Eurasians more attractive than ugly Caucasians, not average Caucasians: a reply to Gillian Rhodes

Posted by J Richards on June 29, 2005, 04:58 PM | #

By the way, here are two statements in the paper by Gillian Rhodes and colleagues that reflect on the position taken by them on race:

We use the term race to refer to visually distinct social groups.

If parents from different races are less similar genetically (on average) than ones from the same race (Penn 2002), then their (mixed-race) offspring would be more likely to inherit different alleles from each parent and have higher levels of heterozygosity. Note that the assumption here is not that races form genetically distinct groups, only that geographically distinct populations have different locally adapted gene complexes (Endler 1977).

Posted by Guessedworker on June 29, 2005, 05:33 PM | #

That needed saying, JR.  Not that I couldn’t have said it faster: Never expect the truth from a race-denier.

But maybe your way was more entertaining.  Thanks.

Posted by JW Holliday on June 29, 2005, 06:51 PM | #

JR, thanks for deconstructing that moronic “Eurasians are more attractive” study.  The averaged Caucasian female faces were indeed quite unattractive.  In fact, it seems like the authors (intentionally?) used Caucasians of less attractivness than average, and East Asians of greater attractiveness than is their average.

One question to JR - do you believe that Irish females are particularly unattractive?  You specifically mention the possibility that the white females used, which you term as obese an unattractive, may have been Irish.  My personal observations are that Irish-derived females are usually more, not less, attractive than the white American average - although I do find that Irish tend to be a bit less “gracile” than other Northwest Europeans (a “Brunn” component perhaps?).

As regards this comment by the authors:-

Note that the assumption here is not that races form genetically distinct groups, only that geographically
distinct populations have different locally adapted gene complexes (Endler 1977).

... that is an outright distortion, since population genetics studies that are capable of distinguishing racial groups (eg, Tang et al, Ray et al) are based upon neutral gene loci, not “locally adapted gene complexes.” Now, as Bamshad has shown, racial groups can be distinguished using either neutral loci or functional (possibly “locally adapted") genes.  Thus, genetic differences between groups are both kinship-based and adaptive.  To put it simply and bluntly - they seem to me to be untrustworthy race deniers.  Don’t they know the current state of genetic science?  Their Caucasian and Asian subjects could be distinguished easily by DNAP - do they deny that as well?

Furthermore, I agree with JR, that the “health” implications concentrating solely on MHC are misleading.  I can also note that in the absence of alien immigration and the introduction of novel pathogens, “locally adapted” MHC would be quite sufficient for adaptiveness, as it has been for millenia.

Posted by Amman on June 29, 2005, 06:55 PM | #

Hmm...how fascinating. From what I’ve garnered from your post, many of the problems of this study stem from the fact that the computer models it uses just aren’t accurate portrayals of human beings, and thus, not very useful as barometers of “beauty.” That being the case, are there any studies out there which have used actual Caucasoid/Mongoloid hybrids rather than computer simulations? You repeatedly state that the average facial features of Asians should render them unattractive to whites, but this assertion would be buttressed if you found a study (or perhaps conducted one yourself? ) which proved that on average, Asian’s aren’t very attractive. This could probably be done by taking a random sample of whites, random sample of Mongoloids, and random sample of Caucasian/Mongoloid crossbreeds, and have Caucasians and Asians rate each face individually--this way, they’d be judging actual people rather than computer composites.

Posted by J Richards on June 29, 2005, 08:41 PM | #

JW Holliday,
Certainly, there are many attractive Irish women out there, but as you have noted, on average, their facial features tend to be less gracile compared to Northern Europeans as in southern Sweden, and they are also disproportionately obese.  This is why I am guessing that several Irish women went into the Caucasian average.  Besides, you may want to look at this picture of Gillian Rhodes (a redhead) with others in her lab, several of whom are also redheads and either obese/overweight or on their way to excess body fat.  Download the picture to a specified folder and then view it; it will be larger than at the webpage linked to above.

The extent to which Gillian Rhodes is aware of current genetics is not known to me; she is a psychologist, and given her study, I am fairly confident that she at least doesn’t know much about physical anthropology.

Your point about aliens bringing in pathogens is a good one and deserves a decent post by itself.  The aliens bring all kinds of multidrug-resistant and deadly diseases to the West, and I have recently heard that California’s economic scenario a couple of years from now will be notably worse, thanks to the pouring in of Mexican illegals with multidrug-resistant tuberculosis, among other factors.

Posted by J Richards on June 29, 2005, 08:43 PM | #

Amman,
Read the post carefully; the third experiment used actual Eurasians to come up with a Eurasian composite in addition to the hypothetical Eurasian composite.  In the third experiment, the hypothetical Eurasian composite was not rated as more attractive than the Caucasian composite, but the actual Eurasian composite was, and a visual examination reveals that facial narrowing likely played a major role in its higher rating.  Eurasians are expected to have facial breadth intermediate to Europeans and Asians; so, we are dealing with notable sampling bias in addition to problematic methodology such as equalizing interpupil distance.

As far as white opinion of Asian (Mongoloid) attractiveness goes, this should be fairly intuitive to a white person.  None of my white acquaintances or friends have ever said anything positive about the Mongoloid appearance, and whites generally do not aesthetically appreciate whites with large cheekbones, flattened noses or large jaws.  Therefore, it is unlikely that they will generally aesthetically appreciate a population where these traits are the norm.  Assuming that you have Caucasoid features, what do you think about Mongoloid facial features?  Ignore skin color, just focus on the bone structure and soft tissue traits.  A Hindoo acquaintance of mine, with a Caucasoid face, told me that Hindoos often refer to Mongoloids using a contemptuous term that translates to flat-faced; I don’t recall this slur, but I guess that whereas they do appreciate the light skin of the Northeastern-type Mongoloids, they dislike Mongoloid facial features.

Posted by John S Bolton on June 29, 2005, 09:49 PM | #

Another factor is that they used two northern adapted populations for their estimates of effects of admixture. A mix of northern and tropical adapted groups would generate more anomalous looking mixes. The study is not such as could detect the effect of genes not being coadapted, resulting in discordant phenotypes.

Posted by John S Bolton on June 29, 2005, 09:56 PM | #

Also, all the examples have perfectly symmetrical faces, thus smuggling in the assumption that the mixed race are no more likely than others to have outward signs of incompatible genes, such as would generate asymmetrical faces as well. Has a bit of sleight of hand been detected?

Posted by J Richards on June 29, 2005, 10:55 PM | #

John S. Bolton,
The third experiment did use Eurasians with various Asiatic backgrounds, including S.E. Asian, which can be observed in the composites seen in Figures 5 and 6.  Additionally, N.E. Asians are a lot more Northern-adapted than whites, given their thicker skins, fewer sweat glands, shorter limbs and better ability to generate body heat. 

Speaking of symmetry, the study design prevents it from being assessed as blending cancels random right and left asymmetries, thereby increasing facial symmetry; so, this should not be considered a sleight of hand.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on June 29, 2005, 11:56 PM | #

“ ‘Note that the assumption here is not that races form genetically distinct groups, only that geographically distinct populations have different locally adapted gene complexes’

“… that is an outright distortion, since population genetics studies that are capable of distinguishing racial groups ... are based upon neutral gene loci, not ‘locally adapted gene complexes.’ Now, as Bamshad has shown, racial groups can be distinguished using either neutral loci or functional (possibly ‘locally adapted’) genes.  Thus, genetic differences between groups are both kinship-based and adaptive.” (—JW Holliday)

JW Holliday is right of course, but I want to go a little further than he does in being completely clear about that quote from the article, if I may:  groups differing from one another with respect to “locally adapted gene complexes” amount to “genetically distinct groups.” For the author of the article to imply they don’t is something that can only be called mind-boggling considering this is supposed to be a “scientific paper.” The woman who wrote that statement is a moron and so’s the editor, peer-reviewer, and whoever else allowed that statement to go into the final draft.  We all know the reason it happened, of course:  people are falling all over themselves trying to be PeeCee.  They literally cannot see elementary scientific reality.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on June 30, 2005, 12:08 AM | #

The other thing I meant to say was, it’s perfectly obvious, on seeing Miss Rhodes’ own photo, why she chose the particular kinds of caucasian female faces we deduce she must have, for averaging up in making the composites for the study:  she didn’t want them to be better-looking than she.  It’s hard enough for men to suppress the interests of their amour propre in pursuit of objectivity in science; for women it’s impossible:  the woman who can do it hasn’t been born since the world began, scientist or no.

Posted by jonjayray on June 30, 2005, 01:27 AM | #

I did in fact comment on the methology.  I said this in the comments:

“Nobody has noted that I didn’t say a word about the post.  I just reproduced a news report.  I could violently disagree with it for all anybody knows.

Ans as a matter of fact, as a cynical old psychologist, I do.  All I think it shows is political correctness at work.  People were expressing what they thought would be approved of.”

Posted by Amman on June 30, 2005, 02:57 AM | #

Ahh, yes, I see now. Guess I should have been reading a bit more carefully. Something you said interests me, though…

we are dealing with notable sampling bias in addition to problematic methodology such as equalizing interpupil distance.

How did Ms. Rhodes acquire her samples, anyways? I assumed she just picked random Asians and Whites, but if what you say is true, it’s unlikely random variation would have come up with a composite Asian and composite white which the experiment used. You mention that “a dispropotionate amount of ugly, obese white women (probably Irish) went into the white composite,” so do you know if Ms. Rhodes got most of her volunteers from an Irish neighborhood or something? That might explain the sampling bias.

As far as white opinion of Asian (Mongoloid) attractiveness goes, this should be fairly intuitive to a white person.  None of my white acquaintances or friends have ever said anything positive about the Mongoloid appearance, and whites generally do not aesthetically appreciate whites with large cheekbones, flattened noses or large jaws.  Therefore, it is unlikely that they will generally aesthetically appreciate a population where these traits are the norm.  Assuming that you have Caucasoid features, what do you think about Mongoloid facial features?  Ignore skin color, just focus on the bone structure and soft tissue traits.  A Hindoo acquaintance of mine, with a Caucasoid face, told me that Hindoos often refer to Mongoloids using a contemptuous term that translates to flat-faced; I don’t recall this slur, but I guess that whereas they do appreciate the light skin of the Northeastern-type Mongoloids, they dislike Mongoloid facial features.

Well, I was actually wondering if there had been any large-scale studies of many whites proving this. The study you mention in this post is, of course, unreliable, since you’ve just deconstructed its methodology. I was wondering if anyone’s ever conducted an academic study of a sizable white population in which Asian features were met with marked, statistically significant distaste.

As for myself, I’m not a physical anthropologist, so I honestly couldn’t tell you whether I had “Caucasoid” facial features. I can say that I’m not fond of *very* flat-faced women, such as that second picture of Margaret Cho. I will say that I do have a preference for Asians, however--I have a special fondness for Japanese women, for instance. Of course, those are just my preferences, I don’t know whether other Bengalis feel the same way or not.

Posted by fingerling on June 30, 2005, 12:14 PM | #

“Ridiculous absurdity”? Isn’t that a repetitive redundancy?

Posted by GayLikeAFox on July 01, 2005, 02:42 AM | #

One thing that I’ve always wondered in this vein which no one has brought up is whether the bolder, more aesthetically pleasing features of caucasians are partially responsible for the different directions taken by Oriental and Western art.  There is nothing in the Orient to compare to the Renaissance and its ideals of human beauty.  Talented artists in the East took their inspiration most commonly from nature and social scenes, not individuals--think Michelangelo’s “David” juxtaposed with Hokusai’s “The Wave”.  Might this be because there was simply less in the way of human inspiration?

Posted by John S Bolton on July 01, 2005, 03:00 AM | #

Oriental art tends to love conformabilities of appearance. Restriction of range is a problem for the study, too. When all are attractive of their type, because they’ve been averaged into symmetry, and away from any freakish deviations, which real populations have plenty of, the preferences expressed may greatly suffer from restriction of range. Looking at the super cauc 50’s in figures 1 and 2; they seem to have got NWEuropeans set as an extreme, with the less extreme composites representing rather plain Med types. In classical art, though, we see more sharp features for Greeks, say.

Posted by ben tillman on July 01, 2005, 05:38 PM | #

A Hindoo acquaintance of mine, with a Caucasoid face, told me that Hindoos often refer to Mongoloids using a contemptuous term that translates to flat-faced....

I have heard “pan face” from Italian-Americans.

Posted by Svigor on July 01, 2005, 10:43 PM | #

I had a Mick bartender roommate who used “pan face” too.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on July 02, 2005, 01:52 AM | #

“pan face”

These unflattering comments about another race’s looks, rude in any other context one can think of (and certain to shock, obviously—they shock me and I’m pretty tough) are understandable here, where what draws them out is the way the powers that be keep pushing, pushing, pushing other races on us when we don’t want them pushed, pushed, pushed on us, and never ever ever stop their pushing, pushing, pushing, finally provoking frank language from those of us who are sick to death of being pushed ad infinitum.  Sometimes boorish or malevolent people who can’t or won’t take a hint have to be told frankly exactly where to get off—told things like, “No, to be perfectly honest, I’m sorry, I don’t think white people need to improve their attractiveness by mixing with other races, be those races the yellows, the blacks, the browns, or what have you.  We like our faces, our hair texture, our body builds, and our range of skin, hair, and eye coloration just fine thank you and no, we’re not going to go out and find someone of another race to mix with—now bog off please, and annoy someone else, will you?  There’s a good chap!” Sometimes even after that, rude people just don’t get it, and simply have to be told off in very plain language as there’s no other way to get them to leave you the hell alone.  “Listen, you crude boor—that makes the millionth time you’ve told me I’ve got to mix racially with the Orientals to improve my looks, the millionth time I’ve said I don’t think I need to, I like my race’s looks just fine thank you very much, and the millionth time you won’t take no for an answer but keep coming back trying to tell me the same crap, that I’d be better off mixing.  Well, it happens—to speak quite plainly since you don’t seem to understand English—that I’ve never found Oriental faces all that attractive—in fact, that’s putting it politely:  the truth is I don’t find them attractive at all.  I don’t like them—which happens to be none of your damned business so I don’t even know why I’m telling you this, except you can’t take a hint!  Their faces are too broad and flat for my taste, if you must know, and I vastly prefer the narrower, more three-dimensional faces of European whites.  So take your flat Oriental faces, find the nearest high cliff, and take a running leap you and the Oriental faces both, and STOP BOTHERING ME!”

Anyone will be polite till you try to ram things down his throat, things he’s indicated repeatedly over and over he does not want rammed down his throat.  At that point he changes from polite to frank.  If the frankness shocks—if you don’t like what you hear—just remember who pushed him into it; who left him no choice if he wished to make himself understood at long last; who was deaf to everything he said when he was still trying to be polite:  It was you.

Posted by J Richards on July 02, 2005, 11:10 AM | #

John Jay Ray,
When you posted the news item, you didn’t comment on it within the post.  We expect a more scholarly critique from someone with a background in psychology compared to a brief statement in the comments sections.

Amman,
I am just guessing disproportionately high Irish ancestry among the Caucasian women used by Gillian Rhodes, given the facial features of the composite.  Rhodes and many others in her lab are redheads (see picture linked to in a comment above) and also often overweight/obese, which would be consistent with disproportionate Irish ancestry.  I do not know if there are any large-scale studies showing that whites generally do not hold the Mongoloid face in high regard; but I would expect this to not be disputed by most whites.

Fingerling,
You are correct in that “ridiculous absurdity” is redundant, but take it as a notable absurdity among absurdities.

Posted by J Richards on July 02, 2005, 11:14 AM | #

Gaylikeafox,
Non-Caucasoids hold their looks in higher regard than the extent to which Caucasoids rate the looks of non-Caucasoids, and it is unlikely that Asian or African artists never came across human beauty within their own populations that would prompt them to come up with hyper-realistic masterpieces of art such as Michaelangelo’s David.  This would be especially true of a number of African societies with semi-nudity as the norm, wherein it cannot be argued that puritanical attitudes somehow repressed hyper-realistic depiction of the human form in art.  The most plausible answer why fewer non-Europeans have been observed in the production of hyper-realistic depictions of the human form via sketching, painting and sculpting is that just as in the production of geniuses, whites have produced the vast majority of artistically gifted individuals.  The most artistically difficult challenge is to realistically portray the human form; portraying nature/animals in realistic form is an easier challenge because minor or mild inaccuracies will be often overlooked. 

John S. Bolton,
You mention sharp-featured human art forms from classical Greece.  Well, the Greek upper class then descended from Northern tribes--such as the Dorians--that moved into the Greek peninsula...thus the sharp features, which strongly contrast with that of most Greeks today.

Posted by GayLikeAFox on July 03, 2005, 01:49 AM | #

J. Richards,

I agree with you in regards to sub-Saharan Africa.  But East Asians are certainly a high-IQ bunch, and there is much beautiful art in that part of the world.  What interests me and prompted my post is that East Asian artists didn’t try, try, try to capture the human form, give up and turn to natural scenes because they were easier.  As far as I’m aware, they didn’t show any interest in sculpting hyper-realistic humans; their minds just don’t seem to bend that way.  Why?  From what does the Western appreciation for individualism stem?

Posted by John S Bolton on July 03, 2005, 07:39 PM | #

Individualism goes back as far as Aristotle, at least. The dominance of mystic holism over against the raw materials of something like individualism, was exhaustive in Asia. There could be no science, or precisely realistic representations informed by theories of the same tendency, in places dominated by a feeling that the function of almost any sort of representation is to vaguely suggest, and to mystify. Chinese maps from the seventeenth century appear to be centuries behind those of Europe, and it would have been because it was considered a crime against authority, to care about the truth. On the other side, the cave paintings from 35,000 years ago are European and are thousands of years ahead of the rest of the world in terms of realistic representation. It takes a lot to defy authoritative pronouncements, which are presented also as coming from a leftist priority on taking care of the poor; and genetic factors could be part of what is needed.

Posted by J Richards on July 05, 2005, 11:44 PM | #

Gaylikeafox,

N.E. Asians are comparable to Europeans in average IQ, but when it comes to being able to hyper-realistically depict the human form in art, we are not talking about the ability of the average person; we are talking about the gifted.  As in the notable underrepresentation of N.E. Asians among scientific and engineering geniuses (I will be addressing this topic in a future post), it is likely that they are also notably underrepresented among the artistically gifted, which should translate to fewer N.E. Asians with the ability to hyper-realistically depict the human form as in Michelangelo’s David. 

Speaking of the Western appreciation of the individual, as John S. Bolton has suggested, genetic factors cannot be ruled out, but it is unlikely that the notable overrepresentation of Europeans among scientific geniuses or highly creative people can simply be attributed to the greater individualism of Western societies compared to Chinese/Japanese societies--for the simple reason that much of the cutting edge achievements in science in any given generation are often very abstruse and may require significant investment of effort, whereby it is unlikely that less emphasis on conformity would either generate a desire to study abstruse topics at length or somehow be entirely responsible for novel insights/solutions.

Posted by Heineken on August 26, 2005, 02:32 PM | #

Being a Caucasian (Caucasoid), I can tell you I’ve never found Mongoloid faces attractive. It’s not just their looks, it’s the whole appearance that I dislike.

They are sexually amorous yet woefully ungifted (smaller reproductive organs). Their eyes are small and hair straight like porcupines (lol). Women have flat buttocks and breasts, men are not muscular at all. Lack of body hair and feminine voice makes them a feminine race but does not make their women particularly attractive.

Their women have flat broad noses, small eyes, flat breasts and buttocks, smaller vaginas, less height, display greater lasciviousness (anywhere in the world, you’ll find more mongoloid whores than their proportion of the general population would suggest). 

And all that crap that Lynn came out with mongoloids having higher IQ is bs. Probably because his wife is a mongoloid or maybe he himself is half a mongoloid, he boosts the mongoloid morale.

The fact remains very few (if at all ANY) mongoloid geniuses ever existed. Almost all inventions, scientific disciplines, great theories and what not, have been brought about due to ingenuity displayed by a handful of uber genius caucasoids (not your average joe blow caucasoid).

I lived in a mongoloid majority country which, according to Lynn, has IQs in excess of 100. Yet I have never come across ONE genius in that country.

In my own caucasoid country (which, according to Lynn, is only average in IQ) I’ve come across numerous geniuses. Not that all inhabitants in my own country are geniuses; in fact, most are plain dumb.

But then again, that can be due to part mongoloid admixtures. I hold those “caucasoids” (as in those who are phenotypically caucasian) with slit eyes (or very small eyes) in much greater contempt than I would a caucasian with oval eyes even if he were rather ordianary in intelligence.

Here’s a caucasian with mongoloid admixture (and hence, someone whom I feverishly hate).

In fact most caucasians I see have very small eyes; probably most europeans aren’t pure caucasians anyway. Still whatever pure caucasians remain, they have much larger eyes than any mongoloids.

Posted by J Richards on August 27, 2005, 05:56 AM | #

Heineken,

Here are a few comments concerning your post.  You mention Asians having broad-flat noses; they do have flat noses, but you are likely mistaking the increased breadth of the face portion between the eyes among them [compared to whites] with a broad nose.  The upper nasal region (nasal bones, not entire distance between the eyes) of Asians is narrower among East Asians than whites, on average, and this may not be visible in a real Asian—as opposed to an Asian skull—given the flattening that is seen in the face of Asians.  In regard to the greater alleged lasciviousness of Asian women, S.E. Asian nations are often poor, and hence supply many prostitutes throughout the world.  On the other hand, if you look up venereal diseases statistics in the 2000 British NATSAL survey, a population-representative study, or equivalent data from elsewhere in the West, then East Asian women have lower rates of venereal disease than white women, and are best conceived as being more sexually restrained, on average, than white or black women.  I myself am not yet clear about the IQ comparisons that Richard Lynn talks about; his data concerning higher average N.E. Asian IQ compared to whites likely mostly come from non-representative surveys of N.E. Asians, although even if they are true, I agree that there is much evidence that Asians are underrepresented among geniuses.  Lastly, I would urge you to exercise caution in inferring other-population admixture based on a single trait, such as the eyes in the white male that you point to.  In regard to many facial traits, variation within a population exceeds the variation between populations, i.e., the extent of other-population admixture is best judged by looking at multiple traits rather than a single trait. The white male shown likely does not have much significant Asian ancestry.  What you seem to refer to as a “pure Caucasian” is likely someone that closely fits an ideal template that you have in mind, and this template is probably an attractive person that is clearly distinct from non-whites on all counts pertaining to racial physical variation, i.e., in this sense, many whites would not be pure enough for you.

Posted by Heineken on September 25, 2005, 04:28 PM | #

J Richards
I have a hard time believing this is a white person. To me her eyes, flat/(broad?) nose, higher cheekbone, round head, hair and many other features make her as much of a mongoloid as hu jinpao/kozimuri (spell?)(the chinese/japanese national leaders). Skin colour taken alone can not reveal racial heritage.

same with the following light haired/fair skinned/light eyed guy here

his broad nose (perhaps flat as well), small eyes, relative lack of facial hair (5 o’clock shadow/stubble not pronounced) clearly indicates mongoloid admixture to me. He isn’t a pure mongoloid nor a pure caucasoid. For mixed-race men, having blue eyes/blond hair isn’t unusual if they inherit those genes from a pure caucasoid parent. In this guy’s case, I suppose his face exhibits more caucasoid traits than mongoloid, so that would imply he’s mostly had caucasoid ancestors with a smattering of mongoloids somewhere along the line.

That’s my take on it. It isn’t really the most scientifically correct analysis you’ll ever find .

Posted by J Richards on October 08, 2005, 08:58 AM | #

Heineken,

I don’t see your point in posting the picture of Margaret Cho above.  Who is claiming that Margaret Cho is white?  No one!

You are right that your analysis of the next picture—that you posted again—is not very scientific.  To better understand your flawed reasoning, start with the figure below. 

The figure above shows considerable overlap between races regarding the shape of the upper nose; see the context of this figure on this page (Figure 12).  Now, genetic analyses based on multiple genes will clearly distinguish the races examined in the figure above, and if you use a large enough number of genes, then individuals taken from these races will be assigned to their respective races with close to 100% accuracy by a computer that does not know which DNA sample comes from which race.  In other words, even though there can be a considerable overlap between races in regard to individual traits, when one considers a cluster of traits, the overlap is sharply reduced.  Thus, for instance, the considerable overlap between races in regard to the upper nasal region shape notwithstanding in the figure above, when the whole face is considered, the vast majority of individuals picked at random from the races examined will be correctly assigned to their respective races via an examination of facial features, including skin. 

