not the only one of her kind. “
is truly truly attractive.  Who the hell is she?

Posted by SHOOPIN' DAT WOOP on April 09, 2007, 11:27 PM | #

i cant believe this thread is still active

Posted by W.LindsayWheeler on April 10, 2007, 12:02 AM | #

I noticed above that T. Flavius Vespasianus stated or quoted somebody about the Minoans of Crete.

The Minoans are NOT Indo-Europeans.  They are a Semitic people.

The Indo-Europeans (Mycenean Greeks) migrated into Crete c. 1700 B.C. and the Doric Greeks invaded in 1200 B.C.

Don’t ever consider Minoans---European---they are Semitic.

Posted by Ivan on April 12, 2007, 09:20 PM | #

I think you are wrong about giving certain traits specifically to the European race. I am a walking example of this. I am 100% Mexican. My mother’s side has native Taraumaran on her genes and my dad has too, yet we also have middle eastern and southern Spanish blood. None of us have had plastic surgery and I have light blue eyes with a square, thin nose. My brother has brown hair and very thin nose as well and so does my dad and mom. Some of these traits belong to Caucasian Mediterranean race, and others to native American from Mexico. No one ever talks about that race and you can’t say that square upright noses belong ONLY to the white race. Here is a picture of me:

Posted by Fred Scrooby on April 12, 2007, 10:06 PM | #

All right Ivan, but just stay on your side of the Rio Grande OK?  If we want to live among Mexicans we know exactly where to go.  Thanks and have a nice day.

Posted by uuu on April 22, 2007, 12:54 AM | #

Saira Mohan still looks white, they should put a negroid or mongoloid with caucasoid together to hype the race mixing

Posted by uuu on April 22, 2007, 01:06 AM | #

terribly agree with” Fred Scrooby” here, and on several other topics!! .

this the topic :
“the evolution of blond hair and blue eyes among nordics”
a one called malcom made some good points too....

Posted by uuu on April 22, 2007, 02:29 AM | #

“I guess that you forgot about the white woman going for lip injections to get the full lips that most blacks and asians have.  Oh, I almost forgot...what about white women getting tans be them direct sun or spray on or fake and bake ones? What about them getting fake hips and butts that most black women have by nature.  I guess there are a few features in other races that most white women want because they are considered to be beautiful”

that is because they’ve been brainwashed. at last they will regret..
they will believe dark=ugly, flat =ugly

Posted by ok on April 22, 2007, 02:47 AM | #

“I find Saira Mohan quite attractive personally, but I do believe if her mother had married a non-ugly white man, her daughter would have been more attractive than Siara”

exactly, she is pretty , why do people deny it?? but her beauty is taken from her white mother, not indian father..

contrarily , that could prove white are more beautiful

if her father is white , she is still pretty, or more..but if her mother is indian, she beomes less pretty, or ugly,maybe.

thoughI do believe indians are superior to blacks by appearance

Posted by ok on April 22, 2007, 02:55 AM | #

Does race mixing increase physical attractiveness?

so my answer is , yes it indeed increases physical attractiveness, for asians blacks, but it decreases for whites

Posted by Mark Squires (blonde, blue eyes) on April 22, 2007, 02:32 PM | #

Alarmed by some of the things you’ve said? Yes.
Imformed by some poorly veiled ill feeling? Yes.
Influenced by your writings? No.
Offended by some of the trouts that wander around coventry? indeed.

Having experienced relationship with women, whom are widely considered beautiful, of varying ethnicity. I can say that attractiveness is in the eye of the beholder and not in the logic of genetics. The most beautiful woman I ever meet was half Welsh and half Iranian, and I cannot wait to meet the girl that will top her.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on April 22, 2007, 04:00 PM | #

worship you

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Sunday, April 22, 2007 at 01:37 AM | #

I didn’t post that.  Someone signed as me. (What it means, incidentally, or what it refers to, I also have no idea.)

Posted by uuu on May 01, 2007, 08:30 AM | #

“The most beautiful woman I ever meet was half Welsh and half Iranian”

iranians were original aryans

Posted by Sanjay on May 24, 2007, 08:24 PM | #

I was searching for Saira Mohan, when I came across this page. You guys don’t understand that by arguing in this page you are actually making them feel useful. Just ignore it:- an article that uses pictures of sex-workers from porn sites and out-dated info from 18th centurt racialists has no credibility.

Incase you guys haven’t noticed, people of Scandanavian ancestry have a huge skin problem, they can’t tolerate the sun unlike all other types of people. And most of them have terrible pink spots, blackheads, and blotches over their whole body. One of my high-school girlfriends was a pretty freckled red-head, but had really nasty uneven skin.

Thesedays white women are trying to get darker through sun-bathing, get bigger breasts and buttocks through surgery, and get thicker lips - LIKE AFRICAN AMERICANS, while white men are trying to get bigger penises like African American men too. So somehow the phyical ideal has become African American, in a sub-conscious way. Mind you African Americans are actually White Americans’ racial cousins, because they have 33 % white ancestry thanks to white guys manipuling that booty.

I don’t know about you people, but I find Italian, Latina, North Indian, and African American women the most attractive in the world. And all those groups above are heavily mongrelized relative to Central Africans, North Asians, and Scandanavians.

There are beautiful women from all sorts of communities. Whether you find one particular race (even if it’s not your own race) is your personal business and no one should be jobless enough to try and change it. But this webpage has cited a lot of racialists and other cranks - definetely a low quality article.