It happens to be the case that the majority of the variation in individual traits typically exists within populations and only a minority exists between populations.  Therefore, not only should racial classification be based on a cluster of traits but also evidence for other-population admixture should be based on a cluster of traits.  If you consider the overall appearance of the white person shown, the odds are very low that he has substantial East Asian admixture.  Remember to not guess the extent of other-population admixture based on one or two traits.  Your references to a “pure Caucasoid” should be changed to an “ideal Caucasoid.” After all, all races have an ancestral population in common, and there is bound to be an overlap in trait variation on several counts.

Posted by Kevin Leung on November 06, 2005, 02:59 AM | #

I stumbled across this “study” while surfing the net today. I find all of it demeaning, disgusting, and downright pointless. Furthermore, there are posts here which are offensive, some of which are straight up racist and should have been removed a long, long time ago. Why the hell would anyone spend so much effort into coming up with a scientific facial template of who or what is considered “attractive?” I am talking to Rhodes and Richards here. I pray that you are both intelligent people because if you are, you already know that true beauty (however one defines it) is in the eye of the beholder. Why are you trying to apply statistics to something that is subjective? In this troubled world we live in, do you people not have anything more constructive to do with your time? I sincerely hope none of this “work” was funded by tax dollars. Shame on all of you.

- Kevin Leung
Designer, Ubisoft Montreal

Posted by J Richards on November 09, 2005, 09:48 AM | #

Kevin Leung,

The nature of attractiveness is a topic worthy of investigation—for at least some people—and if it is pointless to you, then I am surprised that you even bothered to read this post.

I know that some comments are potentially offensive, but this blog respects freedom of speech.  Comments will not be removed unless they constitute spam or present such liability that we are forced to remove them.

There is a great deal of research out there that has spread cold water over the notion that beauty is entirely subjective.  It has been shown that there is cross-population broad agreement as to what is beautiful and the biological significance of what people find beautiful —such as correlations with health and fertility—has also been described in a number of cases.  Of course, people have their own preferences, i.e., to some extent beauty lies in the eye of the beholder, but it is not all subjective.

Posted by Hannah on February 05, 2006, 08:27 PM | #

“Figure 9 shows the remarkable extent of facial flatness found among some Mongoloids that no mentally sound white should find remotely attractive. “

you’re a total racist and extremely biased. “no mentally sound white should find [asians] remotely attractive”. what the hell? obviously you consider asians an inferior race. fyi there are millions of white people who find asians irresistibly attractive. but your caucasian bias is blinding you from seeing any of that beauty. you need to open your eyes. if you plan on writing any more articles like this, you need to be more open minded, because frankly, your writing is useless without a broader perspective.

Posted by J Richards on February 05, 2006, 09:59 PM | #

Hannah,

So I am a “total racist” because I don’t find the flatness of Mongoloid faces appealing?  Is there a requirement that non-Asians should find Asian faces appealing?  I have no problems accepting that the average IQ of the Japanese is higher than that of whites.  So do I believe that Asians are racially inferior to whites? 

A small minority of whites like the physical appearance of Mongoloids, but then a small minority of people have bizarre sexual interests; most whites prefer whites.

Posted by Guessedworker on February 05, 2006, 10:30 PM | #

Hannah,

JR’s work on facial attraction is perhaps too easily misunderstood by those who are unaccustomed to his argument.  But it is an important and worthy argument when, as with us, a people are under constant bombardment from so many directions to accept aliens in their midst, even though it means these peoples becoming a minority themselves in their own homelands.  This bombardment is in large measure predicated on getting them to see these aliens as no different to themselves. 

Inevitably, the encouragement of miscegenation - certainly the breakdown of taboos against it - has a central role in the effort. Miscegenation is never described as it is - the loss of racial distinctiveness - but something inconsequential, progressive, freeing etc.

This is racial Marxism and we reject it.  We identify it for what it is and where it will lead.  We explain, as JR has done here with great authority, that it is based on complete, indeed completely evil falsehoods.

It is not us who are the supremacists but the people who propose racial Marxism to us.  It is not us who hate, but them.

We have a choice: to continue to exist as a people or to cease so existing.  Understand JR’s post on the light of that choice and if you still object, explain why it is we are bound to the duty to give our living space to all humanity, and our sons and daighters, too.

Posted by sknjkns on February 16, 2006, 12:18 AM | #

racist ppl...chill out, get a hobby

Posted by Lurker on February 16, 2006, 01:43 AM | #

Kevin - think back to when you were a teenager, at school or whatever, did you ever notice there were some girls that a lot/all the guys found attractive? Do you think there was anything that these girls had in common? Do you think that any attempt to try and document any common factor is hopelessly doomed?

Hannah - Millions of white people find asians irresistibly attractive. Phew! Thats a pretty strong statement, can you back that up at all? I take that to mean that when it comes to a choice of sexual/marriage partner millions of white people choose asians over anyone, anyone else.

We are talking about millions of white men here arent we, not white women and asian men. Im not sure what that asymmetry actually signifies but on its own it undermines your unversialist assertion that millions of white people find asian people irresistibly attractive doesnt it.

Posted by superrace on March 26, 2006, 07:59 PM | #

JR
Congratulations.. you wrote this piece last summer and you’re still getting comments on it.  If you get royalities on this you might become rich one day!  JR, you seem intelligent and intellectual but some of your claims and statements are somewhat twisted.. but that is probably because of your bias and position. 

One position that you take is that the AVcauc woman in figure 1 is a composite average of ugly obese women ( Irish? ) and is therefore an unfair example of the average beautiful caucasion woman.  I don’t know about you but most obese women that I’ve come across don’t look as good as her.  And in fact, I’d be willing to bet that the wives of most posters on this board are not as pretty as the AVcauc woman.  So I just wanted to clarify where did you get this information concerning the many ugly obese Irish women they used?  And I also wanted to get the opinion of most of the posters on here of would they rate their wives/girlfriends better looking than the AVcauc woman.  And would they/you care to post a pic on here for rating?  Also, in a previous article you wrote, you posted pictures of some of the most ugly non-whites I’ve ever seen ( some of the pics look like they were taken from the early 1900s! ) ... to emphasize your claim that caucasians are better looking.  To be taken seriously, one needs to be fair in their challenges.

Another claim that you make is that most caucasians find the physical appearances of non-whites unattractive.  This may be true but do you have the stats to prove this?  This is the same challenge that Lurker gave to Hannah in her claim that millions of caucasians find non-whites very attractive.  I would concede that most people and probably animals too find their own “kind” more attractive… It’s only natural But that is different from saying that all causcasians find non-whites ugly or unattractive.  For what it’s worth my girlfriend is blonde blue eyed with milky white skin but that doesn’t mean I find other races ugly.  In fact, I’ve come across some very beautiful asian, indian, latin women.  My girlfriend, like most causcasians also likes to sunbathe to get that tanned non-white tone… why is that?  I like milky white soft skin but that’s my preference.

SR

Posted by J Richards on March 27, 2006, 06:55 AM | #

SR,

Regarding the average white woman shown above, since averaging produces a better looking face than most of the individual faces comprising the average, and the average is not good looking, the individual faces that have gone into the composite appear to largely comprise of unattractive women who also seem to lean toward mild obesity.  In a comment above, I linked to a picture of Gillian Rhodes and her students, but this picture has been removed from her site and she has password-protected some parts of her site.  Anyway, the picture showed mostly overweight/obese women, many of them redheads.  Gillian Rhodes herself is a masculinized and obese redhead.  These are some of the reasons why I have said that she has used unattractive white women to come up with this study.

The wives of the regulars at this site may be anywhere from better to worse looking than the average white woman in Gillian Rhodes’ study, but this is of no relevance to this entry because this entry is about whether attractive whites will end up looking better if they acquired some Asian genes related to physical appearance. 

You reference a previous entry of mine, where you encountered some of the most ugly non-whites you have come across.  The examples are actually well-within the norm for non-whites with little to no white admixture.  People living in the West rarely encounter individuals from Melanesia, aborigines and black Africans, and do not get to see how these people actually look.  Black Americans have about 20% of their DNA derived from whites, on average.  Therefore, it is best to look at pictures of indigenous people to see how non-whites in their pure element look like.  There are people, such as Hindus, that have some European ancestry, and in another entry by me, you can see that Hindus who have less Caucasoid admixture are generally more unattractive, even as judged by the Hindus themselves.  You are right that some of the images are dated, but hardly anyone is doing physical anthropology work today that involves photographing indigenous people around the world.  More importantly, the picture has not changed substantially today.

It would be difficult to conduct studies where whites are asked to rate how attractive they find non-whites, but there are studies where whites are shown line drawings or pictures of white people, and these figures are manipulated to make the nose flatter or the jaw more protruding, and then the participants are asked to rate the attractiveness of the series of images.  It turns out that an increasing amount of transformation toward non-white looks sharply reduces the attractiveness ratings.  Therefore, by all means, most whites do not appreciate the looks of non-whites, especially those as different as Mongoloids, Negroids and Australoids.  Two examples of the kind of studies that I have mentioned above are:

Archives of Facial Plastic Surgery, 2004;6:257-62.
European Journal of Orthodontics, 2005, 27:123-33.

As to why your girlfriend likes to tan, there could be a number of reasons.  Tanning is popular among whites because it is a marker of high status.  Most jobs being indoor jobs, poor whites who do not attempt to use a tanning salon or put on a fake tan end up looking really pale.  Therefore, many whites tan in order to convey the appearance of high status.  A preference for a tan resulting from an innate preference for some color in the skin over a pasty white complexion is likely to be uncommon among whites, given that this preference seems to be socially acquired as it conveys high status in modern society.  In the past when poor whites had to mostly work outside, a tan signified lower status, and the upper class preferred to be pasty white.

Posted by Guessedworker on March 27, 2006, 01:47 PM | #

Indeed, a century and more ago it was a marker of high status NOT to have tanned skin, this being the preserve of outdoor workers.  Where it touches upon skin tone perfection is, within obvious limitations, a variable.

The attractiveness of East Asian women to European men is likely to be distorted by the reduction in mating opportunities consequent upon mate competition with Negroid males.  I cannot quote studies, nor do I believe there will have been a meaningful one for PeeCee reasons, but the assumption must be that where Negroid males win over Europeans with European women is in the behavioural and physical effects of high testosterone: self-confidence, “eyes on the prize”, sexual endowment and performance.  Furthermore, among underclass white females especially, Negroid showiness may be mistaken for status.

Similar differentials must apply between European and East Asian males in respect of East Asian females.

Facial attractiveness counts for less in female sexual judgement.  But even in the male, it is not the whole story.  If natural racial separation was still in force, however, none of these secondary factors would apply.  They are a product of Western societal decadence.

Posted by superrace on March 31, 2006, 02:14 AM | #

Heineken,

you wrote:
I hold those “caucasoids” (as in those who are phenotypically caucasian) with slit eyes (or very small eyes) in much greater contempt than I would a caucasian with oval eyes even if he were rather ordianary in intelligence.

Have you ever heard of Clint Eastwood? lol

Posted by superrace on March 31, 2006, 02:27 AM | #

Guessedworker

a couple of months ago you wrote:

JR’s work on facial attraction is perhaps too easily misunderstood by those who are unaccustomed to his argument.  But it is an important and worthy argument when, as with us, a people are under constant bombardment from so many directions to accept aliens in their midst, even though it means these peoples becoming a minority themselves in their own homelands.

I don’t feel this way but I’m sure a lot of posters at this sight are feeling what the native indians felt/feel when we took over their continent? ( north america ).  I’m curious to know if this is how you are feeling… that we will soon nolonger have a continent of our own?  that north america and europe is “browning”?

Posted by Lurker on March 31, 2006, 03:00 AM | #

superrace - Im sure there is a similar feeling in some ways. They were overcome by by organised Europeans in greater numbers and so on. They were defeated in other words. The best efforts of indian leaders might not have changed anything though.

We are being overrun with what seems to be the approval of our “leaders” and elites. There is little doubt in my mind that we could easily overcome the external threats (such as they are) and the incomers. Its the betrayal by our “betters” thats hard to deal with, from the obvious pratical point of view as well as from an emotional/psychological standpoint.

Posted by Guessedworker on March 31, 2006, 06:46 AM | #

Superrace,

What race are you, exactly?  I am English, meaning Anglo-Saxon/ Norman French and, therefore, a Northern European Caucasian.  My people, along with all Western Europeans, are being exhorted to acquiesce in their own dispossession and deracination.  I am of the clear conviction that this is a race-crime against us, greater in scope than any earlier, more violent but more local and short-term genocide.  It is effected by our liberal and political elites, but the ultimate enabler is our over-arching political system ... liberalism itself.  Essentially, we are blinded by the pursuit of a theoretical and unobtainable individual freedom.

Does that answer your question?

Posted by superrace on April 01, 2006, 05:25 AM | #

Guessedworker
I am american of german descent… is that caucasian enough for you?  My girlfriend is blonde blue eyed and german descent as well and to my dismay enjoys her tan.

Fred Scooby
You claim that I am a passive leftist but where did you get this information from?  In the US, congress is passing tougher immigration laws including one that would require even canadians who enter the usa to carry passports… i would prefer attaching some type of micro chip on each alien visiting the usa in order to track their whereabouts at any given time and i believe that years from now that may be the case… is that radical enough for you?  i believe in allowing only immigrants who can contribute to the country to be allowed in… no humantarian bs and i don’t care if they’re from europe, they must contribute!  Is that right enough for you?  It’s the off the top of your head claims out of anger that makes me shake my head and want to respond… For what it’s worth,if you want to be taken seriously read Lurker’s rational, calm response and perhaps learn from that.

Posted by superrace on April 01, 2006, 05:53 AM | #

Guessedworker
Your answer is very clear of your position.  I too believe that caucasians need to have a “homeland”.  And that “homeland” should be Europe just as asians, blacks, etc have their own.  As for NorthAmerica and more specifically, the USA, the population make-up here has changed alot and there is probably no turning back.  But I am of the view that NorthAmerica was originally not caucasian land anyway so it all evens out. 

As far as your feeling let down by your “leaders”, well I guess I can only say for you to get off your arse and vote, lobby, etc.  Sitting in front of your computer on this site is interesting and entertaining BUT that doesn’t count! 
But do it intelligently, otherwise you won’t be taken seriously at best, and at worse all hell breaks loose.

Here’s a thought to stir the pot!  Why the hell did the forefathers centuries ago have to go to other lands?  That’s how it all started!

Posted by Peter on May 13, 2006, 07:53 PM | #

This blog entry clearly states this blog’s view on the physical attractiveness of Asians and other ethnic groups. However, although your blog seems to patronise Caucasians, it seems to leave out many other traits that are not genetic (such as the higher IQs of Asians, as compared to Caucasians). Frankly, many find the abundance of hair and grossly large noses of Caucasians distasteful. But, of course, it is an individual viewpoint.

Posted by JB on May 13, 2006, 09:28 PM | #

superrace:

In the US, congress is passing tougher immigration laws including one that would require even canadians who enter the usa to carry passports

whoa that’s toughness. Right now hundreds if not thousands of mexicans are entering the country illegally but those canadians are going to need a passport. I’m impressed.

If they were really worried about canadian citizenship holding would be terrorists they would have done something earlier. They caught one before the WTC attacks. His name was Ahmed Ressam and he wanted to blow up Los Angeles. He lived in Montreal and I think he had a neo-muslim white girlfriend

Posted by J Richards on May 13, 2006, 10:48 PM | #

Peter,

IQ is strongly related to genetics, and it is true that NE Asians, on average, have higher IQs than whites, but this point is not relevant to this entry.  You are right that some non-white races dislike the excessive body hair found among some whites, but the nose is a different matter.  Non-whites generally tend to prefer the narrower nose of whites (seen from front) over the broader noses found in non-whites, but some dislike the prominence of the nose in whites in profile view.  Nevertheless, several Asians resort to surgery to make their noses more protruding.

Posted by mark on May 14, 2006, 07:29 PM | #

Monica Bellucci is one of the most beautiful women in the world with or without make-up on. i understand people have their preferences but to say that she is not beautiful is outrageous. She is a classic beauty, one which north european women can only dream of being. Her face is oval, her nose is tiny and her mouth is extremely sensual. She is tall and her body is a work of art unmatched by any other actress. North European women have hard bone structures, and most have no breasts or behind to speak of besides looking washed out. I have visited the baltic countries and most women there look like men. Light hair in the region evolved to take attention away from unattractive features where as dark hair acts like a frame and brings focus to an attractive face. Southern European women are relatively much more gracile and actually have feminine physiques in sharp contrast with northern women.

Posted by J Richards on May 15, 2006, 12:09 AM | #

Mark,

What in the world does your comment have to do with this entry?  As far as the attractiveness of Monica Belluci goes, she is on the masculine side, and I don’t see how she could be seen as one of the most beautiful women in the world.

Besides, you should take at a look at the facial features of Northern European women shown in the comments here, which should also enlighten you as to the actual reason for a high frequency of blonde hair in Northern Europe.  Also read this paper for evidence showing a closer relationship between prehistoric skulls in the Euro-Mediterranean area and modern Southern Europeans rather than modern Northern Europeans, and then tell me who has more gracile facial features, on average, Northern Europeans or Southern Europeans?  And, don’t cite anecdotal evidence.

Northern European women may have smaller breasts than Southern European women, but they are taller, have longer legs, are less obese and have more feminine waist-to-hip ratios.  Anyway, post your comments in relevant entries.

Posted by mikka on June 26, 2006, 01:31 PM | #

hi, i m of finnish origin, and though we finns got biggest proportion of blonde people, i would not consider blondness as typical characteristic for looking “heuristic-term” caucasoid. my members of family do have characteristics of what u might call “heuristic” asian features and i noticed also between other northern populations like swedes in the western or russians in the eastern part. by the way, maybe it s true that some europeans prefer less broad or flat-faced women, but i think it s disgustive how you comment as if you loved to ridiculize by racial mean. i think facial elements as a point for beauty is determined by context, sometimes a bread sometimes a narrow face fits better to the rest of facial features.....

Posted by Calvin Smith on August 16, 2006, 09:51 AM | #

http://www.anonym.to/?
I find your posting quite interesting. You show a certain viewpoint of which looks are preferable to which looks.

I’ve heard all sides of how people look.  Because I am English/Asian, I’ve mixed with people from the asian and the white side and find its really hard to tell which look people like.  People’s taste change over time and some people like their own kind while others like people that don’t look like them.  I think this whole subject doesn’t get anywhere.  beauty is only skin-deep.
IQ on the otherhand would be something to treasure as that is something that can’t be bought or changed.

However, having really good looks and brains would be something of a lottery win.  That’s better than just looks alone or just brains.  How many people have both?  That’s the winner of this comparison by a longshot.

Posted by Excuseme on November 17, 2006, 03:27 AM | #

[So I am a “total racist” because I don’t find the flatness of Mongoloid faces appealing?  Is there a requirement that non-Asians should find Asian faces appealing?  I have no problems accepting that the average IQ of the Japanese is higher than that of whites.  So do I believe that Asians are racially inferior to whites? ]

It’s not the fact that you don’t find Mongoloid faces attractive that makes you a total racist. It’s the fact that you have said that “no mentally sound white should find remotely attractive” the flatter Asian face. Do you as one person constitute all mentally sound whites? You use the word “should.” You are welcome to think the “flat face” is ugly. You are welcome to announce your own personal opinion, but that is not what you have done.

Fuck you. You’re an asshole. I commend you for speaking out.

Posted by Kevin Leung on November 26, 2006, 07:10 PM | #

[Kevin - think back to when you were a teenager, at school or whatever, did you ever notice there were some girls that a lot/all the guys found attractive? Do you think there was anything that these girls had in common? Do you think that any attempt to try and document any common factor is hopelessly doomed?]

Yes, these girls were all white, with long flowing blonde hair, a flat stomach, and ample breasts. They had cheekbones that were accented when they applied angel dust to their perfectly proportioned face. Teen Barbie in a school outfit. So what? The only correlation I see is that North American adolescents are susceptable to the fantasy offered up by mass media: Hollywood movies, MTV videos around the clock, and glamour magazines in the supermarket (and I work in the entertainment biz and admire beautiful women). You think just because they keep hammering the message to suburban youth that white women make the best sex symbols and are placed on a pedestal that somehow, that makes it right? that it’s acceptable? that it’s “worthy” of the scientific community’s attention? Just stop right there and think about what I said for a minute: anyone who sincerely believes that is very sick, and that’s the truth.

I’m of Chinese descent. I was born in a Western society. So the reason why my highschool friends lusted after these girls is because they were conditioned in this culture. White people are the majority here so, really, you and I should just accept the fact that white women are always going to be glorified in pop culture. Put yourself in my shoes: you’re a 12-year old asian kid and when you turn on the TV, you can’t find anyone on the screen that you can relate to. That you don’t exist. Asian girls don’t see themselves either because white girls are more deserving of the air time and plus y’know, the marketing executive says they bring in more ad dollars. That’s fine. We don’t live in a fair world. But you know what? That wouldn’t be the case if you were born in Africa, or India, or the reserves of Native Americans. You get what I’m saying here? Who you are, what you believe, what women you find attractive, is all based on the environment you grew up in. And I’m still a proud Canadian and I love my country.

So don’t tell me that me that anecdotal observations are a justification for academics like JR to scientifically segregrate people in a society (America, let’s say) that’s already having problems harmonizing in the 21st century. You’re just feeding the problem. ‘Nuff said.

- Kevin Leung
Designer, Ubisoft Montreal

Posted by Peter Ralphs on November 26, 2006, 09:27 PM | #

“I’m of Chinese descent. I was born in a Western society.”

The basic problem here is that these two sentences should not be connected.  The fact asserted in sentence #1 *should* make the fact asserted in sentence #2 impossible.

That it does not is our misfortune.

Posted by J Richards on November 27, 2006, 05:37 AM | #

Excuseme,

I did not write, ‘“no mentally sound white should find remotely attractive” the flatter Asian face.’ What I wrote was “Figure 9 shows the remarkable extent of facial flatness found among some Mongoloids that no mentally sound white should find remotely attractive.” In other words, I was talking about the extreme flatness shown in the picture of Margaret Cho.  The extent of facial flatness varies among East Asians.  As far as I know, even East Asians in general do not like the extent of flatness seen in Margaret Cho; they seem to prefer less flattened faces.

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

Kevin Leung,

This entry is not about segregating people.  Anyway, your observations are not quite correct.  To the best of my knowledge, Northern European face shape in particular and blond women in general tend to be appreciated by Asian men living in East Asia.  I have heard that a Japanese man with a blond girlfriend will generally be envied by other Japanese men.  Similarly, when East Asians in East Asia undergo cosmetic surgery they seem to mostly focus on the mid-facial region (the mid-facial region being what is notably distinctive about East Asians), and the outcome of the cosmetic surgery is generally to shift the mid-face toward the European direction.  Similarly, people in India appear to overwhelmingly prefer light skin and Caucasoid facial features.  Such observations are not consistent with your assertion that “Who you are, what you believe, what women you find attractive, is all based on the environment you grew up in.” Even if you were to bring the global influence of Hollywood into the picture, what is it that makes non-whites readily appreciate white beauty?

Posted by George Chell on December 08, 2006, 09:56 PM | #

Mix whites and Asians, you get smarter people.

Posted by ek on December 15, 2006, 01:03 AM | #

“The basic problem here is that these two sentences should not be connected.  The fact asserted in sentence #1 *should* make the fact asserted in sentence #2 impossible.

That it does not is our misfortune. “

Aww. Poor you. Life would be much simpler if race was divided neatly into national boundaries, wouldn’t it? WN, just like anti-racist lefties, oversimplify and obscure.

Posted by Artaxerxes M. Garcia on January 12, 2007, 08:26 AM | #

without further twisting and perversion of aesthetic tastes, i say, THE CAUCASIAN RACE IS THE PERFECT RACE. THEY ARE PERFECT IN SYMMETRY, THEIR COLOR, THEIR EYES, THEIR ACHIEVEMENTS. i’M an Asian, but I AM CONVICTED BY MY CONSCIENCE AND BY THE PROOFS I AM SEEING, THAT THE WHITE RACE ARE STILL THE OST UNDISPUTABLE BEAUTIFUL RACE ON EARTH. MIXING THEM IS A POLLUTION IN THE BLOOD.

Posted by Sriniva on January 26, 2007, 06:21 AM | #

I think the most beutifull white people are those who have Native American antcestry, like for example Angelina Jolie, Johnny Depp, and Demi Moore, most people with mixed European and Native American antcestry have beautifull black hair, beautifull dark eyes, and well defined cheekbones to name a few which gives them a very sharp appearance.

Posted by JOrnatta on January 26, 2007, 03:45 PM | #

To the person who said that the blond blue eyed White man juxtaposed with the Asian, is part Asian, you obviously don’t know much about Eurasians! just because he appears to have a flatter nose than the average Caucasian, that does not nececarely mean that he is part asian (he might be 1/256th african)… if he was part Asian he would have a wider face, and deffinitely would not have blond hair (dark genes are stronger).  Maybe if he is of Ukrainian, Lithuanian, Russian, or Polish descent, he might have some Tatar admixture, but i just don’t see it in his face.

Posted by Jarnugospe on January 26, 2007, 10:34 PM | #

Notice that most Caucasian males go bald, you could say that all European males will loose at least some of their hair, or start experiencing baldness at some point in their lives; Asians on the other hand, very rarely experience significant hair loss, in fact, most Asians never go bald!  If you gave the European population a Mongoloid admixture, it would very likely solve the problem of hair loss amongst European males. 

It is proven by science, Europeans are the most prone to male pattern baldness, and Asians are very likely the least prone to it, So therefore yes, I am convinced that a Mongoloid admixture would help most Europeans retain their head hair, and therefore is a very good thing, if you enjoy having a full head of hair that is.

Posted by Tina Gruenberg on February 02, 2007, 02:32 PM | #

Sooo, basically, this article was written by some ugly fat ginger woman who had nothing better to do with her time than borishly dissect every feature of the Mongoloid anatomy in order to somehow demonstrate that Caucasoids are, by default, more attractive?

Admittedly, I’ve never been attracted to an Asian face, and do agree that on a whole, whites are more attractive.

But that’s personal taste, some of the comments made here are a little degrading, and to be honest offensive. Everyone is entitled to a view/opinion, but a little sensitivity probably would be appreciated. After all, people are BORN a certain way, it’s not like they can choose to be attractive/unnattractive or not have a “flat-face”!

Also, some of you are so far stuck up your own arse that you refuse to admit that some white people do find Asians attractive. You don’t, fair enough. Some people do, hence the Eurasian population?

So really, the point of this article was what? Attempting to convince white people to never find Asians attractive, or attempting to make yourself feel better by receiving comments from mindless rednecks who are evidently, just as small-minded as you are?

Don’t give me the “ooo why did you bother commenting then”? Because I fucking felt like it. :D

And no, actually, I myself am white.

Posted by D Benjamin on February 02, 2007, 02:37 PM | #

is borishly word ? but ugly fat ginger woman, hahaha ! don’t know if that’s true but still. and evidently, i’m not a mentally sound white.

Posted by Guessedworker on February 02, 2007, 02:54 PM | #

Tina,

The point of the article is plain to anyone with a heart unadulterated by self-hatred.  Europeans are being recommended to miscegenate, this recommendation being founded on false premises.  It is entirely proper to oppose a deception which, should it win the day, will accomplish the soft, slow genocide of a great people.

Really, try to understand the righteous nature of our argument, and the pathology of your emotional response.

Posted by Tina on February 03, 2007, 12:32 AM | #

Thank you for the insight “Guessedworker”, I respect that your reply was not a narrow-minded comment such as “no mentally sound white should find attractive”, and admittedly I understand a little more from your explanation.

Apologies for the overly emotional response :D

Also, surely the small number of white people finding Asians attractive is personal taste, and recommendation or not, they will continue to do so ?

Posted by JB on February 03, 2007, 03:07 AM | #

Tina,
this is essentially the message whites are regularly being subjected to in various forms (movies, news, books, music, magazines). It never stops and no one is allowed to oppose it on official channels of information hence the need for a website like this one.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8RWP8Pws9mw

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nojWJ6-XmeQ

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2-A9orvi85Q

Alon Ziv’s bs (first YT link) is discussed in these threads :

http://majorityrights.com/index.php/weblog/comments/oh_for_g_ds_sake/

http://majorityrights.com/index.php/weblog/comments/alon_ziv_on_race_mixing/

Posted by Artaxerxes M. Garcia on February 20, 2007, 09:59 AM | #

Again i say, the Europeans, or the White people are the most beautiful people on earth because they are white, their nose are well-formed, their eyes are blue and their hair is blond. No race can eual their beauty, no, not the chinese, and those blonging to the chopstock culture. Not india, not mexicans, not the Europeans and Europeans alone. I am a Filipino, and o don’t appreciate Filipino beauties.

Posted by Artaxerxes M. Garcia on March 18, 2007, 07:11 AM | #

Let me repeat what I’ve said.
The Caucasian race are only the exclusively beautiful people on earth. I am disgusted to see Asians or Negros to be regarded as beautiful. To people who can still feel conscience, and whose eyes are not yet perverted, don’t lie to yourselves. It is an inarguable fact from the dawning of Western Civilization that Caucasians are the only beautiful race. And it is awkward to say Egyptians, Indians, and Chinese to be beautiful. Look at their faces, aren’t they ugly and deformed? I am a Filipino, but since childhood, ever since I became conscious of myself at the earliest age, I am never convinced that Filipinos are beautiful people. When I saw a Caucasian at a magazine,, my body hormones reacted positively. And who taught me such a disdain to my race but the inward truth within me which says “White race -superior race.”

Posted by Menge on March 19, 2007, 04:25 AM | #

This article (by Rechards) does not make sense at all.

I don’t have the time to write a reaction paper but will pick up some sentences to explain.

(1) “The average female Caucasian in Figure 1 looks like an average of obese white women; notice the large cheekbones and facial breadth.”
-----If you come to the United States, you will know the female in the fiture is truly “average”. In the US at least 50% females at her age is heavier than she is. Many Anglo people have a relatively round face too, such as Bill Gates (who has Anglo background.)

(2) “Few people find flat-faced Mongoloids more unattractive than me, yet even I agree that the mixed average female in Figures 1 and 3 is better looking than the average Caucasian female, and this is because the average Caucasian female face in Gillian Rhodes’ study is the face of an unattractive, obese white woman.”
-----True. But not all Asians are flat-faced either. Flat-face has a high frequency among Mongols, Koreans and some northeastern Asians, but not other Asians. It just happens that most Asians living in the west are from Korea and east China, where flat face is relatively common.  An “average Chinese”, for instance, would not be flat-faced at all. Just think about Bruce Lee, Jackie Chan, Jet Li, Ziyi Zhang, Gong Li… Jackie Chan may have a “short” face like Bill Gates, but not quite flat. Ziyi Zhang has a very narrow face. They are all 100% Chinese.

(3)"Mongoloids have retained more ancestral traits such as robust cheekbones, robust mandibles, and various primitive (ancestral) indices of facial flatness”
----True again. But who told you a “primitive” trait is necessarily ugly? Caucasians have relatively more body hair than Asians, which is a primitive trait found in apes and monkeys. Does it mean Caucasians are more ugly in this respect? I don’t think so. Some people actually prefer hairy body.  At least you cannot prove a “primitive” feature is an ugly feature, unless there is some evolutionary advantage.

OK, I don’t want to write too much here. My overall impression is that the “mixed” faces shown in the figures all look very Asian. You can easily find some people who look like them in China, Japan, etc. “Asian” is just a wrong term. Maybe the article tries to talk about northeastern Asian extremes.

Finally, I admit that personally I find white males more goodlooking than Asian males.

Posted by Menge on March 19, 2007, 05:36 AM | #

I happened to see a pic online. In the pic there’s a group of graduates from an art institute at Beijing.
Undoutedly these girls are considered more beautiful than average in China, since they attended an art institute. However my point is that many of them look like the “mixed”, even though they are pure Chinese. So don’t let the extreme flat faces represent Asian people in general. Statistically speaking, it is simply wrong.
http://www.yzgz.net/news/article/_20050113114637_DL8YCAI6U.jpg

Posted by Menge on March 21, 2007, 08:42 AM | #

Slanted eyes are NOT typical in central and western China at all (less than 30%). They are relatively common in northeast China and Korea (more than 60%).

All the peple below are Chinese, without any known foreign ancestry.

http://www1.hunantv.com/jy5/picture/songjia0.jpg
http://www.hn.xinhuanet.com/ent/2007-03/19/xin_5403041916491091612821.jpg
http://img04.21cn.com/2006/08/29/690758053.jpg
http://bbsimg1.qq.com/2006/06/11/003/611.jpg

Posted by Margaret B. on March 31, 2007, 06:38 AM | #

This article makes me feel ASHAMED to be white!  Like others have said, “beauty is in the eye of the beholder”.  so what if there are statistics involved?  the entire universe is drenched in statistics about everything!  Your article was written as though it were “fact”, but it’s not, it’s garbage and you should be ashamed that you even wasted your time thinking about this. 

I find it difficult to believe that people are still as racist as you these days. 

No mentally sound human being should think the way YOU do.

By the way, I think that people of all races are beautiful!  In fact some of the most attractive are of mixed race.

So screw you and your biased opinions.  This article just goes to show how PRIMITIVE you assholes are.

Posted by Cladrastis on March 31, 2007, 03:06 PM | #

Beauty is mathematical symmetry; the rest is subjective.

If negros find negros attractive, that’s fine (really, it’s good! - keeps them from polluting our gene pool).  Same with other races.  But the fact is, for some odd reason, people of every race find caucasians attractive, despite many/most caucasians finding people of other races unattractive.  Odd, huh?  Also, consider that the Japanese (and presumably other peoples) feature caucasians in most of their commercials and in pretty much all anime/video games.

Also, in response to menge’s posts, many “mongoloids” from western china are of very ancient mixed eurasian ancestry - hence the lack of epicanthal eyefold, lighter skin and hair, taller, etc.  It would be interesting to find out if most chinese models and actresses are from this region…

Here is a link that discusses the unmixed caucasian ancestors of many chinese from xinxiang province.  They had red/blond hair and typical caucasian features, as is evinced by their well mummified bodies. 

http://www.meshrep.com/PicOfDay/mummies/mummies.htm

Amazingly, they were literate, too (they spoke an IE language similar to sanskrit).

Posted by Offended on April 01, 2007, 09:40 PM | #

Was this comment written only to provoke, or because of the profound ignorance that could lead to such a comment?  This could only be written by a closed-minded white supremacist:

“Notice that Gillian Rhodes has not addressed the attractiveness of facial profile (side view).  I’d be damned if Caucasians consider facial flattening resulting from Mongoloid admixture as more attractive than the attractive Caucasoid norm.  Additionally, how can the following traits resulting from Mongoloid admixture among Caucasians be considered more attractive than the norm among Caucasians: reduced height, less muscularity in males, slanted eyes, flatter buttocks, smaller breasts in females, relatively shorter limbs, relatively longer trunk, and a smaller penis?”

Obviously the poster prefers taller people, muscular men, round eyes, bubble buts, big breasts, long limbs, short trunk, and a large penis.  How could these ever be perceived as having universal appeal.  I am of Scotch-Irish, German and French descent, and am sickened by the subjective nature of this idiotic perception that “slanted eyes,” or “smaller breasts” are unattractive.  Also:  No matter how ugly this individual’s bias may be, the bias is also not true.  The tallest man in the world hails from China.  Some people are simply racist and ignorant provocateurs.

Posted by Race_is_a_myth on April 01, 2007, 10:06 PM | #

I have just read through these posts, and I realize that there is clearly a white-supremacist agenda here.  The only words missing are “the mud people.” Why haven’t you come out from behind your academic/intellectual mask to show your true ugly character?  Your ideas are grotesque, dragged up from the cesspool of racist hatred that would only be welcome in Himmler’s and Hitler’s offices, or the bleak compounds of skinheads.  So you are disgusted by so-called “miscegination,” and the polluting of the gene-pool?  Man, I would love to pay for a DNA test to show you your own TRUE genetic heritage.  Those of you who hate the so-called mud-people, you’d just better secure your compounds and build better fences, because you are on the losing end of this trend.  Race is not scientific, in any case, and you know this.  Your hatred is the poison in your belly that will burn you up from inside out.  This is at least a comfort to us all-- to know that you are as universally hated as you hate those different from you.  Your kind is not long for this world, and, not to worry, blonde haired, blue eyed people will be around just as long as any other group of folks with different hair/eye color.

NAZI freaks, the United States defeated you NAZI losers over fifty years ago, and how many people died to fight against your sick NAZI beliefs?

Posted by No_Such_Thing_as_Polluting_the_GENE_Pool on April 01, 2007, 10:13 PM | #

Cladrastis is a racist and is afraid of that which is different from himself.  His loss. 

White supremacy is not supreme, only ignorant.

Cladrastis gives himself away when he speaks of “polluting his gene pool.” This is sick, racist, and ignorant.  Perhaps Cladrastis is so in-bred that his in-breeding has led to mental deficiencies.  Very likely scenario, indeed. 

There is no such thing as “polluting a gene pool.” Your in-breeding has polluted your own, and I feel sad for your unfortunate progeny.  Perhaps you should consider not breeding at all, and save the human race from inheriting this tendency toward retardation.

Posted by Guessedworker on April 01, 2007, 10:23 PM | #

Offended mythical one,

Do take out a subscription to Nature and perhaps Heredity.  Then you can write the same sort of thing about any learned gentleman who is fortunate enough to have his peer-reviewed paper on the biological basis of race published.

Meanwhile, ask yourself why, being of Scotch- (surely you mean Scots?  Are you really unaware that Scotch is a beverage, not an ethnicity?) Irish-German-French descent, you don’t find prognathous Africans wholly delectable.

When you’ve managed these things, check out whether European Man is declining demographically and under threat from foreigners in his own homelands.  Then ask yourself whether invitations from Rhodes, Le Roi, Ziv et al for us to intermarry with Han Chinese, Sub-Continental Indians and Bantus is good advice right now.  And if you find it isn’t, perhaps you will gain some understanding of this particular post.

Now off you run, and be a good boy with that Scots firewater.

Posted by Guessedworker on April 01, 2007, 10:26 PM | #

Also, would you please comment under one name only.  Three so far.  Not acceptable.

Posted by JB on April 01, 2007, 11:53 PM | #

Menge:

They are all 100% Chinese.

you’re probably right for the others but Bruce Lee had german blood, 1/4 I think

Margaret:

I find it difficult to believe that people are still as racist as you these days. 

some of us have stopped drinking the kool-aid

Race_is_a_myth:

Race is not scientific, in any case, and you know this.

college graduate I presume ?

http://majorityrights.com/index.php/weblog/C16/

Race_is_a_myth:

NAZI freaks, the United States defeated you NAZI losers over fifty years ago, and how many people died to fight against your sick NAZI beliefs?

the USA you’re so proud of for having won WW2 was a racially segregated society when it defeated nazi Germany. Didn’t you knew that ? America was founded and maintained by white people whom you would call NAzIs!! if they were transposed in our age.

Posted by JB on April 02, 2007, 12:09 AM | #

JRichards

As far as the attractiveness of Monica Belluci goes, she is on the masculine side

your blonde fetish muddies your judgement in these matters. For example the blonde woman in the bikini in the pic that you posted in the thread on Alon Ziv’s book to demolish Ziv’s thesis in 5 seconds isn’t particularly a model of feminine beauty, she looks like a Barbie and has too much make-up. You made your case but you couldn’t lose anyway. You could have delivered a bigger KO had you chose not to limit yourself to a certain type of blondes.

Posted by SCOTCH-IRISH on April 02, 2007, 12:48 AM | #

Guessedworker,

Your ignorance is only matched by your exuberance. 

I am of Scotch-Irish and German (and Alsace-Lorraine) descent.  If you prefer “Scots-Irish,” then that is your preference, not mine.  I am Scotch-Irish, your nit-picking over spelling will not make you superior to me, as it will not make you superior to the billions of those you fear will “pollute your gene pool.”

You are a grotesque, deformed intellect.  You hide your hideous hate-filled agenda behind an academic, articulate mask.  You embody evil. 

You write “Irish-German-French descent, you don’t find prognathous Africans wholly delectable.”

What kind of sick perverted freak are you? 

I can say that the size of any gorgeous African woman’s jaw is not going to alter my attraction toward her, depending on the other symmetries at work.

You are a racist, and you hate Africans, and hate any other people that is not the same as you.  THIS DOES NOT MEAN THAT YOU CAN TELL ME WHAT I FIND ATTRACTIVE OR NOT.  I can certainly find an African woman attractive, because I am not a racist pig, like you.  You imply that because my heritage is Northern European, I cannot find people from other regions attractive.  You are wrong about this, and you demonstrate profound ignorance and deep denial. 

I don’t give a shit about what these other posters recommend as far as coupling.

I just don’t care.  They can reproduce as they wish; this is the history of the world.  Your supremacist ideals are worst than stupid, because you fail to recognize that the “European Man” has descended from thousands of years of so-called “miscegenation.”

You are a pathetic hate-monger.  You deserve to be lynched. 

Do take a minute to jerk yourself off.  Then we can be sure that your seed has not inflicted yet another generation with the obvious genetic defects you display in your posts. 

I am Scotch-Irish and German, and my most ancient descendents walked out of AFRICA. 

Now off you run.  Run from the truth, you pretentious pig. 

The Scotch-Irish have always shown a profound individualist streak, preferring to be free from the constraints of government.  The Scotch-Irish also find pretentious assholes like you to be worthy of nothing more than drowning or hanging.  Maybe sick the dogs on you.  Double-barrel shotgun does the trick.  Then salute the gods with the thanks from the bottom of a barrel.  Fuck you, NAZI pig. 

Offended mythical one,

Do take out a subscription to Nature and perhaps Heredity.  Then you can write the same sort of thing about any learned gentleman who is fortunate enough to have his peer-reviewed paper on the biological basis of race published.

Meanwhile, ask yourself why, being of Scotch- (surely you mean Scots?  Are you really unaware that Scotch is a beverage, not an ethnicity?) Irish-German-French descent, you don’t find prognathous Africans wholly delectable.

When you’ve managed these things, check out whether European Man is declining demographically and under threat from foreigners in his own homelands.  Then ask yourself whether invitations from Rhodes, Le Roi, Ziv et al for us to intermarry with Han Chinese, Sub-Continental Indians and Bantus is good advice right now.  And if you find it isn’t, perhaps you will gain some understanding of this particular post.

Now off you run, and be a good boy with that Scots firewater.

Posted by beauty_among_us on April 02, 2007, 01:03 AM | #

Slanted eyes are beautiful.

Dark, dark skin is beautiful. 

Tall or short, a beautiful woman is beautiful.  What person would be so ignorant to say that a perfect woman who is five feet tall is not so beautiful another woman six feet tall?

If she is from West Africa: When she smiles at me, and her bright white teeth and amber eyes, her Nigerian skin, the color of dark chocolate, and her toned body all speak to me in the universal Human language,

I say “I love you; you are beautiful.”

Open your eyes.  If you restrict yourself to only one type of beauty, you lose out.

Racism is worse than stupid.

Posted by racism_is_evil on April 02, 2007, 01:33 AM | #

“the USA you’re so proud of for having won WW2 was a racially segregated society when it defeated nazi Germany. Didn’t you knew that ? America was founded and maintained by white people whom you would call NAzIs!! if they were transposed in our age. Posted by JB on Sunday, April 1, 2007 at 11:53 PM”

Didn’t I knew that?  Haha.  Sir, you are sadly mistaken in your interpretation.  Yes, America was racially segregated at the time of the Allied victories against Nazism and Facsism.  I can state clearly that I would not call them Nazis, because they weren’t.  Indeed, the democratic system in the United States of America allowed for the struggle of the Civil Rights Movement to guarantee equal rights for black Americans as well as all others, protected by the RULE OF LAW.  This law is broken, but there is recourse and justice.

If the Nazis and Fascists had won, as you would have preferred, these rights would not be secured by LAW. 

In fact, the black-American contribution to the defeat of Nazi-Fascism in the Second World War was an instrumental part of the later campaigns for Civil Rights among the people. 

Your argument is completely wrong; if the Nazis (people like YOU) had won, there would never have been a chance for these oppressed people to achieve their freedom.

The very system, the fundamental structures put in place hundreds of years before, of the United States allowed these Americans to achieve equality under the name of the LAW.  This is the burden, and the beauty, of DEMOCRACY. 

Didn’t I knew that?  Didn’t I know that you are a european racist pig and you will burn in hell.  I did knew that.

Posted by ben tillman on April 02, 2007, 02:46 AM | #

Let’s see.  We oppose genocide.  You commit genocide. 

Yet we are the evil ones, in your eyes.

It seems that you are a lunatic.

Posted by what_genocide? on April 02, 2007, 02:52 AM | #

Yes, you should question your own race’s genocide, fred scrooby. 
Which genocide did your “race” perpetrate that you are questioning, troll fred scrooby?  Which genocide you would like to perpetrate are you questioning?  Which genocide that you and your friends wish you could commit are you questioning? 

So called “white Europeans” are certainly not facing genocide, you sick animal.  If you think you are facing genocide, then perhaps you should propogate.  This will help you and your so-called “race” along.  Loser. 

I responded to this, racist troll fred scrooby: “America was founded and maintained by white people whom you would call NAzIs!! if they were transposed in our age,” and I proved the poster WRONG. 

I hate racists no matter what skin tone they have.  I hate dark-skinned racists as much as light-skinned racists.  You are all sick pigs and will burn in hell.  Racism is not particular to any skin, eye, or hair color.  Racism is only found among ignorant, badly educated people-- people of all backgrounds.

Racism and stupidity, ignorance and self-righteousness, are not exclusive to your particular, pathetic brand of seperatism.  You are a virus, and there are vaccines for the likes of you.  Wiping out ignorant freaks like you is not genocide; there will forever be a variety of skin colors, hair colors, heights, etc.  Hopefully, there will not always be such evil racists like you. 

You think you are smart; that’s what you get for thinking.  Do us a favor, put a Luger in your mouth and do what your great dark haired, dark eyed, aryan leader did-- blow out your frontal lobe, bitch.

“Questioning your own race’s genocide makes you a “racist pig” and condemns you to “burn in hell.” Ouch!  That’s harsh, but ... OK, I think I can deal with that .... but ... Hey, wait a minute — does that rule apply to everybody or only whites? ... (just thought I’d ask ... hope no one minds ... I’m not trying to be a troll or anything ...)”

Posted by Andy Wooster on April 02, 2007, 02:57 AM | #

DON’T FEED THE TROLLS!

Posted by scrooby_the_human_god on April 02, 2007, 03:15 AM | #

O scrooby, fred.  Fuck you.  “Carleton Coon?” I’m supposed to even give that shit a chance?  Your pseudo-science serves only your genocidal tendencies. 

And gee whiz, Scroob (or Srub?), if I couldn’t read, how could I be writing to you at all?  Can you try harder, Scrub? 

Can you put these letters together: p followed by e, then c and k, then an e and an r, plus h, e, a, and d.  I’m not sure why you might suggest I need an IQ boost, as that would only show, in the case of an even minor increase of my IQ, an exponential increase over yours.  Did you understand that?  Maybe try reading that over again.  Or I can type it here for you one more time: 

A minor increase of my IQ would show an exponential increase over yours.  You are so inferior to billions of your fellow humans that this explains your obvious hatred of your superiors of all backgrounds. 

“Brute posted a ton of URLs on race in the comments thread for this log entry.  Everyone should store them all for handy reference when needed — saves time looking them up.  The double-digiter signing as “Race is a myth” should check them out — assuming he can read, that is — and then should check out the various racial categorizations of Carleton Coon.  Oh, and ... if he could get an IQ boost it might help ...

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Monday, April 2, 2007 at 12:30 AM | #”

Posted by truths_self_evident on April 02, 2007, 03:20 AM | #

Isn’t everyone here on this thread a troll when you break it down to the basics?  Can you use your imagination to understand why this might be the truth? 

DON’T FEED THE TROLLS!

Posted by Andy Wooster on Monday, April 2, 2007 at 02:57 AM | #

Posted by Conrad of Mobile on April 02, 2007, 04:09 AM | #

I am new to this site so if I am repeating the comments of others on this subject I’ll apologize in advance. 

As to the comment that there is no such thing as race the answer is simple.  One can send a DNA sample off to a laboratory and the analysis can identify the person by their racial make up.  Therefor a genetic definition of race is established scientifically.  A simpler answer could be; we have been arguing over race for a long time, how could we do this if there was no such thing as race.  No one could make an argument for the sun being in the center of the solar system if there was no sun. 

Also, Mr. Ziv makes the argument that persons of mixed race are healthier, more energetic and just plain better.  If there were no such thing as race he could not make this argument.  But more to the point, I must ask if Mr. Ziv could make this same point as regards animal breeding? In the biology and anatomy & physiology classes that I took this issue was discussed.  While an improvement was noted in the first generation further offspring developed many significant problems.  I am sure that there is a reason that so much emphasis is placed on pure breeds.  More over, the breeding of animals is done many times for the manipulation of traits such as a greater number of eggs or more meat and less fat.  The primary argument made by so-called racists centers on the traits of our race.  We want our traits to stay the same or improve. 

Moreover, those that continue to favor the genetic genocide of the white race, as well as those races that are destroyed by mixing with us, must be regarded as mentally unbalanced as well as political and social degenerates.  As to just what one will find attractive, well that’s in the eye of the beholder.  Some people find the back end of a cow attractive, go figure?!