Posted by David Gravatt on June 25, 2007, 06:37 PM | #

The lot of you are mostly racist and angered that non-whites are taking over your jobs and now are starting to dominate the beauty and fashion world.  Many of you pro Caucasians find the ordinary pale, pasty, washed out, blonde girls with freckles and thin pink lips superior in attractiveness than any other ethnicities.  Most of America finds pure whites “boring” or “nothing special” Some of the most beautiful women are of mixed ancestry or non white.  Adriana Lima is a mixed fashion model with African, Indian, portugese, French, and Native American ancestry.  Now is she in any way considered masculine or unattractive? I think not!  Aishwarya Rai is an Asian Indian global beauty.  She was a miss world winner, and is considered by Julia Roberts and Time Magazine as one of the most beautiful and influential people in the world.  Halle Berry (white/black), and even Cameron Diaz (hispanic, white) are all beauties.  If many of you think other cultures bring in masculine facial feautres, while European genes promote feminen beauty, you are wrong.  Angelina Jolie has a very masculine face (massive jaw, big chin, massive forhead, large cheekbones, large head) she is of pure caucasian descent, but has many masculine characteristsics.  So get your facts right racists!

Posted by Guessedworker on June 25, 2007, 07:43 PM | #

You are the racist, David.  Deal with your hatred of European peoples in your own heart - where it belongs - and not by projecting it on to them.

Posted by Lurker on June 25, 2007, 11:23 PM | #

So, David, we must bow down before Julia Roberts and Time Magazine. If youre going to make an appeal to authority Im afraid you are going to have to try a bit harder than that.

Posted by ZACK on July 28, 2007, 11:28 AM | #

You are WRONG WHEN IT COMES TO NORTHERN EUROPEAN WOMEN AND SOUTHERN EUROPEAN, ARAB, MID EAST INDIAN, PAKISTANI, NORTH AFRICAN WOMEN!

MEDITERANEAN WOMEN, ARAB, MID EAST INDIAN, PAKISTANI, NORTH AFRICAN WOMEN BLOW NORTHERN EUROPEAN WOMEN OUT OF THE WATER IMO!

FOR INSTANCE A NICOLE KIDMAN COMPARED TO A MONCIA BELLUCCI NO QUESTIONS ASKED MONICA!!!!

A NAMOI WATTS COMPARED TO MARIA GRAZIA CUCINOTTA
LMAO ! NO COMPARISSON

A GWNEYTH PALTROW COMPARED TO SALMA HAYEK ROFLMAO! NO FRIGGEN COMPARISON!

A CLAUDIA SCHIFFER COMPARED TO SAIRA MOHAN ROFLMAO !!!!!!!

NORTHERN EUROPEAN NORDICS IMO ARE DISGUSTING AND EVEN UGLY MANY TIMES!

THEY LACK CURVES AND ARE TOO THIN. THAT OR THEY ARE EITHER FAT YET CURVLESS

THEY ARE TO FRIGGEN PALE.

THEY ARE STUCK COLD BITCHES IMO

BAD FACIAL FEATURES IMO. HARSHER, BONIER! NOT WARM OR LOVING FEATURES!

THEY LACK FEMMINITY IMO

THEY’RE FEATURES IMO AREN’T AS HARMONIOUS, FEMMINIE, SOFT, WARM!

MEDITERANEAN WOMEN, ARAB, PERSIAN, AFGHAN INDIAN, PAKISTANI, NORTH AFRICAN

1. ARE CURVACEOUS, NOT TOOTHPICKS, YET SLENDER AT THE SAME TIME BUT NOT SKINNY AT ALL.

2. HAVE PIGMENT AND COLOR MELANIN

3.  HAVE MORE HARMONIOUS FEATURES, ALMOND EYES, FULL LIPS, SLENDER OVID FACES, BETTER CHEEKBONES, FACIAL STRUCTURE

4. THEY ARE WARM, KNOW HOW TO COOK, CLEAN AND ARE KIND, KNOW HOW TO TREAT THEIR MAN WELL!

5. HAVE, SHOW FEMMINITY!

I THINK NORDIC, NORTHERN EUROPEAN IMAO ARE SOME OF THE UGLIEST WOMAN !

ALL THE MOST BEAUTIFUL WOMEN IN THE WORLD ARE MEDITERANEAN SOUTHERN EURO IN DESCENT OR MAYBE NOT COMPLETLEY SOUTHERN EURO BUT MOSTLY, CRUVACEOUS BRUNETTES!

SALMA HAYEK, MONICA BELLUCCI, MARIA GRAZIA CUCINOTTA, ELIZABETH TAYLOR, AISHAWRAYA RAI, SAIRA MOHAN ALL GOT MOST BEAUTIFUL WOMEN, SEXIEST WOMAN EVER, MOST PERFECT FACE EXC TITLES BEFORE AT DIFFERENT TIMES! THEY ARE PRAISED FOR THEY’RE HOTNESS, BEAUTIFULL AND GUYS LIKE ME GO CRAZY OVER THEM!

BUT NONE OF THOSE TITLES HAS EVER BEEN GIVEN TO NICOLE KIDMAN, NAOMI WATTS, GWYNETH PALTROW!

SOOO

THIS PROVES YOUR THERORY JRichards WROOOOOOOOOOOOOOONG!

Posted by Peter on August 15, 2007, 01:17 AM | #

Firstly i must say i haven’t read every message in this post but i wanted to comment on some of J Richard’s thoughts

“Indeed, who in his rational mind would believe that the beauty of white women--such as depicted in Figure 7--could be increased via the absorption of non-whites among whites?  It would be difficult to obtain a fine-featured Caucasoid if any of the white women shown in Figures 5 and 7 bred with a Hindoo.  On the other hand, the aesthetic consequences of breeding with flat-faced Asians or black Africans requires no comment”

I somewhat disagree with this, White and Indian Mixes can produce fine featured women and i am go