Posted by U_R_A_LAB_RAT on April 02, 2007, 04:56 AM | #

Conrad the racist of Mobile:  I find it difficult to believe you are new to this site.  You are not new to this site.

And yes, Conrad, racist of Mobile, you can send of a DNA sample and find out your genetic background, and race will not be the factor indicating your genetic background, but will instead be DNA.  It is amazing to look at various DNA markers that are found among peoples who’s skin, eye-shape, and hair color are vastly different.  This is because these markers perservere even as other “racial” attributes change.  Over five-hundred years, the DNA markers can remain the same, while the outward physical attributes change depending on the environmental exposure. 

You are psychotic.  Your belief that if any race inter-breeds with your race constitutes “genocide” is the most minimal kind of lab-rat thought. 

Keep running on your tread-mill, rat.

Posted by Guessedworker on April 02, 2007, 08:21 AM | #

Dear Troll,

Choose one name to post under, please.  And do not use insults or foul language.  I will exclude you next time.

Bring evidence for the non-existence of race if that is what you argue.  Explain why it is “racist” for European peoples to self-identify as such and to wish to survive, but it is not racist to hate them for doing so.

Lastly, I happen to be English.  It was explained perfectly clearly to me forty years ago that Scots don’t wear kilts all day in Auchtermuchty and don’t much wander in the gloamin a-singin after the bonnie Prince.  Your notion of Scottishness is quaint and you don’t know any better, I suppose.  But have a look at the website of the Scottish National Party, who will shortly be the senior partner in government.  That will tellyou how Scots wish to be described.

Posted by Al Ross on April 02, 2007, 10:00 AM | #

GW, that illustrious Canadian economist and Harvard professor. JK Galbraith wrote a paean to the community from which he was descended entitled, “The Scotch”, published in the UK by Penguin. I think we can presume that JK, diehard liberal though he undoubtedly was, possessed sufficient intellectual rigour for the employment of terminological exactitude.

Posted by Questionable on April 02, 2007, 10:37 AM | #

I wonder if GW will ever realize why certain posts/threads attract the deranged and degenerate to the extent as this one has.

Think hard.

“...and race will not be the factor indicating your genetic background, but will instead be DNA”

In other words, DNA will be a factor indicating DNA (which is what “genetic background” is).

Very good.  Another shining moment for intellectual debate.  Times like this makes us glad this blog hasn’t adopted the password system that some have suggested.

“and race will not be the factor indicating your genetic background”

Tell that to Neil Risch.

I could continue, but what’s the point?  It’s the webmasters here who never learn.

Has this thread, and answering the trolls, been an effective use of time and resources?

Posted by Guessedworker on April 02, 2007, 10:48 AM | #

I’ll stick with Alex Salmond, Al.

Posted by Guessedworker on April 02, 2007, 10:49 AM | #

Questionable, all of the recent daft posts are by one man.

Posted by Questionable on April 02, 2007, 10:51 AM | #

GW, I know that, but this is not the only post where something similar has happened, endlessly over months.

Connect the dots.

Posted by Guessedworker on April 02, 2007, 12:28 PM | #

Well, basically, I get the outline of a woman.  No, wait.  I can tell by the eyes and nose that that’s a Western woman.  More than that, I think she could be beautiful and her beauty is a particular beauty worth preserving from the obliteration that race-mixing brings.

Is it wrong to think this beauty is worth preserving, even if the thought attracts haters, most of them non-white, who demand that I do NOT think this way on pain of being a white racist, a sinner and the worst of all possible sinners?

Odd, but that only makes me feel more determined than ever to follow my own convictions.

Never mind the enemy.  They shoot because we have not surrendered, and their terms include our mandatory expression of support for the genocide of the bed chamber.

Screw them.

Posted by Questionable on April 02, 2007, 01:02 PM | #

GW, I agree that it is a good thing that the shoddy and politicized “work” of Gillian Rhodes be critiqued, and the overall post does a fine job of that.

The problem starts where one begins to pathologize individual preferences:
“shows the remarkable extent of facial flatness found among some Mongoloids that no mentally sound white should find remotely attractive”

etc.  And some recent comments by “JB”, on our side, are useful as well.  Look, some men, including some previous commentators here who claimed to be WN (!), find East Asian females attractive, flat faces or not.  That’s the way it is.  Personally, I don’t understand why that Oh broad - the one from the movie “Sideways” and some medical TV show - can be considered “one of the most beautiful women”, personally I find her grotesque, her face like a mask, sort of like “the elephant man.”

While I may look askance at those who think she is “beautiful” (and wonder if PC is involved), I’m not going to dogmatically state that any white man who finds her attractive is “mentally unsound.” Nor do I think that her features, or that of her co-ethnics, means they have less of a right for self-preservation.  Nor do I consider that the features of white women, which I prefer, means that this is the reason why I should support racial preservation.

With respect to the troll attractive features of posts, I think people are getting offended in having (for non-whites) their racial groups labeled as unattractive, and (for whites) having the mating preferences labeled as “mentally unsound.”

Even those who concentrate on kinship effects of intermarriage do not label mixers as mentally ill, rather, they are objectively maladaptive.  If they try to evade that reality by engaging in fantasy, that may be a sign of mental weakness, instability.  But, mere preferences - are those a sign of “mental instability?”

Is the labeling of one’s own personal prefences in female appearance as “normal” and opposing preferences “mentally unsound, etc.” the best way to make our points.

Once again, this is a totally separate issue from the need to expose Rhodes’ methodological errors, which is needed.

Posted by JB on April 02, 2007, 05:11 PM | #

Eire MaCSCOTCH:

I can say that the size of any gorgeous African woman’s jaw is not going to alter my attraction toward her, depending on the other symmetries at work.

you know where you’ll find plenty of attractive african women, the negro eldorado for folks like you ? in Africa. You should move there.

racism_is_evil:

Yes, America was racially segregated at the time of the Allied victories against Nazism and Facsism.  I can state clearly that I would not call them Nazis, because they weren’t.

yet you call us nazis because we want either racially segregated societies or countries with at least a solid 90 % white majority with legal safeguards against whites becoming a minority or having to suffer from the consequences of racial diversity.

racism_is_evil:

Indeed, the democratic system in the United States of America allowed for the struggle of the Civil Rights Movement to guarantee equal rights for black Americans as well as all others, protected by the RULE OF LAW.

so until the Supreme Court twisted the constitution to outlaw segregation you would have supported segregation because it was [B][U]THE LAW[/B][/U] ? Legalism isn’t a principle I can admire and the Supreme Court decision wasn’t a democratic decision made by the entire american people anyway so you can’t seriously invoke the “democratic system” of the USA.

racism_is_evil:

In fact, the black-American contribution to the defeat of Nazi-Fascism in the Second World War was an instrumental part of the later campaigns for Civil Rights among the people.

If the americans who fought against nazi Germany knew that their actions would lead to the destruction of their white country I doubt they would have kept on fighting for the US government.

racism_is_evil:

Your argument is completely wrong; if the Nazis (people like YOU) had won, there would never have been a chance for these oppressed people to achieve their freedom.

what chance did the blacks had to invade white towns and institutions up until the Supreme Court twisted the constitution to outlaw segregation ?

Besides had there been a referendum on the question of racial segregation in the 1950s the sane whites would have won. That’s why there was no referendum. It’s your argument that’s completely wrong

racism_is_evil:

The very system, the fundamental structures put in place hundreds of years before, of the United States allowed these Americans to achieve equality under the name of the LAW.  This is the burden, and the beauty, of DEMOCRACY. 

funny how the Supreme Court, the Congress, the Senate, the President, all of them until the 1960s didn’t thought blacks deserved equal rights. Are you saying the US became a democracy only when the Supreme Court outlawed racial segregation without asking the american people if they agreed with them ? whoa that’s [B][U]DEMOCRACY[/B][/U]

racism_is_evil:

Didn’t I know that you are a european racist pig and you will burn in hell. I did knew that.

receiving messages from God as well ?

the bottom line is that America was founded and maintained by white racists pigs until it was hijacked by enemies of the american nation. deal with it dimwit

dimwit:

You are psychotic.  Your belief that if any race inter-breeds with your race constitutes “genocide” is the most minimal kind of lab-rat thought. 

let’s mix all the rottweilers and the chihuahuas together until none of the two former exist anymore. If they don’t exist anymore they’re extinct, dead. Genocide isn’t a murder of individuals it’s the murder of a race or particular group. Even a dimwit like you can understand that.

Posted by JB on April 02, 2007, 05:14 PM | #

You are all sick pigs and will burn in hell.

I think we’re dealing with a muslim teenager here. his obsession with pigs is kind of revealing

(GW, how come the bold and underline don’t work?)

Posted by Guessedworker on April 02, 2007, 06:12 PM | #

JB,

Try <> instead of [].

Posted by your_KIN on April 05, 2007, 03:31 AM | #

Hey, so-called GUESSED-WORKER: 

You wrote:

“It was explained perfectly clearly to me forty years ago that Scots don’t wear kilts all day in Auchtermuchty and don’t much wander in the gloamin a-singin after the bonnie Prince.  Your notion of Scottishness is quaint and you don’t know any better”

I have not proposed any “notion of Scottishness” that you suggest and only utilize a different spellling than you prefer. 

Why would my preference for writing “Scotch-Irish” over your preference, “Scots-Irish” cause you to respond in this manner?

Your preference of “scots” over my “scotch,” is, by any standard, quaint.

Is it also quaint that because I am from the United States of America, and you are English, and that I am of Irish/Scotch stock that you would choose to belittle my background, and all of those who preceded me, by mocking my spelling, and by mocking me and my ancestors.

It is, indeed, quaint, that you are obsessed with spelling.

Not so quaint, nor unusual, that as an englishman you would belittle the Scots so readily.

Posted by McWhat? on April 05, 2007, 04:01 AM | #

Eire MaCSCOTCH?

Oh, so called Eire (LIAR) macwhatever, I don’t need to “go to Africa” to find “plenty of attractive african women, the negro eldorado,” for I can simply look around me.  If you haven’t grasped the simple facts, I can’t help you.  I can, howeve, impede you.  All of us are African.  The skin color is not the issue.  Your concepts of race are sadly misfounded. 

Even if your sick concept of 90% white were to become law, this would never become truth, because there is no such thing.  You can do your own research to figure this out-- but don’t rely on your fascist friends. 

Also, study the constitution, bitch.  The American experiment in Democracy is precisely that: an experiment.  The project moved from stage to stage.  Truths held self evident. 

Greater men are greater than you.  You have lost the battle, and the war. 

Let your children live in a better world, admit your inferiority, and your loss. 

racism_is_evil:

Yes, America was racially segregated at the time of the Allied victories against Nazism and Facsism.  I can state clearly that I would not call them Nazis, because they weren’t.

yet you call us nazis because we want either racially segregated societies or countries with at least a solid 90 % white majority with legal safeguards against whites becoming a minority or having to suffer from the consequences of racial diversity.

racism_is_evil:

Indeed, the democratic system in the United States of America allowed for the struggle of the Civil Rights Movement to guarantee equal rights for black Americans as well as all others, protected by the RULE OF LAW.

so until the Supreme Court twisted the constitution to outlaw segregation you would have supported segregation because it was [B][U]THE LAW[/B][/U] ? Legalism isn’t a principle I can admire and the Supreme Court decision wasn’t a democratic decision made by the entire american people anyway so you can’t seriously invoke the “democratic system” of the USA.

racism_is_evil:

In fact, the black-American contribution to the defeat of Nazi-Fascism in the Second World War was an instrumental part of the later campaigns for Civil Rights among the people.

If the americans who fought against nazi Germany knew that their actions would lead to the destruction of their white country I doubt they would have kept on fighting for the US government.

racism_is_evil:

Your argument is completely wrong; if the Nazis (people like YOU) had won, there would never have been a chance for these oppressed people to achieve their freedom.

what chance did the blacks had to invade white towns and institutions up until the Supreme Court twisted the constitution to outlaw segregation ?

Besides had there been a referendum on the question of racial segregation in the 1950s the sane whites would have won. That’s why there was no referendum. It’s your argument that’s completely wrong

racism_is_evil:

The very system, the fundamental structures put in place hundreds of years before, of the United States allowed these Americans to achieve equality under the name of the LAW.  This is the burden, and the beauty, of DEMOCRACY. 

funny how the Supreme Court, the Congress, the Senate, the President, all of them until the 1960s didn’t thought blacks deserved equal rights. Are you saying the US became a democracy only when the Supreme Court outlawed racial segregation without asking the american people if they agreed with them ? whoa that’s [B][U]DEMOCRACY[/B][/U]

racism_is_evil:

Didn’t I know that you are a european racist pig and you will burn in hell. I did knew that.

receiving messages from God as well ?

the bottom line is that America was founded and maintained by white racists pigs until it was hijacked by enemies of the american nation. deal with it dimwit

Posted by Guessedworker on April 05, 2007, 10:51 AM | #

Thank you, and well done - no, really I mean well done - for typing so much, and with such a fascinating juxtaposition of grammatical and expletive ornament.  I am simply knocked to the floor, really ... just don’t know how to muster a reply to your devastating argument

Have you ever considered turning your hand to a bit of philosophy.  Might I suggest a place to start in a critique - modest, of course, as befits the exquisite minimalism of your prose style - of Wittgenstein’s Tractacus, which I am certain you will find not in the least intractable.

After that, you could do almost anything ... waft your scented path through Africa, perhaps, planting the polished seeds of true intellect wherever you could get on down with one of your (obviously eager) co-prognathities.

If, genius, you require a translation of the above, ie what I would now like you to go and do, you will disappoint me tremendously.

Bon voyage.

Posted by ok on April 20, 2007, 04:08 PM | #

euroasians imo are uglier than indo-europeans(latinos)

well it’s true that white women are popular(dreamlike) in asia
, less in china,but extremely in japan....

but that’s just physic appearance, no one is born superior to the others

Posted by ok on April 20, 2007, 04:40 PM | #

really really really sad the “anti racists” are much much more
snobbish, loud,Clamoring, rampant than the supposed racists

why the hell is that?? I thought the PC days have already gone

mr richards could deleted their posts, because those are even more aggressive than many PC sites

the “anti-racists” are the comformists.. when racsits were in majority , they went wen with racist, when anti racists are now in majority , they now have betrayed themselves

Posted by okk on April 20, 2007, 05:20 PM | #

white and yellow people both can be beautiful, of course .whites are more beautiful.  only pure blacks are almost always ugly, a few exceptions, michael [removed], thierry henri....

one must admit that whites are always “superior” to others anywhere in the world.. in japan 90% dream of the whites
they prefer europeans to americans, good taste!
in china , people still are very curious about “foreigners” whites! not ni*ggers, but certain a chinese can’t find a japanese to be a foreigner on the street for obvious reason
in india , people are actually caucasians mixed with blacks from indian ocean, and southeast asians, so they look much darker than whites… now guess what ??all the actors /actresses are light skinned… if you consider indians are white then they are probably the most racist people
they not 1% hypocritical to avoid words like “ni*gger and go*ok....

russia is another"racist" country, where the cops are always bully the chinese, their people always feel asians are ugly
here is a picture they draw :
http://antifa.ho.com.ua/images/gooks.jpg
very “racist” they are, if not for money I suspect none of their women will go with a chinese, etc..
many even have “offensive” words in their marrige resume
of course 70% state they only go with whites, mostly preferably
Europe , USA. etc

and in mexico ,although 90% population is spanish mixed with the natives. I found all their soap stars to be pure white at least 95% white(spanish origin)
, in brazil, a none-rich black marrying a white is unfathomable
.. and all rich blacks definitely choose a white wife. contrary
to in USA, the more a black is prestigious , the more probably
he has to choose a black wife....

well, in southeast asia. those who have more or less spanish blood naturally prefer whites to asians, as you saw one above from philippine

whites are more beautiful , and it’s a truth. a non-white can be a good athlete, a good musican, a good writer, even a good president in USA, but he/she can’s win a beauty contest over whites

Posted by Menge on April 22, 2007, 02:24 AM | #

LOL
OKK:
The pic you provided was faked by a Chinese student, in order to make fun of Koreans. Obviously the eyes in the pic are made with Photoshop. It’s a very famous pic and many people in Asia know that.
How could you think that is real?

Posted by Menge on April 22, 2007, 05:54 AM | #

“well, in southeast asia. those who have more or less spanish blood naturally prefer whites to asians, as you saw one above from philippine”

Many southeast Asians (especially Fillipinos) have very low self-esteem. They call themselves ugly and stupid everywhere, and try their best to marry East Asians or whites. I would say that’s a very ill-formed culture.

However, they do not represent the majority of East Asians. At least in China, few males preferring marrying white women though it might be a “prestigious” thing socio-economically. Ironically a lot of Russian women choose to marry Chinese. If you go to northeast China you’ll see…

Posted by U.R. on April 24, 2007, 08:33 PM | #

J Richards,

Among Caucasians, Nordic/blondeness isn’t necessarily most attractive. Sorry about the missing credits in the last two.

http://geocities.com/ultrariner/u_1.jpg
http://geocities.com/ultrariner/u_2.jpg
http://geocities.com/ultrariner/u_3.jpg
http://geocities.com/ultrariner/u_4.jpg
http://geocities.com/ultrariner/u_5.jpg

It would be a tough call for most people to compare the above with these below.

http://geocities.com/ultrariner/e_1.jpg
http://geocities.com/ultrariner/e_2.jpg

A more thorough, although more difficult to implement, study would compare the rest of the body along with the face. It should generate averages for various levels relative attractiveness within each ethnic group, as opposed to having only one average per group. In my opinion though, at least among the cream of the crop of each population, Caucasians would still look better.

BTW, how did you find out about Asians demanding--even undergoing surgeries for--a Caucasian look? You don’t just ask them, right?

Guessedworker,

A fixed “homeland” might be ideal, but the status quo isn’t too bad, since Caucasians basically dominate almost everywhere, in more than just a few aspects. As for feeling betrayed by the “top/elites,” that’s a matter of competition both within a race and across national borders, thanks to globalization, but I’m sure they are getting what they want and have things calculated out.

It is conceivable that some genes and eventually traits might integrate well with non-Whites, or that the number of those already having admixture grows. Would we end up with White--except for perhaps the skin color--Moroccans, Filipinos, Chinese, Brazilians...?

Posted by Guessedworker on April 24, 2007, 09:10 PM | #

European Caucasians are 8% of the world population, and it is their lands that are suffering Third World ingress.  It’s one-way change, I’m afraid, about which we were not consulted and to which we have never given our consent.  I see no reason to accept it.  The elite-driven fait accompli does not hold the prospect of our survival.  Therefore, it is just cause for revolution.

Posted by Menge on April 24, 2007, 10:53 PM | #

“European Caucasians are 8% of the world population, and it is their lands that are suffering Third World ingress. “

What ???
Give me a break. Whites are everywhere. They are in Africa, they are in Asia, and they are in Americas and Australia. Now you say they suffer third world ingress? How ironic!

Maybe they should give the lands in Americas and Australia back to the colored?

Posted by Guessedworker on April 24, 2007, 11:16 PM | #

What is your ethnicity, Menge?  Where are you living?

Posted by U.R. on April 25, 2007, 05:46 AM | #

Can some one tell me why the pictures didn’t come out in my last post?

In the U.S., I’ve never met any Caucasian who’s “apologetic” about his or her race, nor about their ancestors decimating the Native American population, although there are one or two on TV. As for any “3rd World ingress”, it is a product of democracy and capitalism. Apparently some of the elites--a group that is overwhelmingly if not entirely Caucasian--do not take other Whites that seriously when making decisions related to survival. It appears that for now maintaining a homogeneous territory isn’t the most competitive strategy, and that it is easier to draw the lines some other way. Competition is ugly, albeit less so if you are the winner. Maybe that’s why Europeans don’t like Americans.

Posted by Guessedworker on April 25, 2007, 06:34 AM | #

U.R.

My Firefox browser displays seven Nordic brunette pictures on your comment.  How many did you post?

On the ingress issue you are not quite grasping the whole picture, if you don’t mind me saying so.  Among other things, it is important to see how advanced liberalism, democracy, human suggestibility and elite and other interests and motivations conjoin.  We are not facing some unfortunate combination of accidents or the blind force of destiny or Nature or whatever.  Our increasingly perilous condition is, in quite a strong sense, intended and desired by the elites and their proxies with a near-religious conviction.  Unsurprisingly, any talk by people like us of its correction is abhorred with a entirely genuine if irrational hatred.  The only permissible course for modernity is that it becomes, in all the Western homelands of the European peoples, a suicide cult.  And it has.

Posted by U.R. on April 25, 2007, 08:52 PM | #

Never mind my question about the pictures--it was probably a temporary glitch. The last two pictures show Mischa Barton, who, as far as I know, is blonde. My point was that although blondeness is found at a greater frequency in people from Scandanavian countries and nearby regions, we shouldn’t obsess over one hair color.

Not every people is operating under hatred. Take the Japanese for example. Their youth absolutely worship Westerners, hair color, culture, and all. Are we supposed to feel flattered or a bit uncomfortable?

Liberalism is a gain if it accommodates non-Whites who are working in fields that Whites prefer not to enter themselves. Meanwhile, among the top-tier universities in the U.S., there is an enormous amount of funding--compared to that going into AIDS** vaccine, for instance--for research in brain & cognitive science, with strong interests in the practical manipulation of emotions and other faculties. This is a reflection of the elites trying to undermine the numerical advantage of the masses. Opposition against the elites originates mostly from the inland states, which are almost exclusively White, less so in those that had used the greatest numbers of slaves in the past. But then again the White populations in these states are having many more children than those in the coastal and border states.

**I think even percentage-wise, in the U.S., more Blacks than Whites have AIDS.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on April 25, 2007, 09:49 PM | #

I haven’t understood half the points U.R. has made in this thread (I still don’t understand what his point about female attractiveness was supposed to be, for example) but a point of his which I understood and think was excellent was his intimation that the explosion in funding on brain research the past fifteen years has been a reflection of the hope on the part of the élites of finding ways to better control/manipulate the masses (who risk becoming pretty damned mad at the élites once they figure out they’ve been the victims of élite-directed race-replacement, not to mention being sent to fight unnecessary wars).  The funding/energy devoted to gun control is of course the same thing:  a reflection of the élite desire to disarm the masses so they can’t one day rise up and go on a rampage against their élite tormentors.  The white élites know exactly what they’re doing and fear reprisals on the part of the oppressed white classes some day — and not witout reason.

Posted by U.R. on April 26, 2007, 04:54 AM | #

Mind manipulation would be applied to the non-White populations as well, in fact, to any one who gets in the way. The elites should already understand something as obvious as this.

Fred, why would the elites do whatever they are doing were it not for inexpensive and sometimes highly-skilled labor? We can drive out immigrants, but afterwards, we must deal with the loss in productivity. Even then, this productivity, instead of being diverted from other nations, would be competing against the U.S., albeit taking on the entire nation as opposed to being directed at, sorry to say, the not-too-highly-regarded members of Whites. I totally understand your ideal that Whites should be independent. The question is how willing are you and others to fight for it, even suffer or die, knowing that success is not guaranteed.

Posted by Artaxerxes M. Garcia on April 28, 2007, 02:52 PM | #

Let me rephrase what I’ve written: Not Indian beauties, not the adulterated mexicans, BUT the pure bred -the Europeans and Europeans alone. I mean, the Caucasians. Theirs alone is the standard beauty on earth. An eye which sees other race as beautiful is a perverted, twisted eye. Would you dare to pronounce the miserable idea “Black beauty”? Is there beauty in blackness? Is Solomon absolutely black? Maybe dark; he must be joking in The Songs of Solomon. Black skinned, dark brown skinned people, and those with a flat improminent nose, Asian profiles, are not beautiful. Only the whites. Most people of the world are convinced that the Caucasians alone are the supremely beautiful people. No other else.

Posted by Lurker on April 29, 2007, 03:12 AM | #

U.R. - you mention productivity. Were many white countries to evict a sizeable portion of their 3rd world immigrants I would expect their overall national productivity to leap forward overnight.

Posted by U.R. on April 29, 2007, 05:57 AM | #

That’s actually a plausible outcome, although exaggerated. If you don’t mind me rephrasing it, what Lurker may be suggesting is that things might work out better if immigrants were traded in for savings, machines, technologies, ..., even population replacement, provided that they are White.

What should we do then? And is it solely because of cultural presumptions that we place such values on the lives of the immigrants, or is it that they are actually competitive?

Artaxerxes,
I am wordless…
On a second thought, hehe, maybe you can share with us the things you’ve done because of how beautiful Caucasians (in general, not just ones that have made it to the magazine covers) are.

Posted by ok on May 01, 2007, 08:07 AM | #

menge (maybe I should call you mongo?)

the pic was made by a russian, admit it, there are russian letters on the bottom. other things you said are nonsense too
.... russian women prefer chinese men ?? to who?? maybe to african indigenous men.lol.... even the turkic women avoid the chinese..

Posted by okk on May 01, 2007, 08:21 AM | #

I agree with mr richards, only some white prostitutes prefer non-white, such as chinese, etc who they can get more money from..lol

to menge you said
“However, they do not represent the majority of East Asians. At least in China, few males preferring marrying white women”

how can they prefer those that are not realistic for them..
they can’t choose , how can they have the right to prefer??

you said
“Ironically a lot of Russian women choose to marry Chinese. If you go to northeast China you’ll see… “

i guess they are trying everything to avoid poor or average chinese, and find very rich old men....lol

Posted by okk on May 01, 2007, 08:59 AM | #

to menge

you see almost all the chinese men marry chinese women .so you think they prefer chinese women ??
but you are ignorant..the truth is the average or poor chinese men have only one option, they are unable to have a preference....so they prefer , but they can’t gain....

as for rich chinese men, yes they can have preferances. so they prefer white women, though few of them had managed
to get a real white woman. some of them were cheated , their money had been taken away.. cause the rich chinese men are generally uglier than the average chinese men , a typically rich old chinese man is like john woo....

Posted by okk on May 01, 2007, 09:17 AM | #

well menge, you see most european women marry european men , you think they prefer european men? you are right..because they can choose from all race men..,but you see most african men marry african women or most asian men marry asian women. then you think they prefer those women,? you are wrong, cuz most of them have no choice..

the same for immigration. most americans live in america, so they prefer to live there, .... most russians live in russia. no. that doesn’t mean they prefer to live there....so they try to go to Uk france italy germany or america instead

Posted by okk on May 01, 2007, 09:36 AM | #

it’s sour grape, menge.. you see a man ride a bike , you think he prefers bikes to cars, you see a man drives a car , you think he prefers cars to helicopers.... even he tells you that, it could just be the sour grapes for him

whites are more beautiful than non whites, humans are more beautiful than animals. beauty indeed lies in the eye of the beholder, but that is among the same types .you can never argue that the some pigs are prettier than some does

case over

Posted by Menge on May 01, 2007, 05:23 PM | #

“the pic was made by a russian, admit it, there are russian letters on the bottom”

I saw this pic about two years ago on a Chinese website. The origin is not completely clear but it’s very unlikely to be from Russia. If you want, I can forward you a Chinese website too.

Posted by Menge on May 01, 2007, 05:29 PM | #

“.... russian women prefer chinese men ??”

Hmm maybe your Enlish is even worse than mine. I never said such thing or implied such thing. I just told you it is a fact that many Russian women married Chinese men. It does not mean Russian women prefer Chinese men or Chinese men prefer Russian women. It just means the racial barrier is not that obvious, to many people other than you.

Posted by Menge on May 01, 2007, 05:36 PM | #

“you see almost all the chinese men marry chinese women .so you think they prefer chinese women ??
but you are ignorant..the truth is the average or poor chinese men have only one option, they are unable to have a preference....so they prefer , but they can’t gain.... “

There are many rich Chinese men too. In China (mainland), Hong Kong, Taiwan… How many of them marry white women? maybe less than 1%. Don’t tell me they have no choice.

It is true that more Chinese women marry white men. However we all know that women care less for “looking” than for money and power, when the choose the spouse.

Posted by Menge on May 01, 2007, 05:48 PM | #

“whites are more beautiful than non whites, humans are more beautiful than animals. beauty indeed lies in the eye of the beholder, but that is among the same types .you can never argue that the some pigs are prettier than some does
case over”

Maybe you should have argued something more useful instead of throwing about a bunch of empty sentences.

It’s ok for you to think Whites are more beautiful and I believe that’s your real opinion. But don’t be angry if I insist preferring Asian women. I live in the west too but my favorite female movie stars are mostly Asians, many of whom you’ve never seen.  I do feel many white women are sexy and beautiful, but they are not truly my type. I don’t like the women with too sharp features (and no I don’t like the other extreme either).

It’s also disgusting to compare non-whites with animals. Seriously you should examine your mind.

Posted by Menge on May 02, 2007, 01:45 PM | #

Hi Fred,

I’m a Chinese living in the US. I didn’t tell my race because I thought it is not important to the discussion here. However it seems that a few guys here have imposed some extreme opinions on Asian people. I just wanted to tell you guys that not all Asians think the same way.

I don’t think it’s fair to blame Jewish people either. In the US Jews are classified as “White” too and usually people can’t tell the difference by looking. They pretty much perceive themsevels as white too, though not WASP.

In the US black people are 20% white, genetically. Many of them have European paternal ancestry. The reason is obviously their maternal ancestors were raped by white Americans. It’s a very sad story.

Posted by Menge on May 02, 2007, 02:41 PM | #

OK. Let me post some Chinese Movie/TV stars here. Even if you are not attracted to Asian women you probably cannot deny they are beautiful, and some non-Asians will be attracted to them. (There are many non-Chinese Asian stars but I’m just more familiar with Chinese. And I’m more familiar with old-fasioned 80-90’s stars. Sorry. )

http://www.movbus.com/EdPic/ttuppics/2006/10/10/2006101015561597866.jpg

http://clubpic2.chinaren.com/uploadfile/200608/373/PXWtw.jpg

http://cn.yimg.com/sp/sarticle/ent/200506020949260.jpg

http://www.sxgov.cn/pic/11855111.jpg

http://bbs.52ox.com/UploadFile/2006-1/20061905216715.jpg

http://www.heb.chinanews.com.cn/todaybd/news/dsc/2007-02-23/_1172196582_13.jpg

Posted by okk on May 02, 2007, 02:56 PM | #

menge, you wrote :
“It’s also disgusting to compare non-whites with animals. Seriously you should examine your mind”

I did not compare them. no hard feeling ok?

“It’s ok for you to think Whites are more beautiful and I believe that’s your real opinion. But don’t be angry if I insist preferring Asian women. I live in the west too but my favorite female movie stars are mostly Asians, many of whom you’ve never seen.  I do feel many white women are sexy and beautiful, but they are not truly my type. I don’t like the women with too sharp features (and no I don’t like the other extreme either). “
it’s your opinion, what we are arguing is the general opinion
what the most people prefer....I also believe you are not alone.... remember Gary Sinise in Forrest Gump ? after he gets disabled, he finds himself an asian woman, stereotype , ah?.. i repeat i believe some white guys prefer non white women.... for different reasons

“I saw this pic about two years ago on a Chinese website. The origin is not completely clear but it’s very unlikely to be from Russia. If you want, I can forward you a Chinese website too. “

so how do you explain the russian letter on it? I added them the link is also in a russian site

“There are many rich Chinese men too. In China (mainland), Hong Kong, Taiwan… How many of them marry white women? maybe less than 1%. Don’t tell me they have no choice”
I remeber I said the rich ones could have choices.. but not many succeed , many different reasons, language, family(parents) etc.I reckon..

“It is true that more Chinese women marry white men. However we all know that women care less for “looking” than for money and power, when the choose the spouse”

lol, you seem to consider china a poor country, then how about the japanese women? those asian american women?
why do they prefer white men?.. well talking about japan..

i agree with mr. richards again, don’t tell me you never have seen their commercials, posters, aimees. japan is most possibly the most and real white wannabe country in asia.. so they are the most developed, advanced there
japanese americans also rarely cry racism, since they are white wannabes, which quite explains the situation
remember mike in “fargo” ? a quite negative image of asian man
the actor who plays mike is japanese, I guess according to his name

“Hmm maybe your Enlish is even worse than mine. I never said such thing or implied such thing. I just told you it is a fact that many Russian women married Chinese men. It does not mean Russian women prefer Chinese men or Chinese men prefer Russian women. It just means the racial barrier is not that obvious, to many people other than you”

you were so condescending to say your english is bad.lol
racial barrier is not that obvious?? well I can’t find evidence to prove my words, but, maybe you should take a look at some mail order bride sites. the barrier is shocking, even for me..
after i googled “russian women”, I found many russian dating sites and bride sites.. ..the “racism” is even beyond me..lol,
I pretty enjoyed reading there as I did here....

I sometimes even found black women sexy, but .most of the time, not.  understand??  I didn’t allege all non whites are ugly, and all whites prefer white to non whites (remember mr richards said those already somewhere)

menge i hope you are not an asiaphile,lol
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=asiaphile

as Fred said, whites are the victims.............we only here to talk about something normal that we probably can’t talk in Pc sites(most sites actually) fred is so right ,times aren’t normal
a white man marries a white woman , (he certainly prefers white women )but he certainly wouldn’t proclaim he prefers white women, a director uses white actors
,but he wouldn’t say that too....

why??..

Posted by okk on May 02, 2007, 03:05 PM | #

“Jews, such as Prof. Alon Ziv, a Jewish academic who’s hawking a book telling whites they have to intermarry with Negroes while Jews themselves
including Prof. Ziv, wouldn’t touch Negroes with a ten-foot pole” by fred

a very funny but strong point!! lol, one of the most accurate remarks I ever seen..

Posted by okk on May 02, 2007, 03:21 PM | #

so mengo, now you know those are just our opinions, stop acting like an anti-racist lunatic!

fred, those white victims of brainwashing are mostly of low quality, ugly, stupid,..... though a few of them are good or above average people..quite pathetic for sure.....

when will the world become normal, your prediction?

Pc can’t always prevail, everything has an end

Posted by Menge on May 02, 2007, 05:28 PM | #

“so mengo, now you know those are just our opinions, stop acting like an anti-racist lunatic!”

Not “mengo” but “menge”. I believe “okk” does not equal “kkk” either. you see?

I’m just showing my opnion, the same as what you are doing. And I represent many people you have never talked to because of language, culture, politics, etc… So be open!

Posted by Menge on May 02, 2007, 05:44 PM | #

“it’s your opinion, what we are arguing is the general opinion
what the most people prefer....I also believe you are not alone.... remember Gary Sinise in Forrest Gump ? after he gets disabled, he finds himself an asian woman, stereotype , ah?.. i repeat i believe some white guys prefer non white women.... for different reasons “

So what’s your point? A disabled white man married an ugly Asian girl? (she is truly ugly) so what? What makes you so high about it?

“so how do you explain the russian letter on it? I added them the link is also in a russian site”

Do you know anything about computer techonology? It ain’t so hard to add something on a pic. I’ve told you I saw that on a Chinese website two years ago, with Chinese words of course. BTW in the pic the costume the students wear is obviously not Chinese. They don’t look Chinese either.  Anyway, it’s a funny pic no matter who created for what purpose. But people like you make it disgusting.

“lol, you seem to consider china a poor country, then how about the japanese women? those asian american women?
why do they prefer white men?.. well talking about japan.. “

Whites are more prestigious in western countries. They are the mainstream. Is it so hard for you to understand? eh?

“whites are the victims.............”

It is the most funny comment ever.

Posted by Menge on May 02, 2007, 05:51 PM | #

“ those white victims of brainwashing are mostly of low quality, ugly, stupid,..... though a few of them are good or above average people..quite pathetic for sure..... “

Let me tell you something more. Most racist rednecks (including those who dare not admit they are) are of low quality, ugly, stupid too. They are good-for-nothing losers so they hide behind a computer spreading hatred and discrimination.

Yeah, being a white is the only thing they can brag about. I’m sure they will try their best to make it sound great.

Posted by Menge on May 02, 2007, 06:02 PM | #

“you were so condescending to say your english is bad”

Not being condescending. My English isn’t that good and that’s why I usually don’t argue with people too much. I feel I’ve wated too much time here too. In fact arguing online is always stupid because nobody gets convinced for sure.

Posted by mel on May 03, 2007, 05:33 AM | #

You can never measure beauty.  So to be honest this article and research is a big waste of time.  (and waste of my time by reading it)
I prefer Dark hair, dark eyes, dark skin, muslim looking non-white people and I thnk they are the best looking in the world.  That’s my opinion, and I know people have opposite veiws. 
Just don’t use your personal ideologies next time and you would do fine making a interesting hypothesis.

Posted by okk on May 03, 2007, 11:48 AM | #

continue the research

http://www.elenasmodels.com/index.php?list=searchadv&method=modify_form

fred , in russia, people are probably not that PC....if you search White/European on"your race” option ,a 108 pages result comes out, 50 per page,,,, it’s shocking for an american liberal, right?

5000+ women only seek white men, others say"not important"( doesn’t mean they prefer non whites,about 109 pages 5000 women too)so they just don’t exclude non whites.
I think it’s sorta polite and modest.. they certainly wouldn’t give equal chance to non whites

well, it seems russia doesn’t have a jews controlled, liberal active media..lol..... so my prediction is the last white baby(100&#xwh;ite) will be born in russia someday

fred, I can be certain that the western white people(including jews, liberals themselves) don’t really like non white people more than eastern europeans, but just to be afraid of speaking out openly at this ultra PC time.. your jewish media brainwash theory now has been perfectly proved above

the rusian police are famous for “racism” toward non whites..while the british cops act like professianal “anti-racism” warriors .....

a race can’t last forever, 100 years 1000 years or 10000 years. a question of time.....

Posted by okk on May 03, 2007, 11:57 AM | #

“I prefer Dark hair, dark eyes, dark skin, muslim looking non-white people and I thnk they are the best looking in the world”

like isabelle adjani?, certainly gorgeous . or you post a typical dark skin muslim woman’s pic, so we’ll judge her beauty we will be fair

Posted by okk on May 03, 2007, 12:05 PM | #

menge :
“So what’s your point? A disabled white man married an ugly Asian girl? (she is truly ugly) so what? What makes you so high about it? “

ugly????, I think she is average for an asian woman, her face is a little ugly, but she has a nice body, i remeber she is slim and sexy,, a lucy liu’s type
I didn’t feel high.... i felt very even....legless sinise and his asian baby.lol

Posted by okk on May 03, 2007, 12:51 PM | #

PS : in old days in US or South Africa , before the apartheid ,even white prostitutes could have their preferences, especially SA....(see those delicate old movies,
even if a white prostitute agrees to go with a non white man， mainly blacks..since he can’t find a hotel,( there were only tow kind of hotels then “white only , or “black only") and he can’t go home too, if he is married. so...he can only give up..lol)

but today ,a white woman can’t speak out she will never marry a non-white, if one trys that,the(minority) pundits will call her racist, and demand her apology....

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=racist

Posted by okk on May 04, 2007, 12:33 PM | #

menge’s words:
“At least in China,few males preferring marrying white women though it might be a “prestigious” thing socio-economically.”

is he brainwashed???? it’s asian men , black men, hispanic men who need much more money to marry white women..

http://www.nationalvanguard.org/story.php?id=8688

actually that is an eternal truth.any normal people don’t need to read that research report to know that truth

when did a non white man marry white woman for her money??????????????????????????????????

now I understand why it ‘s so hard to convince him, he has a reverse mind.........

Posted by okk on May 04, 2007, 12:52 PM | #

he thinks white women marry asian men for their beauty??
and asian men marry white men just to gain prestige? to become rich????

i give up!!, i admit failure!

richards and fred, keep on your work of great wisdom..
I will be absent for a long while......................

Posted by okk on May 04, 2007, 01:18 PM | #

lol, speechless, if whites really found non-whites beautiful, whites probably had already all gotten mixed with them , and those liberals,jews don’t need to desperately hype now....

still being shocked to have heard that.... bye

Posted by okk on May 08, 2007, 11:21 AM | #

PS: you said you were from China, and now in the West.
so i was wondering why you came to the West? as far as i know china has everything that the West has now(computer, super market, space ship ect.....) except white people!. so tell me if you were not for white women(white men if you are gay)
,why did you come????anything special or new for you chinese?

Posted by U.R. on May 09, 2007, 03:53 AM | #

LOL, it’s more like 1% of China has what 80% of the West has.

Posted by Cindy on May 24, 2007, 11:10 AM | #

Monica Belluci s very beautiful.  Her hairline on her forehead is masculine though.  The Asians on the study were alomost on the looks level as the caucasians. Maybe 10% not as ugly.  You just need to face it; Eurasians tend to be beautiful!!!  The men and the women.  Beauty comes in all ethnicities.  There are beutiful white, black asian, latino, and middle eastern people aren’t all turban wearing terrorists.  Some of their women bare a great resembelnce to your beloved Monica Belluci. 
Why are you acting so racist?

Posted by Cindy on May 24, 2007, 11:17 AM | #

P.S. J. Richards
Being a taller, longer legged woman is a masculine trate.  And I noticed southern European women to have more femanine, hourglass figures.  Blonde women tend to be more straight.  Natural blondes age most out of all women and tend to need make up more than any other women.  Cover up the top half of Belluci’s (receding) hairline and you will see a beautiful, femanine face.

Posted by Guessedworker on May 24, 2007, 12:08 PM | #

Cindy,

Please remember that the racists are those who deny Europeans their right to exist as such.  The liberal leftist and Jewish writers who commend miscegenation on false grounds (ie, “beauty” in the case of Rhodes or “fitness” in the case of Ziv) are pursuing for us a genocide of the bedchamber.  It is not racist to resist this stratagem.  It is natural and right.

Think less conventionally.  The truth has to be dug out sometimes.

Posted by okk on May 25, 2007, 12:20 PM | #

http://www.date.com/GetFullProfile.do?other_profile_id=12646765
funny a white woman in china still doesn’t want to date chinese
......

here are some women date every race except asian
http://www.connectingsingles.com/free-dating-vinnnmonk3.htm
http://www.connectingsingles.com/free-dating-sperrera.htm
http://www.connectingsingles.com/free-dating-aussie_mama.htm
http://www.connectingsingles.com/free-dating-singlemum72.htm

Posted by F.H. on May 29, 2007, 09:44 PM | #

I don’t know if this thread is still active.  I just wanted to add a few things.  I agree with both sides.  First of all, the “racist” side is comparing beauty on a large scale. Ofcourse, there are exceptions on an individual level. 
Secondly, I agree with the “anti-racist” side that we should not assign human worth based on race. All humans have the right to exist in peace.
I appreciate the discussion for intellectual curiosity, but we should be propagating ideas instead of races because people can’t help which race they belong to.
Also, I believe strongly in individualism, so I don’t support any collectivist action of propagating a certain race. People should be free to choose whomever they want as their mates. Collectivist thinking is one of things I don’t like about eastern cultures. I believe in personal freedom to the fullest.
Although, I do understand the fear that non-whites have about not seeing their kind around. I think the fear is natural.  But I don’t think that whites will disappear.  Just imagine it in reverse, even if there is a lot of race mixing, the darker people will also be altered.
F.H.

Posted by lovelyasianamerican on June 02, 2007, 08:44 PM | #

It looks like the eurasians in the pics look like some all asian blooded individuals i’ve known.  Asians are so stereotyped to look like the wide faced, smaller eyed counterparts.  Many asians look mixed with white, hispanic looks in asia.  Now they are saying asians are wanting to look more western, there’s nothing wrong with this either, only a bigoted person would try to put you in their little box of shoulds and should nots, lol, how silly is this hype in the media.  Everyone just laughs at this.  Asians are wanting to look like other asians.  I caught a glimpse of the oprah show with a korean immigrant being exploited for ratings, lol.  Another bigoted patronizing view.  Asian people of all ethnicities from the tartars to northern to southern russia to india to japan to all of southeast asia are beautiful people.  You should be proud of your heritage and not let ANYONE stop you from doing what you got to do to be happy.  Love yourself first and love others.

Posted by whenever on June 02, 2007, 08:51 PM | #

beauty is in the eye of the beholder.  and in e’vry backkground their is the not so good looking and hottie.  asian, caucasian, hispanic yous gots them yummylicious ones!  i wanna see more gorgeous asian eye candy, not them yucky ones on the boob tube!  who the heck chooses those funny looking asian and caucasian actors?

Posted by Guessedworker on June 02, 2007, 09:40 PM | #

F.H.

You really haven’t a clue, not a clue, about the fundamentals discussed in this post or at this site.  Let me try to pound into your liberalism-addled brain a few home truths.

Only the living spaces and common goods of European Man are being appropriated by invading, genetically-distant peoples. 

Why?

Japan, a wealthy country, is not being invaded.  So it isn’t wealth that is the key.  Israel, supposedly a “Western” democracy, isn’t being invaded.  So it isn’t the wonders of democracy.

Russia, a vast country with a declining population, isn’t being invaded.  So it’s not just native demographics.

What can it possibly be?

Just maybe ... maybe it’s a deliberate policy of an internationalist power elite paid for by big business interests and set upon the leftist agenda of deconstructing white society, thereby to liberate mankind from the fetters of tradition, nationality and religion.

Not got it yet?  Well, don’t take my word for it.  Here’s General Wesley Clark, then in command of U.S. troops in Serbia and now a Democratic presidential candidate, remarking to a CNN reporter in 1999 that, “There is no place in modern Europe for ethnically pure states. That is a 19th-century idea, and we are trying to transition into the 21st century, and we are going to do it with multi-ethnic states.”

OK now?  Beginning to see the bigger picture?  I hope so because you really need to move on from all that critical rationalist, semitically-dictated trope-orama about how you “believe strongly in individualism” and don’t “support any collectivist action of propagating a certain race”.

You are NOT an individualist.  You are not even very individual.  You have absorbed all your “big political ideas” from the liberal zeitgeist.  You have no ideas of your own.

How do I know that?  Because you think that a preference for European survivalism is “racist”, that’s how.  Slave thinking.  Has it never occurred to you that Europeans are under attack?  I guess not.  Has it never occurred to you, then, that “the anti-racist” side is the aggressor.  In other words, those who deny sovereign homelands for Europeans, and who demonise our desire to survive are the goddamned racists?

But I guess you haven’t worked that out either, have you?  In fact, you have an awful lot to learn, young man.  So here’s your starting point:-

You are a member of a people, and not just any people but the greatest, most creative and beautiful on the face of the Earth (and I am doing you the honour here of assuming that you are, in fact, of European descent).  The members of this people, as with all peoples, share an interest in genetic continuity and in protection of the homeland because territory is the key to survival.  It is natural to want to survive.  It is moral to survive.  It is immoral to condition consideration of that with vague perjoratives such as “collectivism”, just as it is immoral to call it “racist” or “fascist” or any of the other boo-words that are regularly thrown in the face of love.

Now go away and LEARN.

And good luck with it.

Posted by eric conners on June 15, 2007, 04:08 AM | #

I find your racial rants posing as scientific study quite alarming.

Not only the originator of this site but the contributors who may or may not realize this site is a propaganda site for racist agendas.

The need to show one’s own race as being esthetically more pleasing than another hints at signs of discontentment, past unhappy dealings, or inferiority-superiority complex with respect to self, in relation to one or more people of the other races.

It is true that in many asian as well as african countries the local population holds the caucasian features to be an idealized version of beauty, but that may have been in part to western commercialized images in media, art and advertisements as well as some truly noble individuals of Caucasoid ancestry having visited and lived in those countries in the past - missionaries for example.

As a representative of the current generation - if the individuals posting their opinions on this site - would well want to remember that it is not only physical beauty but beauty of the soul that is important - the racist rants displayed in this forum cannot but demonstrate that as a society the west has fallen far from its nobler aspirations.

Posted by Guessedworker on June 15, 2007, 03:37 PM | #

eric,

Why are our comments “racist rants” and yours is not a “suicidalist rant”?

A racist is one who disallows humanity to a person or persons of another ethnic group.  Show me that attitude here.  Because all I can see is the lack of humanity you allow Europeans who speak of their interest in survival.

Posted by Artaxerxes M. Garcia on July 04, 2007, 01:08 PM | #

Whatever your silly, tricky, conceited ideas are, Caucasians -the white people, are the only beautiful people on earth resembling God’s face; not Asians, not the Blacks, not the chopstick races, no the amalgamated Filipino stock, but the white race.

Posted by Artaxerxes M. Garcia on July 04, 2007, 01:11 PM | #

I am a Filipino but I don’t appreciate Filipina beauties, and that from my childhood even up to this time.

Posted by Darrel on July 08, 2007, 05:46 PM | #

You have issues Garcia.  I use white toilet paper to wipe my feces.

Posted by martin_uk on July 08, 2007, 09:31 PM | #

Surely there are objective ways of comparing the relative beauty of racial groups? One such piece of evidence is the presence of very many websites that advertise Asian and Eastern European brides for Western men, and the absence of websites that advertise African brides for Western men. There are many very poor women living in Africa, as in the East, and if black women were attractive to white men in sufficient numbers then there would be many sites along the lines of “asiabrides” or “russianbrides”. But there is no “africabrides”.
In my view this simple fact cuts through all the rhetoric written on this thread.

Posted by Darrel on July 09, 2007, 10:11 AM | #

Are you kidding me?  You take one facial structure and somehow manage to reconstruct the original frame into different racial categories?  This experiment is not only delusional but doesn’t make any sense no matter how you try to manipulate your figures.  Humility and sensitivity is a form of attractiveness, but somehow it seems like those two words don’t comprehend in your peanut sized cerebrum.  Those diagrams are complete nonsense, it not only ridicules how narrow minded you are but shows your lack of common knowledge.

Posted by Artaxerxes M. Garcia on July 25, 2007, 03:54 AM | #

what_genocide? is nothing but all empty words and phrases. Perhapd this person is not a real being. All his thoughts are illusionary and unrealistic. Of all the commentators here, his senseless polemics are mere barage of stingy vocabularies -true evidence of inward toxicity. Go to mental hospital WHAT-GENOCIDE? !!

Posted by mike on August 28, 2007, 03:29 AM | #

You know i disagree with this article ,i dont think whites are more attractive than east asians,maybe more attractive than africans but not east asians.You should google Lee Hyori Korean pop star i think she is most beautiful.

Posted by Lurker on August 28, 2007, 11:38 AM | #

Ive been looking at pictures of Lee Hyori. Yes she is a pretty girl, no argument there.

In some photos one could be forgiven for thinking, at least wondering, that she might be European. Of course, make up, hair styling, lighting are all complicit in that. So its interesting that a Korean girl held up as beautiful on a global scale happens, sometimes, to be marketed through her images as looking European - just a coincidence? Just like those Bollywood girls in fact, the ones held to be the most beautiful - more than white girls - also happen to the ones who look most like white girls.

http://img313.imageshack.us/img313/6954/g27zk.jpg

http://www.digitalstudioz.com/hyori/HYORI_LEE371.JPG

http://hyori-lee.skyrock.com/pics/95053153_small.jpg

http://i33.photobucket.com/albums/d67/wilsondukeoflizards/hyori6.jpg

Posted by Lurker on August 28, 2007, 11:41 AM | #

Oh!

I only meant to post links to the pics, not to clog up bandwidth by actually posting them. Didnt know that would happen.

Posted by Neil on August 29, 2007, 12:35 PM | #

There’s nothing wrong to discuss beauty among races, but I agree this is politically racist.  Let’s look at why; first the ideal that blond hair is preferable, which most people in the EU would disagree with, but goes along quite well with the whole Aryan persona of Hitler.  Now, you could argue that this was simply your preference but who do you (or Gillian should I say) choose to showcase Japanese as less primitive...bro, I could have believed you up to that point but after that?  No way..have you even been to Japan?  I would say Chinese are way closer...I’ve met one in a rural farming province once who looked like Richard Gere.  Most Japanese I’ve met tend to have the most rounded faces among Asians...I mean, this is the best I would have seen on the streets (bbc pic);

http://www.bbc.co.uk/bbcthree/images/programmes/japanorama/japanorama_e02_360x200.jpg
http://www.roadjunky.com/images/261.jpg
http://www.watch.impress.co.jp/game/docs/20051006/psp08.jpg
http://nedstorm.com/img/j-girls.jpg

These are just some regular pics I’ve found on regular news sites and blogs, and nothing like the “avg Japanese” you pictured...which, btw, would probably be super in reality imo.  Then I wondered how it was possible to make such a factual blunder, they look the opposite you claim, more primitive....but then wait, Japan was Germany’s ally in WW2....

Posted by N2 on August 29, 2007, 12:40 PM | #

btw, on that hyori person looking white...she’s got high cheek bones, thin eyes and a flat face...how could u make the mistake??

Posted by MIKE on August 30, 2007, 08:51 AM | #

Hyori doesnt have flat face yopu need ti see more pictures of her.

Posted by Lurker on August 30, 2007, 09:50 AM | #

Did I say I was mistaken N2?

I said that in some photos Hyori has been portrayed as looking less Korean and more European - Im pretty sure that its deliberate.

Someone who had never seen her before, looking at some of those pics I posted, could be forgiven for being confused about what her origins were.

My point, or least what Im asking - is the fact Hyori is held up as a prime example of pretty Korean womenhood (which I wouldnt argue with at all btw) related to the fact that she can in some respects look a bit European?

Its important as regards imagery since most people are going to be rating her looks that way, not on chance face to face meetings at the local grocery store.

Posted by Chole on September 11, 2007, 05:04 AM | #

I find Indian woman to be gorgeous. Especially Aiswaria ray, shes is an unbelievable indian beauty.  Someone wrote that non-whites could never beat whites in beauty pageants. This is false! I’ve watched many and so many indian woman have won miss world and miss universe.

There are gorgeous woman in all cultures!

as for whites perserving their race LOL. everyone is mixed with everything. The pure race is considered the Aryan race which are high caste brahman hindus in India. I don’t think 90% of whites give a shit about perserving their race cuz most of them are already mixed.

Posted by André on September 17, 2007, 11:08 PM | #

I’d say that blonds are more beautiful, and that bright eyes are more attractive so is fuller lips and tall bodytypes, long hair is also very attractive and so is a small waist with a tight glutus and great shaped quite full breast.

This is considered by the most people as being the ideal type of women.

The ideal type of men is tall, manly, blond, bright eyes.

I’ve been to Japan, Italy, Kenya, Ghana, Brazil, Chile and the blond people always attract other people because it’s a rarity and it’s beautiful.

Posted by metoo on September 24, 2007, 09:25 PM | #

what’s patheticly blind is the assumption your “children of the corn” looks are the ideal. 

have you been to an allwhite town? scary, dreary, morbid and ugly just as your looks.  see, i can stereotype too.

you are also smellier, pastier, dumpier, big-cow-eyed, big-nosed, big-featured, fatter, burlier,etc you also resemble the barn and barnyard animals like cows, pigs and dogs.

shall i go on?

unlike asian who generally look similar to cats or chimps which are much cuter

and btw, asians are not all burly or have large jaws idiots, it depends on the ethncicity just like caucasians ethnicities and groups.  german butch anyone, lol?

No, asians have beautiful pearly skin, epicanthic cat-like eyes, less hairy and have an otherworldy beauty.

You are missing the point of POV AND MENTAL PROGRAMMING.  YOU SEE WHATEVER THE FUCK YOU WANT TO SEE IDIOTS.  it’s natural to consider your point of view the correct one because you are coming off from your own comfort zone. 

This article proves their is a lack of real intelligence and it’s all an embarassing farce but you don’t realize it because you have your head stuck all the way up your own rectum.

Btw, asians are getting really tall but not the burly stocky build of caucasians which i’m glad about.

You also assume any positive looks of asians have to do with whites, well the same logic could be said of caucasians and any positives must be due to mixing with others somewhere along the line, pink or mud cows, lol. 

And if your race is so attractive, why are all YOUR MASSES OF UGLY PEOPLE HELLBENT ON COSMETIC SURGERIES OF ALL KINDS AND DON’T LOOK LIKE THE MODELS ON YOUR MAGAZINE COVERS HUH??? LIARS, your average does n’t look better than other average citizens.  It’s a farce, and your prejudice toward your own features.  A fat,dumpy. average faced blue-eyed blonde can still be ugly as sin with caucasian features.  Just becaue you are caucaisan doesn’t make you beautiful, braindead idiot.  LOL!

I was in a thread where some white cow was going off on the appearance of asians and i posted a pic of ken watanabe, the finest looking man i’ve ever laid eyes on and EMPHATICALLY SHOVED THE TRUTH IN HIS FACE that IN THE END AND BOTTOMLINE, I THOUGHT HE WAS MORE ATTRACTIVE THAN ANY CAUCASIAN BECAUSE HE HAD THOSE SEXY ASIAN FEATURES.  PERIOD!!!!

http://sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=70992 a little lesson and enlightenment on pov.  Hehehe.

Did you know i think caucasians are actually ugly? secretly of course, LOL.

Posted by METOO on September 24, 2007, 09:33 PM | #

“I’d say that blonds are more beautiful, and that bright eyes are more attractive so is fuller lips and tall bodytypes, long hair is also very attractive and so is a small waist with a tight glutus and great shaped quite full breast.

This is considered by the most people as being the ideal type of women.

The ideal type of men is tall, manly, blond, bright eyes.

I’ve been to Japan, Italy, Kenya, Ghana, Brazil, Chile and the blond people always attract other people because it’s a rarity and it’s beautiful.

Posted by André on Monday, September 17, 2007 at 11:08 PM | #”

NO HONEY, I DON’T FIND THAT THE MOST ATTRACTIVE.  Actually, I like my men, TALL, USUALLY DARK-HAIRED AND WITH STRIKING ASIAN FEATURES.  TO ME, YOU LOOK LIKE ALBINOS, OKAY???  YOU HAVE A SELF-CENTERED POINT OF VIEW LIKE AMERICANS WHO THINK AMERICA IS THE UNIVERSE. 

SEE, THIS, THAT’S WHAT I FIND ATTRACTIVE
http://sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=70992

Posted by metoo on September 24, 2007, 10:06 PM | #

If white people ever really woke up from their hubris, it would be a rude awakening.  Let me put it to ya this way, I ‘d rather be born asian with asian looks any day of the week over any other race, period.  I think we look hot, cool and unique compared to your dumpy, cowstruck looks.  LOL.  Maybe you need to take another look at yourselves instead of the convenient flattering one! hahaha Your people are ugly as fuck and don’t compare to beautiful asians period, no way.  Maybe that’s why the tradeoff in why asian looks are stigmatized more.  We definitely look more refined and sophisticated than that barnlook of yours.  hindu with caucasian features?? LOLOLOL, *throws up*.  You who are on the outside have no idea of our own beautiful people who have nothing to do with caucasian features either.  Some have epicanthic fold, some don’t yet both can be extremely beautiful still.  STupid, dumb idiots.  For example, Yunho of DBSK is gorgeous and he actually has classic asian features.  Dumb cow-barn bigots.  It absolutely disgusts me how whites assume they are the most attractive, i’ve been contempuously chuckling in my heart all along, blind pompous motherfuckers!

“""This is a good article to highlight what I had mentioned before and that is the power of POV. Consider how a eurocentric view does not take into account thier own ugliness as that’s natural and highlights according to thier parameters and comfort level.

The beautiful features of the pearly skin, high cheekbones, cat-like eyes and epicanthic fold are not noticed because that is not thier point of view or taste. It’s not even in their radar similarly certain types of taste would be foreign and lost on them as well. This person refers to a hindu with caucasoid features and thier opinion as well, well most people on the planet resemble caucasians if they are not asian but I don’t find their features really beautiful or the total ideal either. I think overall, asian features are much more beautiful and refined and this is something they will not understand but that’s natural. I see caucasians as being too dumpy, burly, pasty, big-featured, too down to earth, hairy etc. and they really are not as a group more attractive than anyone else, it’s a spin they’ve been able to push on others because it’s sincerely their point of view and others have taken it on. I really think northeast asians are far more attractive than western ideals of beauty when it comes to the bottomline. I prefer that look and hold it in higher esteem. The problem with westerners is they are subjective but think they are being objective because they are extremely self-centered. To prove my point, I started a thread which posted pics of attractive as well as unattractive asians and caucasians and the results showed that beauty is very much a social programming because the caucasians were just if not more unnattractive compared to the asians using a different value system than theirs. That’s how it works. It’s a western dominated world right now so it’ follows.

“As far as white opinion of Asian (Mongoloid) attractiveness goes, this should be fairly intuitive to a white person. None of my white acquaintances or friends have ever said anything positive about the Mongoloid appearance, and whites generally do not aesthetically appreciate whites with large cheekbones, flattened noses or large jaws. Therefore, it is unlikely that they will generally aesthetically appreciate a population where these traits are the norm. Assuming that you have Caucasoid features, what do you think about Mongoloid facial features? Ignore skin color, just focus on the bone structure and soft tissue traits. A Hindoo acquaintance of mine, with a Caucasoid face, told me that Hindoos often refer to Mongoloids using a contemptuous term that translates to flat-faced; I don’t recall this slur, but I guess that whereas they do appreciate the light skin of the Northeastern-type Mongoloids, they dislike Mongoloid facial features. “

Notice something. I don’t like large eyes or western noses either, i actually don’t find that large, usual, cow look especially attractive. I think they look boring as much as we look the same to them. I like beautiful asian features more. They also unfairly pick certain ethnicities to compare against their own. We all know of the pink, burly white of white people, should we say that’s the measure of a caucasian?? Even within thier own ethnicity their are ugly people that are their own traits and can’t be blamed on anyone else. I can walk out my door and see tons of average or ugly white people who look nothing like those on the cover of vogue. Different hair or eye colors or just being a caucasian does not make you attractive and can’t do jack $hit to help you. Consider this example. I’ve actually seen butt-ugly or average caucasians and african-americans, even some hispanics make fun of or denigrate the looks of asians because they are assuming that ‘asian’ features are stigmatized as being unnattractive while ignoring the hideous ugliness of themselves. That is just racism. People tend to find their own selves or kind more attractive and denigrate others. If they can’t they try to program them to see things from their point of view.

All in all, I think asians are the most beautiful race and look very unique and that’s my opinion of course. “"”

Posted by METOO on September 24, 2007, 10:17 PM | #

DO YOU WHITE FUCKERS WANT ME TO POST PICS OF YOUR EVERYDAY BLACK, WHITE, HISPANIC, INDIAN ETC ETC AND PROVE TO YOU THAT MOST ARE UGLY OR AVERAGE????

HUH????

THIS RACIST SHIT IS *UNBELIEVABLE*.  FUCKING REALLY BUT THE SHAMEFUL PART IS THIS STEREOTYPING TOWARD ASIANS HAS BEEN GOING ON FOR A WHILE NOW.

IGNORING THE MAJORITY MASSES OF YOUR OWN UGLINESS, MOTHERFUKERS.

KARMA IS GOING TO BE A BITCH. 

BECAUSE WHEN BEAUTY TAKES IT’S HIGHEST PLACE, IT’S ASIANS THAT ARE THE MOST BEAUTIFUL PERIOD AND MOST REFINED LOOKING. 

YOU CAN TAKE THAT TO THE BANK, SO HAVE YOUR FUN NOW LOWLIFES.

Posted by mettoo on September 24, 2007, 10:33 PM | #

The truth is all caucasians look like some form of this… like it or not, no matter what socioeconomic level.  Ugly fucks.  I’d rather be born an asian peasant than a fucking redneck or caucasian.  How’s that for flattery and a reality check!!

cowboys, *throws up*

Posted by metoo on September 24, 2007, 10:49 PM | #

know what’s most absurd i’ve found, it’s how caucasians or anyone thinks they can’t be made fun of or have nothing that can be portrayed as ugly or unnattractive or inconsequential.  LOL.  That results from having little brain and an easily brainwashed mind.

the finest man i know..epicanthic fold and all.  Take that!!

beautiful..

cute..

beautiful face..

UKnow is the most handsome, most courteous man in the world.”

shim chang min

lee ki-woo

Posted by metoo on September 24, 2007, 11:02 PM | #

These are your men and they do nothing for me.  Get it? muthafuker.  I think they are FUGLY and they look like they might be crossbred with a saint bernard too.  LOL, see it’s a bitch to get a taste of your own medicine ain’t it?  I’d probably find some chinese guy working in a humble restaurant more attractive than these ugly fukers, it makes me nauseous just looking at them biscuits.  It’s POV, BABY!!



[img]http://www4.army.mil/ocpa/uploads/large/ACU2004-06-14.jpg/img]

Posted by Andy on September 24, 2007, 11:19 PM | #

Uh oh.  Angry Slope alert. 

One question, metoo.  Where do you live? It certainly wouldn’t be in a majority white country, amongst all of those “stupid”, “hubristic”, “ugly”, “cow-like”, “racist” Caucasians, would it?  That’s the real issue here.  The question of which race is the most beautiful is just a silly distraction.

Posted by METOO on September 24, 2007, 11:29 PM | #

oh forgot this pic, since you like to stereotype asians, then i can do the same and there sure are a heck of a lot of fugly whites out there.  hahaha.

And to be even more fair, let’s do a little comparison and to get your head out of your ass once and for all to see the light.  As for taller asians, that has to do with diet.  They are getting super tall in asia just through access to more food period, you can compare north and south korea alone to understand that conclusion.  NOrthern chinese were taller than southern due to diet etc etc.  I, as an ASIAN will prefer asian looks like ....

Super Junior member-choi siown
Full Name: 최시원 / Choi Si Won (pronounced: Choy Shi Won)
Nickname: Simba
Birthdate: 1987-Feb-10
Profession: Actor, Singer, Model
Education: Hyun Dae High School / Inha University (Physical Education Arts Department)
Height: 190cm
Weight: 62kg
Blood Type: B
Kpop group: Super Junior
Talent agency: SM Entertainment
Hobbies: Singing, dancing, watching movies, Taekwondo, playing drums, computer
Languages: Korean,Mandarin, English
Casting: Starlight Casting System (2003)
First Appearance: October (2003), DANA MV “WHAT IS LOVE”

these because i am ASIAN, i’m not saying everyone does but in GENERAL IT’S NORMAL, you don’t HAVE TO UNDERSTAND BECAUSE YOU ARE ..NOT.. ASIAN. GET IT??  DUH..

I prefer and find those above me more attractive than say these…

Or even this..because he doesn’t have asian features and i am not attracted.  Get it?

Most people find thier own more attractive, DUH, DUH, DUH.

Posted by metoo on September 25, 2007, 02:17 PM | #

disgusting, lying, self-flattering pricks! things like this make me think caucasians are the UGLIEST race of all, really, especially deep down in your character.  You are exceedingly cutthroat more than any other race and your pure image you contrive absolutely disgusts me as well as your fuking disgusting religions, hypocrites to the nth degree. what freaks and look like corpses or panting dogs either way, even your hybrids and mutts.  And no, dumbasses, whatever whites mix with it just usually ends up looking like a miscegenated white that’s all, take a look around the globe, mud city. LOL.

{{{{The whole article seems tainted with false informations, it just incredible to see how much time one can dedicate to fabric such an immense amount of nonsense. One thing that did attract most of my attention is the assertion which claims that East Asian have protruding jaw, or prognathism. In one of the figures he’s shown, we see a skull which he claims to depict a typical Mongoloid, which I doubt is even true. The skull obviously has maxillary prognathism and does not depict the average East Asian. East Asians have been proven to have less prognathism and smaller jaws than any other ethnic group. For instance, I have typical North Eastern features and my chin is more projected than my mouth and my chin is like an inch away from my neck, so it’s not far fetch for me and far from it to say I have a smaller and less protruding jaw than most White if not every of them.

----i agree with you i really haven’t seen many asians with square jaws, there is only the really tall asian basket baller who has a massive jaw, but on average some northern europeans(the ice age survivors) have the heaviest jaws. and that’s because of their evolotion in extreme cold.

but for most europeans(the ones who are decendant from middle eastern farmers and central asians) seem to have heavier jaws because of the angularity which makes it look protuding while it’s less massive that the ice age survivors}}}}

Posted by metoo on September 25, 2007, 03:05 PM | #

This idiot doesn’t know the first thing about genetics or evolution.  “Ancestral features” LOL?  Did you know that caucasians have been proven to be genetically closer to africans than asians??  It’s because you separated from them LAST.  Also their is a myriad of other qualities you share such as wet ear wax which 97 percent of you share including more body hair, sweat more etc than northeast asians.

Our features are not some woowoo primitive trait leftover unbelievable dumbfuck but genetic adaptation.  There were also different tribes out of africa with different features and you can see the migration patterns and how we’ve evolved as well as retained our looks from the past as well, it’s a clue.  Even for caucasians dumbass.

LOL!  Stupid fuck, grow a brain and why can’t you see with those big round blinkers?  Booyah, big headlight eyes.  You look stupid as fuck i tell ya, at least our almond eyes are sexier.  That was called a spin, dumbass and anyone can do it.  See?  Booyah!! blink, blink LOL.

[[[[[[[the article is embarassingly self-serving but typical shamefully. The dangerous or damaging effects of those who propagate like that is they do it with a straight face similar to a rapist or sociopath (they are right in their mind always). It’s easy for those who are not awake or thinking to be bombarded and taken away by it because they assume no one would stoop that low, lie or be that lame. They will and do.

How it’s obviously self-serving is the examples and samples they use. It’s common for caucasians to use the most exaggerated examples of asians to flatter their own race. We all know their are differences between ethnicities within a race. So it would be no different than if I picked out a butchy, stocky german and put that on a pedestal and stated that’s what a ‘white’ is emphatically.

Really, LOL, you can just walk into any chinese restaurant and compare the chinese employees to their customers for an obvious clue it’s all lies and people are dishonest, squew and try to be hypocritical. The chinese workers will almost always have a narrower and slimmer face, body, and generally be even more attractive than others whether they are caucasian or not. They have no makeup and are dressed most practically. I’ve never seen a caucasian and said ‘wow’ they have cauasian features beautiful man. fu-k that, it doesn’t work that way. They propagandize what they ‘want’ things to be like. You ‘this’, me ‘that’ in the hopes that it will happen or become true by stating it so, it’s more wishful thinking hoping others will take action to make it so however they do it.]]]]]]]

Posted by peterpiper on September 25, 2007, 03:30 PM | #

honestly, caucasians look like they are descended from neanderthals.  Nuff said.

of course caucasians think they are attractive and try to convince or brainwash everybody else.

L M F A O. 

you evil, pompous nasty fucks.  TAKE IT and reap it.

Posted by Kulturkampf on September 25, 2007, 08:03 PM | #

Peter Piper - which race invented the technology that enables me to read your drivel? 

Metoo - as Andy asks, do you live in a Western country?  If you do, when are you planning on emigrating?

Posted by if i told you my name, you'd know my race on September 28, 2007, 09:31 PM | #

disregarding whether this study is racist, it seems to downplay a lot of cultural differences. i’d like to amend a little to that.

Someone brought up that a japanese man with a blonde wife is revered in his society. The first instinct is to believe that it is because of her beauty, but think about it, Asia has been coerced by Western empires for centuries before, and their economy is an imitation of western organization. To have someone from the financially dominant west move into the east and take the role of wife, which in asian culture is pretty submissive, is in itself, regardless of beauty, an accomplishment.

Of course you can argue that if his blond wife was ugly he would not be as revered. yeah, thats true, but im suggesting that the cultural context of this inter-racial marriage is the primary focus, and the aesthetic is the secondary.

Throughout history there are accounts of the women of a dominating tribe being more desirable than those of the dominated. Perception of beauty is psychological and changes through time, though rather slowly. Perhaps the success of European empires still has an influence on the world.

Posted by Landulf II on October 01, 2007, 05:24 PM | #

This thread is becoming too vibrant for my tastes.

Posted by noira on October 04, 2007, 09:33 PM | #

Lurker, fyi, Hyori isn’t really held up as a prime example of womanhood in S. Korea, she’s considered hot (skanky at times) but not the prettiest...to relate to the west, it’s like saying Britney Spears represents American womanhood, which is far from ideal as I’ve met way more beautiful Americans. 

Also, I disagree that she’s been put up because she looks more caucasian...she looks like a normal girl except better dressed and even/smooth features.  I googled for some old pictures, since an excuse could be thrown with new material

Hyori again

http://i33.photobucket.com/albums/d67/wilsondukeoflizards/hyori6.jpg

Really old pictures

http://www.provokator.org/magazine/images/stories/n_s_korea2.jpg
http://www.bibi.org/box/2005/10/Old_Korea.jpg

Guys too

http://libweb.hawaii.edu/digicoll/hwrd/hwrd_gifs/119f.gif
http://www.storysloane.com/KOREA%20FARMER%20copy.jpg
http://www.koreafilm.org/images/km045_02.jpg

Anyway, Aishwarya Rai is considered by many (and myself) to be one of the most beautiful females in the world, and she has a somewhat flat face and wide cheekbones and a “primitive jaw” compared to caucasians, so the argument is flawed.  Also, instead of using the term “primitive” jaw, I suggest that you consider caucasian jaws to be rather, “mutated” jaw or “malnurished” jaw or “atrophied” jaw, since that’s like looking at a muscular person and saying he has primitive muscles since the average person doesn’t use/need a lot of muscles to do their 9-5 job or schooling.  Of course, I’d say it’s somewhat ridiculous to use such negative connotations since jaws are simply different, but goes to show how poorly you’re wording your perspectives.

Posted by Janelle on October 13, 2007, 09:16 AM | #

Caucasian features are the most attractive???  Let me tell you something, I’m considered to be of mixed races and I do all that I can to NOT look Caucasian because I don’t want to be discriminated against in a world where the old “minorities” such as anyone not considered Caucasian are becoming more recognized in the media, beauty pageants, etc. And personally I don’t find the Caucasian look very striking at all.  I really take offense and am upset for DAYS when I’m referred to as a ‘white girl’.  Its an absolute insult to me.

People like exotic looks and not the blonde, blue-eyed, sunburned California bimbos.
And have you ever heard the tall, dark & handsome phrase?  Nobody I’ve ever known (Caucasian or otherwise) has been attracted to a Ken doll.

Beauty aside, Caucasians are the minority now and you did it to yourselves from the days of robbing Native Americans (the TRUE Americans) You think the pendulum wouldn’t swing back and karma wouldn’t catch up to your pasty asses??

And as far as beauty goes, most of todays “Caucasian beauties” have features that make one wonder if they are mixed with something.  Blonde, blue eyes with slanted or hooded eyelids, wide full cheekbones, strong angular jaw, full lips (collagen or not, the look is still emulating NON-CAUCASIAN BEAUTY)

Caucasians killed off many indigenous people/tribes, etc., so why bitch and moan about “survival” now?  Isn’t fair that you get justly served for all of the genocide?

Posted by silver on October 13, 2007, 04:33 PM | #

BECAUSE WHEN BEAUTY TAKES IT’S HIGHEST PLACE, IT’S ASIANS THAT ARE THE MOST BEAUTIFUL PERIOD AND MOST REFINED LOOKING. 

YOU CAN TAKE THAT TO THE BANK, SO HAVE YOUR FUN NOW LOWLIFES.

Caucasians are supposedly “lowlifes” for putting forward the argument that they are more beautiful than other races.  Yet, in your retort, you don’t simply obfuscate by claiming that “beauty is in the eye” or that the “truth cannot be known”; you put forward a counterclaim, that, no, it’s not whites who are most beautiful, it’s asians.  It wasn’t noxious racism—the idea that one race was more beautiful than the rest—that sent you into a tizzy, it was that they got the wrong race.  Interesting.

Posted by Danelle on October 13, 2007, 04:51 PM | #

“ I really take offense and am upset for DAYS when I’m referred to as a ‘white girl’.  Its an absolute insult to me. “

We know how you feel… we get insulted and upset fro DAYS when a mixed mongrel such as yourself, the flotsam and jetsam of the mixing of jarring heredities, gets classified as “white.”

Note as well the common thread in which mogrels are full of a burning hatred toward unmixed whites, even to the point of supporting white extinction.

A psychologist can have a field day with this - sour grapes and all that, you know.

Posted by Lurker on October 13, 2007, 07:27 PM | #

Meetoo - youre entitled to your opinion. Especially as you dont live in a white country and would never consider living there surrounded by those awful whites, I certainly wont be coming to yours. We will overlook your hypocrisy in using our internet, our computers, our electricty etc. However if you do then get the hell out of our territory now! Same goes for you peter piper.

Posted by E. Fisher on December 03, 2007, 01:14 PM | #

Artaxerxes M. Garcia has a seriously sad self-image problem.  Hopefully someday he will grow up and learn to accept himself.  Mr. Garcia, you are not inferior to anyone - or the reverse (pride is so ugly). 

There are people from all over the world and mixes between them that are beautiful and beloved.  All are worthy and no one is worthless. 
You are sorely mistaken, Mr. Garcia, and you have purchased a lie hook-line- and sinker. 

Turn off your television and all other forms of entertainment that have pickled your brain.  You speak as a fool.  Get wisdom and don’t sell it. 

I’ll leave you to guess my “race” (there is no such thing) and my perceived beauty.

Posted by E. Fisher on December 03, 2007, 01:24 PM | #

I must add, some of you of the more “racist” persuasion should learn how to spell and express your ideas clearly.  If you think you represent your “white race” you are not doing a good job displaying “superior intelligence” - in fact, quite the reverse.

Then again, there is no such thing as a “racist” because there is no such thing as “race”.  So those who are presently classified as “racist” are just people suffering from incredible amounts of pride.  May you be humbled one day - for your own benefit if you suffer this self-imposed disease. 

We all started out with the same ancestor, and no he was not a monkey.  Adam was most likely of brownish colour with features that represent all the dominant features of what we see today.  He and his wife, Eve, had genetic POTENTIAL to produce all sorts of bone structures, heights, hair-types, and melanin-production.  Don’t forget that we all have the same skin-colour: If our melanin production altogether ceased (as in death)we’d all be a greyish colour.

Get REAL science.  Get wisdom.

Posted by Faust on February 14, 2008, 05:39 AM | #

I’m sorry but this is ridiculous. “Flat faces” happen to be the the least “apish” of all faces so I can’t see how they could possibly be referred to as “primitive”.

Posted by Artaxerxes M. Garcia on February 20, 2008, 09:59 AM | #

I am a Filipino, but I never appreciated Filipino beauties ever since i grew up.

Posted by Nathan on February 29, 2008, 02:14 AM | #

I’m a sound minded Caucasian and I think Margaret Cho is hot! Whoever wrote this article is a fucking retard! and he’s probably too gay to know a beautiful woman when he sees one.

Posted by Stella on May 08, 2008, 01:04 PM | #

White or Asian hev after earli 30’ies began to making potbelliez by vertebraes melt osteoporosis (the Lighest-Anoraxiest mean even meltz down -40 cms besides the soothing health rewievs)- I dont know why is the anoraxec lightest people so popular. Its liking an illness.

this is mos important critique on aestetichs to me next to the intelligence and independence.
The others are just speculation,

I everly avoid trends in all aspects and lately always pursue sunlight, solarium.. etc
So fan of Dark guys as possible.. No matter what is the trend race or nationality but any chance to a better health and life standart.
http://hosting04.imagecross.com/image-hosting-04/49612zv9.png

ivory Liz Taylor on wheelchair..

No Eurasian neither if they are not tan enough..

Posted by Stella on May 09, 2008, 05:52 AM | #

Osteoporose is not a symptom of Andro/Menopose but also an upsetting a feautre begins after early 30 ies.

Posted by knock knock on May 14, 2008, 02:13 AM | #

Racism is bred from inner circles that celebrate their own standards of beauty.  But as adults, we should broaden our perspectives away from what we’ve been taught and trained to think, should we not?  That’s how most enlightened people are.  I’ve peered into myself and all that I hoped for in mankind and kindness is the primary good trait that I search for, while people like you accept or reject people based on physical traits.  You exalt the Northern european beauty.  You seem to have missed the most important beauty is inner beauty that radiates from kindness.  Have you ever experienced kindness in others and in yourself?  The manner in which you wrote did not reflect a kind, loving, and humble spirit. 

What good is blonde hair, blue eyes, or sharp facial features, if no warmth of heart toward other races?  Or if coldness toward other races stems from a purely shallow physical appraisal? Frankly I can recount the cold stare of older generation caucasian faces staring at me without any smile or warmth.  Why, I ask myself… why such cold eyes?  You and possibly the coldly staring folks seem to judge people of other races harshly.  Is a person’s beauty based on how far removed we are from our ancestors?  Who necessitated that we must judge beauty based ont his qualification but a white supremacist?  I frankly find people from any race attractive---caucasian features or not! 

I’m an asian, 5’8” female, with long limbs, medium sized trunk, ample butt and med-sized breasts.  I also have a small/"flat" nose, wide face, wide space between my non-slanted double-lid eyes, full pink lips, pink skin, developed thinker’s forehead, and brownish/black curly hair. 

I do prefer you call us asian over ‘Mongoloid’, okay?  Do not keep using a grossly ancient anthropological term laden with racist agenda.  Despite my very asian appearance, many Caucasians find me attractive---men and women alike.  Why?  I have a total package, as I was told by many.  That’s what makes a human...human. 

Emotional content, such as kindness is extremely important for survival.  It is a much more important trait than any physical trait.  I would think that any evolved person would know the overall value of a stereotypical slanted eyed and flat, broad looking person whose kindness permeates.  The value of a person does not end with looks at all! 

I wish to meet you in person and see how you are because you sound so cold.  You’re not a scientist nor an intellectual. You are a simple man with a simple agenda---white supremacy.  Anyone can see your agend and be ashamed of your views that you can pick apart another races’ physical features as if we’re some livestock.  I think given many other redeeming features of us asians, the way you approach this problematic essay is quite wrong and inhumane.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on May 14, 2008, 02:22 AM | #

Knock Knock, I stopped reading your comment after the fourth sentence.  That’s how bad it was.

Posted by iceman on June 22, 2008, 05:23 AM | #

I’m sorry but this is ridiculous. “Flat faces” happen to be the the least “apish” of all faces so I can’t see how they could possibly be referred to as “primitive”.

Actually, the San people of southern Africa have extremely flat (and Mongoloid-looking) faces, and they are widely recognized to be the most primitive among extant populations of Homo sapiens.

This is akin to the ridiculous “small penis is more refined and positively correlated with intelligence” argument; the truth is that a small penis is a very primitive trait, and the most intelligent primate of all, Homo sapiens sapiens, also possesses by far the largest average penis size. (For your information, the really primitive combination is “large testes + small penis,” which is characteristic of apes; “small testes + large penis” is the more highly evolved combination, which is characteristic of modern humans.)

Posted by silver on June 22, 2008, 11:34 AM | #

knock knock, would your Asian country of origin permit tens of millions, or, to keep it proportionate in the case of China, hundreds of millions of Africans to immigrate and breed with the local population in perpetuity, thus in time replacing the ancient Asian population there—and beating up, robbing, murdering and cursing the Asians the entire way through?  Can you see this happening?  No?  Neither can I.  So when you notice those “cold stares,” now you know why they’re there.

Now, Asians, at least northeast Asians, are not a difficult people to get along with.  But why build a society where people merely “get along with” (barely, usually) or “tolerate” each other rather than love each other, and feel closeness with and general warmth for one another?  The latter is really only possible among racial similars or extremely cohesive cultures that, typically, take decades or centuries to build, usually revolving around a common religion, and even then the racial “range” is never as wide as that of modern America (or Brazil). 

I’m vacationing in Thailand at the moment.  I tend to vacillate a great deal between what in these circles gets called “racialism” and what I (and others) like to think of as “culturism.” So I often find myself trying very hard to imagine how things might play out positively in Europe and European-founded countries, which, as a practical matter, requires me to consciously search for positives in other races.  And so when the generally pleasant Thais smile at me I smile back just as brightly, and for that brief moment and few more thereafter I feel I’ve “transcended” my “prejudices.” But then some snivelling Thai shyte tries to take me for a ride and I find myself cursing the whole rotten race.  This type of resentment is simply unavoidable in multicultural/multiracial settings.  It will happen, and it immediately undoes all the good work that came before it, leaving one to painstakingly rebuild the goodwill—it’s just such an ordeal having to deal with “the Other” all the time.  Things are just so much simpler under conditions of racial/cultural homogeneity (or at least racial coherence). 

If you’ve been in (I presume) the US long enough and feel that you’ve earned your spurs as an American, I can sympathize.  I’m in the same boat, more or less.  I did my damndest to fit into Anglo Australia.  Ultimately, however, it’s too much to ask the average Aussie to sift through 200 antagonistic wogs to find the one (me) with whom they can feel they share some commonality with.  And when I think that my ancestral land is also in the nascent process of being afflicted with the same scourge today ravishing western countries, something—duty, honor, naked self-interest?—compels me to concede the “wicked racists” their case.

Posted by wijitha kumara priyashantha on July 01, 2008, 09:26 AM | #

example http://www.anonym.to/?http://www.gnxp.com/..

Posted by Abesinia on July 01, 2008, 11:18 AM | #

“This is akin to the ridiculous “small penis is more refined and positively correlated with intelligence” argument; the truth is that a small penis is a very primitive trait, and the most intelligent primate of all, Homo sapiens sapiens, also possesses by far the largest average penis size. (For your information, the really primitive combination is “large testes + small penis,” which is characteristic of apes; “small testes + large penis” is the more highly evolved combination, which is characteristic of modern humans.)

Posted by iceman on Sunday, June 22, 2008 at 05:23 AM “
:D Where You this get You racist? apes are live only in Africa and some south Asian country’s And You know they are very “High IQ” and “very civilization” iceman-You civilization is not clever,stronger and beautiful than any other:P Dream on,but truth We see each day.............animals take over the world! Europeans,Asians only civilization persons in world!

Posted by iceman on July 02, 2008, 09:33 AM | #

People need to realize that “primitive” and “progressive” traits of an extant taxon are defined relative to the status of these traits in the ancestral form of that particular taxon. Thus, if we consider gorillas, chimpanzees, and humans, accepting the premise that humans and chimpanzees are more closely related to each other than either species is related to the gorilla, then, from the observation that chimpanzee and gorilla males all have tiny penii while many human males have disproportionately large penii, we should deduce that the common ancestor of gorillas, chimpanzees, and humans was poorly endowed in that department, and humans have, for whatever reason, developed larger “members” in the course of their evolution since their split from the ancestral chimpanzees. The “small penis” is a primitive trait of apes, whereas humans, which have evolved from a subset of apes, tend to possess the progressive “large penis.” This is very simple and unassailable logic.

Any self-purported scientist who claims that people who have smaller penii are somehow “better” or “more highly evolved” is just a moron, probably trying to compensate for his inadequate manhood.

Posted by mike3 on July 08, 2008, 06:50 AM | #

I’ll just throw a log on this fire: You know what? I’ve seen beautiful people of all “races”, and even of mixed “race” as well. Is one “race” more attractive than another on average? I don’t know.

Posted by EC on July 08, 2008, 01:40 PM | #

mark said, “ North European women have hard bone structures, and most have no breasts or behind to speak of besides looking washed out. I have visited the baltic countries and most women there look like men. Light hair in the region evolved to take attention away from unattractive features where as dark hair acts like a frame and brings focus to an attractive face. Southern European women are relatively much more gracile and actually have feminine physiques in sharp contrast with northern women.”

Really?

Posted by EC on July 08, 2008, 02:18 PM | #

Sorry fellows, couldn’t resist that bait!  Boy this sure was a “hot” topic ; D I will now leave the forum to your worthy care…

Posted by Gina on July 15, 2008, 03:38 PM | #

I am disgusted by your comments about Irish women being ugly and obse. How dare you! You are extremely ignorant and I extremely “ugly” in your thinking.

This is the greatest load of twaddle I have ever read and it is extremely racist against Irish women - I am one and I find it extremely offensive.

Posted by EC on July 15, 2008, 08:11 PM | #

Gina, you won’t hear that from me.  Observe…
And these are not rare beauties.  In Ireland they are everywhere!

Posted by EC on July 15, 2008, 08:34 PM | #

Go here:  http://flickr.com/photos/jimfitzpatrick/2434136983/

Posted by EC on July 15, 2008, 08:57 PM | #

Posted by EC on July 15, 2008, 09:00 PM | #

I guess that’s what happens in an open forum such as this:  you get a lot of ignoramuses stopping by.  Notice how the women don’t stick around?  It is clear why they do not.

Posted by michal kucerka on July 16, 2008, 11:19 AM | #

Hallo everybody.

I´ve just got some remarks. I am 181 cm tall, light blond hair, white body hair, colour of my eyes changes depending on daylight from deep green to blue (me and anybody who knows me is pretty puzzled with this). I have never-ever been to any fitness-centre or so but my body is of very masculine shape, highly proportional etc. If you watch any nazi-propagaanda documentary or so, I just look like one of them, and I do not feel like this is something to be proud of.  I am vegetarian, gay… Lots of people of both genders consider me very attractive (OK, may be- I do not care; - I really do not care). I´m from Slovakia, which means in my family there is a pretty huge amount of different genoms. Due to my knowledge there are some Poles, Hungarians, Germans, Turkish etc. and I do not deffinitely look like any member of Slavic group - I mean I have very sharp shaped face.
I am an artist - well I am concerned with physical beauty… I must say I do consider pretty or good looking people of various races. My experience says that I find Mongolians or Thibetians or Manchuria-people more good looking than Chinese, Koreans are much mor sexy for me than Japonese, I find African women pretty, but I do not find African men attractive even if I thought some of them are handsome. I mean I have got nothing against, I do not want to say I dislike someone or so, I just do not consider them as someone whose face is beautiful for me - personaly.
According to find someone very attractive, as attractive to get think about possibility of having a sex with this, of course, depends on each individual but in global: e.g. I find tall blond european as attractive as tall hairy man of semit gorup, I find Kazakh men more attractive than typical Irish men. Light skinned Europens find me attrative or non-attractive- it depends, but Spainyards or Italians as well as men from Northern Africa or middle east find me very, very attractive and even if they are not gay they just sometimes tell me they want to look like me, or they want to have children looking-me-like.  I am not a scientist, but I have never felt any kind of heat to any sub-saharian man ( I have got lot of very close friends of black skin) even if some of them do find me attractive… I keep thinkig about this. I do not know if I am just bloody racist with prejudices, but I do not feel like I hate someone because of race - I never did.  I just want to know - why do I can not be open. May be this are some stupid thoughts.

I hope you do understand my English. 

Michal.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on July 16, 2008, 02:33 PM | #

“I find Mongolians or Tibetans or Manchurians more good looking than Chinese” (—Michal)

I agree with you:  among the Mongoloid races the Tibetans, Mongolians, and Manchurians are the best looking.

“I do not find African men attractive [...] I just do not consider them as someone whose face is beautiful [...].  I just want to know — why can I not be open [about this]?”

You can’t be open about it because it’s true.  If you walk up to a beautiful woman and tell her she’s ugly it doesn’t hurt but if you do that to an ugly woman it does, so you can’t.  With an ugly woman you have to pretend she’s beautiful.  If you walk up to Albert Einstein and say, “You’re mentally retarded, a moron,” it’s not true so doesn’t shock or cause pain but if you walk up to a mentally retarded person who actually is a moron and say that, it shocks and causes pain so you can’t do it. 

It’s true that Negroes are the least physically attractive race and everyone knows it, so you can’t be open about it — can’t go around saying it.  It shocks too much to confront that truth if you’re a Negro, or to confront it vicariously if you’re a member of another race. 

Euros are the only ones considerate enough to care, by the way:  the world we live in is sort of a Euro world.  If this were an Oriental world in which the Chinese, Japanese, Koreans, or Vietnamese made the social “rules,” no one would feel the least twinge of compunction at saying Negroes as a race were unattractive, no one.  It would be such a commonplace you wouldn’t even hear it said, any more than you’d hear, “the wind blows,” or “water is wet” said.  No need, as everyone knows it.

Are we inconsiderate at this site, that we say it?  No.  Normally we wouldn’t say it but we are forced to, because the Jews and others are trying to ram Negroes down our throats, and the only way to put that kind of rude impertinence (or worse ...) in its place is with a dose of the truth. 

Any who are hurt by it have only brought that on themselves.

Posted by iceman on July 21, 2008, 12:00 AM | #

“I find Mongolians or Tibetans or Manchurians more good looking than Chinese” (—Michal)

I agree with you:  among the Mongoloid races the Tibetans, Mongolians, and Manchurians are the best looking.

Mongolians, the best looking among the Mongoloid races? Please don’t make me doubt your intelligence.

Perhaps Tibetans and Manchus tend to have better looks than the average Chinese person, but Mongols are absolutely disgusting. They look exactly like Koreans.

Posted by Kate D on August 26, 2008, 09:34 AM | #

Asian men are also known to significantly less masculine looking. And Asian women have culturally preferred these sissy looking males, thus propagating their weak, unmasculine genepool.

Posted by Kate D on August 26, 2008, 09:36 AM | #

Asian males are also known to be significantly less hairy, and have a less bulky frame.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on August 26, 2008, 10:45 AM | #

It’s good to see a woman whose hormones are in working order, Kate!

Posted by Fred Scrooby on August 26, 2008, 10:48 AM | #

(—Not that we haven’t seen it plenty, around here, with Melba, but it’s always nice to see it in another as well.)

Posted by David on August 30, 2008, 06:57 AM | #

i bet… the author of this article is, at most, an average looking Caucasian who doesn’t really look that great but still holds on to some ideal image of white beauty. Notice how he finds images of normal looking white people that you’d see everyday and if they’re not really attractive he points out that they must be impure, the images are not meant to focus on attractiveness, or one of their non-ideal features is atypical of Caucasians.

I think honestly… the average white face that you’d see everyday (not on television or magazines or billboards, etc.) is… well, just average.  Just like I think the average asian face that you’d see everyday would be pretty darn average as well.

Posted by fascinated bystander on September 04, 2008, 12:07 PM | #

I think the owner of this blog needs a few drinks and relax a bit. Not sure why you are getting so worked up about genes and purity - what about global warming and world famine? chill out and maybe do something to help people.

Posted by B on September 23, 2008, 01:40 PM | #

Asian people are the ugliest people of the world. I would hate to be mixed with asian.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on September 23, 2008, 02:06 PM | #

I just hope Birch doesn’t read B’s comment.  For his own sake, I mean.  Poor guy — imagine him stumbling across it unawares and reading it ... likely go back to drinking.  Isn’t there some sort of reverse-banning thing where, instead of banning a certain guy from coming on the threads, it bans certain threads from coming to a guy’s attention?  Something like that is what’s needed ....  for Birchy our friend ... the least we could do for him ....

Posted by Mel on October 02, 2008, 10:29 PM | #

As a half-Asian person myself, I can honestly agree that I personally find Asian feaures on a whole, very unnattractive.

However, when you make the statement “Eurasians more attractive than ugly Caucasians, not average Caucasians” - are you using this in reference to Gillian Rhodes’s post? Because, evidently, to apply this to everyone is absolutely ridiculous, and inane. Gillian did use images of ugly white people for the experiment, but also ugly Asians.

It cannot apply to everyone, it’s simple. There are Eurasian people who are far more attractive than the average Caucasian, but admittedly, they often look more European than they do Asian. The Eurasians that are considered more attractive normally don’t possess the characteristically “flat face” of your average Asian, or what is known as mono-lids (no eyelid crease). They also usually have paler skin, and brown hair.

And I think it’s sick when white people hanker over Asian women, and find them so “irresistably attractive” due to their race. It’s racial bias, and therefore no different from racism.

I also think that people race mix for all the wrong reasons - they’re deluded in the belief that they will be creating beautiful children, whereas in reality these children could turn out hideous, just like with any other race. After all, you’re making human beings, not trophies.

No one should be regarded as beautiful because of their race, but for their own, individual characteristics.

Posted by whoah on October 03, 2008, 02:44 AM | #

wow, this thread is *still* attracting comments? Hahaha, oh man. Good work J. Richards, good work indeed!

Posted by sighing on October 19, 2008, 06:25 PM | #

I stumbled upon this page looking for an image of Margaret Cho.  I...don’t even know what to say.  It’s hard to argue with people who are so completely entrenched in their own perspective of beauty that they are blind to everyone else’s.  I don’t know even know if anything I say can make much difference, but here’s my two cents: I personally believe that the beauty standard is developed by culture. I understand why people would conduct such studies on beauty, given our modern Westernized perception of it.  However, such studies and refuttals are nothing more than pseudo-science, because how can anyone conduct such studies and write such lengthy refuttals without an inevitable bias? After all, how are we defining beauty? I hope that everyone realizes that what they are arguing about is their individual responses to sets of 2-D images--to me, that is not how beauty is measured.

Posted by Dan on November 05, 2008, 06:48 PM | #

Asian girls are just more atractive.Maybe becourse the angrynes the caucausian gilrs have learnt us white men.
After been with asian girls I know now the defriends and that is worm love from asians while the white girls show angryness after 3 month relationship.

Posted by Mel on November 27, 2008, 11:10 AM | #

Dan, you are a dumb arse. Temper is not defined by race. All of the Asian women I know have the worst tempers in comparison to any woman I’ve ever met.

And a real man could handle a woman’s temper - after all, you must have done something wrong for a woman to get pissed at you in the first place. But no, your whiney pussy ass self can’t handle it when someone gets pissed at you so you opt for a submissive, gentle girl who doesn’t have the guts to tell you that she’s annoyed?

Women of all races get annoyed at pretty much the same things. You’re just too afraid to man up to it so you choose a woman who behaves like a child? Paedophile.

FYI, I’m half-Asian and I hate men like you. Grow up and grow a dick

Posted by Lurker on November 27, 2008, 12:10 PM | #

Temper is not defined by race. All of the Asian women I know have the worst tempers in comparison to any woman I’ve ever met.

Mel - Either you’ve just destroyed your own argument or you should point out that you are only supplying anecdotal evidence which we can feel free to disregard. Please clarify.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on November 27, 2008, 04:49 PM | #

Dan’s English was so garbled I’m not even sure what he was saying, but he was right if he meant to say something like white girls need to get the women’s lib chip off their shoulders.  “Celtic Empress”, the white girl desperate, shrill, white 39-year-old scold who kept coming on here to tell everyone how horney she was for Subcons, had exactly that chip on her shoulder and as a result will become an old maid because no man, not whites, not Subcons, not any man, wants that in a woman.  By the same token, of course, white men have to love and respect white women as only they deserve to be loved and respected.  In fact, in many cases that’s all that’s needed to get the women’s lib attitude inculcated by the Jewish college professors to melt away and the feminine girl lurking underneath to come out.

Posted by Jun on November 30, 2008, 05:14 AM | #

Japan, Korean and Chinese 20++ guys...Asians tend to age slower.

http://nd.blog.cz/a/azumi-hugo.blog.cz/obrazky/11179851.jpg

http://static.flickr.com/110/308963187_40c01c9868.jpg

http://simage.damoim.net/tvxq/cd/gallery/Gallery_TVfXQ06/03.jpg

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/173/398515800_0e8bfdcc00.jpg

http://srv0110-07.oak1.imeem.com/g/p/c2a6e7ee59f71f60fae87fac1d75a6f0_web.jpg

http://img517.imageshack.us/img517/4180/junki35xd5.jpg

http://img368.imageshack.us/img368/5899/hyunbin2wg6.jpg

http://cdimg2.crunchyroll.com/i/spire4/04202008/c/1/8/5/c185efe37624d0_full.jpg

http://cdimg2.crunchyroll.com/i/spire4/07042008/7/6/5/7/765779f834e4b0_full.png

Posted by Monkeys Brains on December 02, 2008, 12:17 AM | #

Eurasians look good. This is racist.

“No mentally sound white should find remotely attractive”?
Tell that to all the white girls and Asian girls out there.

Posted by Monkeys Brains on December 02, 2008, 12:22 AM | #

*guys

Posted by Bored on December 07, 2008, 03:12 AM | #

@ J Richards: Have you ever actually been to Ireland/seen real Irish people up close? No? Cos I’m a person of ‘mostly Irish ancestory’ actually living in Ireland, and I’ve gotta say that neither I nor any Irish girl I know looks anything like those ‘super caucasian’ composites. My face is probably closer to the asian composite image, not because I’m asian, but because I don’t look like a bloke. Plus I’m (SHOCK! HORROR!) not even close to being obese; in fact there are far less obese people here than there are in America (which is where I assume you come from). Though I don’t think the obesity problem there has much to do with all the ugly Irish people, but instead is probably due to the fact that the meat there is so full of hormones and crap that it’s a wonder how everyone there isn’t dead. Besides, the problem with the composite faces isn’t really that they’re obese anyway - it looks to me more like the faces are hyper-masculine for females (When I first saw one of them I honestly had trouble telling if it was a man or a woman.) Even if they were thinner they’d still be manly.

The whole ‘Eurasians are purdier’ experiment is indeed stupid on many levels; for a start the caucasian composites (well at least the female ones) are waaaay below average as you said, and composites in general aren’t going to create a ‘Eurasian’ face (Seriously have the people conducting this experiment ever even heard of Medel’s Laws??) They shouldn’t have been used in the first place. But your post is also full of shit. For a start I know loads of caucasian men from all over the world who would date a girl with features like Margaret Cho. And they’re not particularly insane (you might have some serious issues though).

I saw from some of your other posts (because I was masocistic enough to look) that you just LOOOVE nordic girls; well those ‘ugly obese women of Irish ancestory’ you were talking about share more genes with nordic people than any other group in Europe; aside from actual Finnish and Scadinavian people. You also claim that nordic girls are far more ‘feminine looking’ than any other race. Well, I’m sorry to say, but any average asian woman I’ve seen has far softer and more feminine looking facial features than any of the nordic girls in the pictures you posted, whether they’re considered generally more attractive or not. Or maybe you just need your eyes checked.

Posted by Bored on December 07, 2008, 03:52 AM | #

Oh, and I didn’t mean to suggest in my last post that most Americans are morbidly obese (I know they’re not), just that in recent years proportionally there seem to have been far more cases of morbid obesity in America than in Ireland. I probably shouldn’t have assumed that J Richards was from America either. It was just the impression I got from his posts.

Posted by Jessica on December 07, 2008, 11:56 AM | #

I do find White features to be better looking than non-White features. But if you give me an Asian in a suit and tie and leather shoes, and a White guy in the same outfit, I’d go for the Asian guy. Personally, I find Asians more charming, sophisticated, polite, intelligent, and disciplined. Most of the White guys I know are loud, obnoxious, overly confident, and rude. This is probably not the most appropriate way to put it but, I’d look for a White guy for a one night stand, but give me an Asian for a husband. Asians may lose out in the beauty category, but they win hands down in categories that are so much more meaningful. Intelligence and character are very sexually appealing. And I do want my children to grow up learning Asian values.

I believe the ‘downfall’ of the White morals is caused by this ‘blessing’ of ours. The dumb blonds and jocks aren’t cliches for no reason. The Whites idolize beauty too much as a result of our prettier features, which is good in that it has given the Western world its Greek-god sculptures and beauty-glorifying poetry. But look at what we have today - women in skimpy outfits prancing around on MTV, teenage pregnancy rates soaring sky high, and such. Wilde’s novel was prophetic. Beauty does bring decadence, and compared to the non-Western countries, we really are a very decadent people.

I wonder why we are even preoccupied with all this. It’s obviously just bringing out the ugly and racist nature in all of us. And seriously… we’re discussing prettiness? When we have so much more to worry about?

Posted by Guessedworker on December 07, 2008, 12:27 PM | #

Bored: For a start I know loads of caucasian men from all over the world who would date a girl with features like Margaret Cho.

Our understanding is that this is a consequence of the white self-estrangement by, enslavement to, an alien-imposed cultural environment.  It’s a small part of what’s wrong overall, and what needs correcting.

The truth is that European feminine beauty and European masculinity are evolved as an indissoluble pair.  European males who exhibit a preference for Asian women need reminding of that fact, and of the fact of their own enslavement to the zeigeist.  Essentially, they have already been deprived of their true masculinity, and that is not an appropriate station for any man.  They need to be more independent and to take control of themselves again.  The same goes for European women who encourage negroes to fuck them.

Posted by Guessedworker on December 07, 2008, 12:33 PM | #

I take it from your comment, Jessica, that you are youself European/East Asian mixed race.

High intellect by European standards, btw, is unusual among East Asians.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on December 07, 2008, 01:59 PM | #

“Beauty does bring decadence” (—Jessica)

No.  What’s brought our moral decadence is largely the same thing that brought Weimar Berlin its itz.  Like the Berlin of 1918 to 1933 we’ve been Weimarized, a condition which entails great concentration of wealth in the pockets of a few who also harbor marked ethnic hostility toward the broad population and use their concentrated wealth to weaken that population morally and racially.  Weimarization is a very unpleasant disease, sort of like societal AIDS — but it’z curable.

Posted by Jessica on December 07, 2008, 06:55 PM | #

Guessedworker, yes I am Eurasian and proud of it. And I am a little more biased toward my Asian part.

I do not have strong evidence to counter what you said about East Asians not having strong intellect by European standards. But there are little evidences here and there to prove you wrong. The Olympiads and Putnam competitions, for example, have seen a very large proportion of East Asian winners (not just participants), and that proportion is growing as more East Asians migrate to the States. You might say that the Europeans are more achieved scientifically and artistically. But you must remember that many Asian countries (in particular China) were devastated by poor and corrupted governance, natural disasters, and raids, and they are still living in the wake of the devastation. East Asia was scientifically and artistically superior to the West for many centuries before their collapse. Many of those same factors destroyed the Romans, but I don’t see anyone calling the Romans “not smart enough”. I’m not saying East Asians are smarter; I’m only saying it’s terribly wrong for you to simply conclude that they’re inferior intellectually. Perhaps you’re just feeling insecure after reading all those studies about East Asian countries having higher national IQs (which btw, might not reflect “intelligence” so much as hard work, which is prevalent in Asia).

To be honest, Guessedworker, you sound like the kind of white person who only mixes around with other white persons. Go out and mix around a bit (and when you do, please drop that supremacist attitude).

Posted by Guessedworker on December 07, 2008, 09:00 PM | #

Jessica,

The respective Gaussian distributions are:-

Posted by Captainchaos on December 08, 2008, 12:31 AM | #

Jessica: “To be honest, Guessedworker, you sound like the kind of white person who only mixes around with other white persons. Go out and mix around a bit (and when you do, please drop that supremacist attitude).”

Jessica, the reason you mostly identify with your Asian side is because you look Asian.  That is the problem with race mixing, it destroys Whiteness.  As for your suggestion that more exposure to non-Whites is all that is need to cure White Nationalists of their ‘ignorant’ attitudes: LOL!  I work with mostly black people.  It is not unusual to look up and find myself the only White guy on a particular work line.  Fifty percent or better of what they talk about is “our people” and “black people” and “OJ was innocent”.  You are the one who needs to get out more.

Posted by Eye of the Beholder on December 08, 2008, 07:58 AM | #

I’d say the Super Caucs, both male and female, in the pix were the most unattractive of the lot.  The Av Caucs were moderately attractive and when they got mixed a bit with the Asians, become “good looking”.

The Super Jap female was good looking, and the Super Jap male was moderately attractive.  So yeah, I mean, given the samples above, the Eurasians definetly came out ahead of the Super Caucs, but the Super Caucs chosen for the photo samples above were not attractive people to begin with, whereas the Japs were, so combining good looking Asian features with ugly Cauc ones resulted in good looking Eurasian faces. 

I’m sure there are some Super Caucs out there who are not bad looking, and probably a few who are even gorgeous. 

The rest of the people in the following montage pix and the pix with the families and kids were all unattractive.

I guess I’m just picky?

Posted by Fred Scrooby on December 08, 2008, 02:23 PM | #

“I guess I’m just picky?”

No, you’re just a pathetic moron.

Posted by Eye of the Beholder on December 08, 2008, 11:52 PM | #

One feature that is is never attractive on a human being are the thin to non-existent lips.  Ever notice how the sexiest women in Hollywood are the ones with substantial kissers?  More leeway seems to be given to our celebrity men, some of the them are good looking despite having thin to no upper lips, but I think that’s because on men, the nose is judged more.  Jude law is a good example of such a good looking man.

As people age their lips tend to thin out as well, hence we see romantic comedy lead Meg Ryan and others getting plumped out artificially, which just looks silly. 

Some Caucasians have nice, full, and well shaped kissers, however. 

Why is it that people with “darker” looks - either hair, eyes or skin, are deemed more “exotic” or “sensual”?

I hypothesize that it is due to contrast.  Black hair and eyes contrasted with olive or fair skin is striking.  Similarly, green eyes contrasted with tawny or dark skin is also striking. 

Blonde hair contrasted with a nice golden tan is also pull-offable.

However, blonde on blue on pale skin has not enough contrast to be pleasing to the eye, and thin to no lips are not sensual. 

Hence we find the most physically desirable men and women to be people with striking contrast and kissable lips. 

I don’t see any of those types amongst the montage photographs of either adults or children above.

Posted by Gunther on December 09, 2008, 12:21 AM | #

Hullo, chaps. I’m a tall, fit, Nordic-looking German-American guy in my late 30s. The corner store I frequent is staffed/owned by an attractive Asian thirtysomething woman (married!) with light brown eyes and a fit body, who keeps making passes at me. What do I do?

Posted by Eye of the Beholder on December 09, 2008, 12:33 AM | #

Gunther, explain exactly what you mean by “nordic looking”?  Are you high or low contrast?

I don’t think it’s advisable for you to get involved with married women.  Try to limit your dating to single women.

I usually prefer the highly contrasted Mediterrenean to Middle Eastern look, but depending on your character and values, I may be willing to consider you.  I am single.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on December 09, 2008, 05:00 AM | #

“depending on your character and values, I may be willing to consider you.  I am single.” (—Beholder)

Have you thought of looking into those Jamaican sex tours for completely hopeless over-the-hill white hags, Beholder?  Those might be your best bet, considering the stage you’re at.  “Money talks,” so bring lots of it:  you can’t assume that just because they’re Negroes they’d touch you with a barge pole unless plenty of cash was involved.  Where women are concerned, those islanders are pretty undemanding but there are things even they wouldn’t touch and it’s not even close. 

Hey, good luck, OK? 

And listen, if you strike out in the Caribbean there’s always Port Moresby and the Central African Republic — so you’re bound to find a taker but it may need time and, well ... lots of cash.

Posted by Eye of the Beholder on December 09, 2008, 03:53 PM | #

No thankyou.  Although I love the tropics, I am generally not attracted to Afro-Carribbean men, although some of them are striking.  The reason being; their character and values (or lack of it).  I’ve been around enough of them to know.

Indo-Caribs are a bit more cultured, disciplined and conservative, however.

As far as Africa.  Due to tradition and culture carried over hundreds and sometimes thousands of years, the ex-pats I have met are indeed disciplined and usually of conservative character.  Ethiopians in particular are cultured with striking looks.  But been there, done that.

I’m willing to try my hand at a “nord” now, as long as he doesn’t look like this no lipped ugly loser;

http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/World/2008/12/08/7672741-ap.html

After reading Gunther’s post I became curious as to what a “classic nordic look” in fact was so I went into google images and typed “nordic men”. 

As you can see

...... there wasn’t even one good looking guy on there.

So then I typed in “nordic women” and they looked much like the guys - literally! 

Nordic WoMEN

Granted those were just a few examples out of millions, so I am certain there are good looking nords out there somewhere, and if Gunther is one, I’m willing to correspond. 

Question:  are Finnish people nords?  I know a few good looking Fins.

Sound shallow?  I’m very visual.  I can be friends with anybody but if I’m going to have a “relationship” with them, they gotta turn me on, you know what I mean?  I’m a cute and picky Irish-Euro-Mix lass.

And no one over 40.  That’s just ewww.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on December 09, 2008, 05:47 PM | #

Sound shallow?”

You want the straight-up answer to that, or something more ... diplomatic?

OK let’s just say where depth is concerned you make the Waddensee look like the Marianas Trench and leave it at that, shall we?  Now run along to Brownskinland, dear, and stop annoying the white-race readership.

Posted by Eye of the Beholder on December 09, 2008, 07:01 PM | #

Is your name “Gunther”?  If not, why are you trying to rap with me?  He’s the one looking for a date, right - not you?  Don’t you have a wife and kids somewhere to take care of?  Leave me alone.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on December 10, 2008, 03:14 AM | #

“I’m [...] picky” (—Beholder)

Beggars can’t be choosers, hunnie.

Posted by U.R. on January 03, 2009, 03:14 AM | #

Let’s first clear this up a bit with the following points.

1. Features and their origin are two separate concepts. Some of the same good-looking features, and some of the same repulsive features, can be found among peoples of all origins. As far as we know, factors affecting looks might have originated from one place and migrated or spread elsewhere, might have formed independently at different locations, might have even died out without our knowing.

2. The overall issue of contention here is the frequency of attractive features / faces / physique observed in peoples of various racial / ethnic / geographical / historical / whatever groups.



Now, had you visited different neighborhoods, worked at jobs of high and low incomes, lived abroad, you would have noticed that the break-down by looks is not that different between different peoples of pure descent. You would also notice, for instance, that one individual might look a lot different, in terms of attractiveness, from another, yet both families are of pure Nordic descent, and their members exhibit a large number of features found in great numbers among Nordic peoples--blond hair, blue eyes, tall nasal bridge, a fine tip, for instance.

My conjecture is the following. Physical attractiveness, including the genetic, enviromental, social, psychological, and intellectual aspects, has been selected for and/or preserved (depending on who’s in power and their inclinations) among peoples of Nordic origin in greater scope, stringency, pervasiveness, duration, and priority than it has been in peoples of other origins. Hence, the observation that many features considered attractive are found in peoples of Nordic descent or admixture. At the same time, due to selective mating, dissipation of traits, perhaps other factors, there are relatively few such attractive people. Meanwhile, the same and some different physically attractive traits have formed in peoples of other origins, but they manifest in lower frequencies because they haven’t been as selected for or preserved, or in the case of their homely counterparts, haven’t been as selected against, among non-Nordic peoples.

The bottom line is, some people are good-looking, others unappealing, and people base their mating preferences in part on looks. Is the author’s proposition that Nordic peoples should reproduce amongst themselves only, or is it that good-looking, high IQ, athletic, kind, or whatever people should reproduce amongst themselves only? Are you trying to inform your audience of their ancestry or of their attractiveness? In any case, the point has been lost amidst over-worked attempts to attribute traits to their origins, when in fact they operate more independently than what some of you are putting forth.

Posted by Robin on January 08, 2009, 06:15 AM | #

I’m Caucasian and I have to say that although some of us may start off with more attractive features than Asians from our teens, my goodness, we often age badly compared to Asians.  Relative to other races, it seems like the looks of many Caucasians already begin to degrade from the mid 20s, especially with skin and weight gain.  My male and female friends (even in their early 20s) were already beginning to show signs of aging like wrinkling while many asians I knew still looked very young.  Fast forward to the 30s and the difference becomes more apparent.  White people may start off better looking but asians apparently hold their age much better in the long run.

Posted by coinin o'kelly on January 20, 2009, 11:42 AM | #

the caucasian trait is so wide to compare?
celtic, particuarly seen in irish and bretton have facialy a mongolian bone structure as described scientifically flat face oval eyes wide apart, high cheek bones, i am celtic a welsh irish mix but ive been asked a few times if i have asian/chinese ancestory

Posted by REAL MAN on January 21, 2009, 10:58 AM | #

US WHITE PEOPLE ARE MACHO, HAIRY AND SEXY.

THE BETTER LOOKING EAST ASIAN MEN TENDS TO BE SILLY LOOKING PRETTY BOYS WHICH FACE WHICH LOOK LIKE THAT OF 12 YEAR OLD.

WHITE MEN HAVE BIG MASCULINE JAWS AND BULKY MANY PHYSIC THAT REAL STRAIGHT WOMEN WOULD LOVE!!! REAL WOMEN DO NOT LIKE MALES WHO LOOK GAY LIKE THOSE POPULAR EAST ASIAN STARS.

Posted by REAL MAN on January 21, 2009, 10:59 AM | #

TYPO!
*SILLY = SISSY

Posted by REAL MAN on January 21, 2009, 11:02 AM | #

UNHAIRY UNMACHO FEMININE-FACE EAST ASIAN GUYS DISGUSTS ME!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! GAY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Posted by Joe Six Packs on January 22, 2009, 04:13 PM | #

East Asians are cruel to their food.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DCvO9rInXmo

Posted by charles on February 08, 2009, 11:43 PM | #

in my experience traveling southeast asia, truth is that most mixed race couples produced the most gorgeous progenies - that’s fact!!

Posted by Patricia on February 26, 2009, 02:42 AM | #

I think that anyone of you guys who said that any other race such as Irish and East Asians are ugly is really immature. I don’t care what the science says, every one is special in their own ways. I mean who are you to say another is ugly or not perfect? That is really bias in your part and I think that just shows how bias and immature you are. So you should grow up and accept the fact that White people are not the perfect race, no race is perfect.

Posted by Korean Man on February 26, 2009, 07:37 AM | #

I am Korean guy who came to N American when 10 and after reading this article, there are some good points and some points that are flawed.
It seems like you are trying to reach a conclusion scientifically in such way that whatever genetical mutaions (evolution) within the caucasian race is good.  Up to a certain point, it’s true.  However in extreme examples you try to fit in pieces that don’t fit.  Like saying characteristics recieved from non-white side in mixed race decreases overall attractiveness.  You could say it draws back a little in terms of evolution towards the ‘ideal’ human face/body etc.  But the pro blem with this is idea is that, first of all, beauty is very subjective and whether you find primitive traits attractive or not is up to each person to decide.  You can’t generalize that this or that is unattractive just because the major audience of this topic is white and you are white or white/asian that likes white traits or in love with white traits.  Having more body/facial hair in white men can also means they’ve been less ‘evolved’.  Why then is this attractive and less ‘evolved’ features in other races such as longer jaws, wider cheek bones less attractive?  It’s because the white race dominated the world for a long time and still do up to a certain point and we see more white people on international tv/movie. Or because you PICK AND CHOOSE what’s attractive whether or not it’s primitive trait or not.  You can’t just choose to say one thing is more attractive than other (when they’re both less ‘evolved’ traits) just because you want to think so.  You can have your own opinion, sure.  But you can’t make it sound like a fact.

Let me first of all admit, non-white people generally like the nice shaped, higher nose and taller, muscular, etc.  And you compare it to Asians/Blacks as having more primitive traits which is true in GENERAL.  When you compare the whites and non-whites you seem to exaggerate the positive of white and the ‘primitive’ traits of the non-whites.  That’s not a fair evaluation.  And you said something about white people should find white people more attractive than asian people.  So what exactly is white?  A person that has had no other than white ancestors in the last 10 generations but with strong primitive traits?  Or a stereotypically white looking person that has 4 non-white ancesters in the last 2 generations?

It seems like there are a lot of unreasonable generalization of asian/caucasian men in your article and in comment section such as white men of being taller, big eyes, more body/facial hair (which is less ‘evolved’ according to how you presented the whole article because we lost hair as we evolved to what we are now), muscular, nice shape butt, bigger penis,etc.  I’m korean guy and I actually have bigger eyes than most asian people and some white people, I’m 6 foot, not skinny at all, don’t have flat butt, don’t have smaller than average penis size, I don’t have big cheek bones, I have very long arms and legs, I do not have much facial hair tho (but like I said, in this area I guess I have ‘evolved’ more than average white men).  So this makes me more closer to white than asian?  On the other hand, how many white men do you know that have all or most of the ‘positive/evolved’ traits you mentioned.  In reality, like what, 1 in 50?  Unless you’ve been living in Hollywood.  So then why would you and some other ‘white’ people compare races of the two men with such extreme positive vs negative traits.  Also things such as height and overall physical traits of men/women in East Asia are getting closer to the white people as the lifestyle and food available become similar as time goes on.  You are comparing the two groups with extreme ‘stereotypes’ to justify you way of thinking that whites are more physcially attractive and more ‘evolved’.

And the IQ thing mentioned in comment section.  In university calculus, statistics, etc I got 98%, 100%, etc.  Without studying that is.  I don’t know what my IQ is but I’m very good at sciences and mathematics.  (I’m not even the top from where I come from) So whether you want to believe it or not, a lot East Asian people are good in these areas especially.  I do agree with one person saying that there weren’t true geniuses.  I agree with that but if you look at Japan, there are chemists/physicists that made big findings in chemistry and physics and recieved nobel prizes.  However I do agree with the fact that in some ways the white people are more innovative thinkers but you also have to understand that the more open way of thinking (renaissance) and freedomg from goverment and human rights movent (starting from french revolution) started much ealier in the west than East Asia (those advancement in humanity mostly started in Western Europe, hm..... most scientists/artists are from that area of europe? wonder why).

Overall your article supporters say you are scientific.  I don’t know what education you or your supporters have but one thing is clear.  You have some science background but the way you use the ‘science’ to back up your subjective idea is very unscientific.  If you tried to publish this to the public, it would get shut down pretty quick.  Yes, it might be somewhat due to the whole racial issue but also because you can’t use ‘scientific’ facts to justify your bias.  Biased experiements/results come up in the science world all the time but do NOT last long.  For example you use the whole genetics things to back up how one race looks primitive and how the other is more evolved and attractive then why are you complaining about the white woman of the eurasian computer experiement looking too obese?  Guess what, genetics shows that in AVERAGE white people gain weight more than asians do.  So maybe she is supposed to look like that or even bigger if you are completely fixed about using genetics science to back up your argument.  Why try to leave the negative traits out for white people out and include all the negative traits you can find for other races?  Is this scientific?

You include some fancy scientific stuff in your article to make it look reasonable, but in the end this is not scientific way of approaching this at all.  Facial features in races is your last concern, you need to understand what the word science means.

Posted by Korean Man on February 26, 2009, 08:01 AM | #

And to Guessedworker

Let’s be honest.  You’re probably not even good looking.  I mean, what are you doing in this place lurking around for around 2 years?

Posted by lol on April 07, 2009, 08:55 AM | #

richard gere , val kilmer definitely have some mongoloids , eyes slightly slant.

ever heard of david walliams??

Posted by lol on April 07, 2009, 09:32 AM | #

some korean pics posted are products of plastic surgery and photoshop

Posted by nonsense on April 23, 2009, 03:06 PM | #

What a lot of rubbish. the so called scientific study you’ve done with photoshop is inaccurate and pointless. your even insulting your own people the scots and irish, are you racists really that retarted? some of the mixed race people are the most beauitful race on this planet and should not be compared to four legged animals its obsurd-get with reality. the world is turning is brown whether u like it or not, sorry too bad. so why do u think the world is turning brown anyway? because theres opened minded and intelligent white woman/men that sleep with opened minded and intelligent non whites on a regular basis and love it and are having mixed babies all over the world...open your eyes, this is 2009, not 1509. if you dont like whats going on in the western world, tough...what negative and boring world all you racists live in....such haters.

Posted by Karma on April 23, 2009, 03:30 PM | #

Shut up nonsense, there is no rule in the world which says mixing races is good. When the world turns brown it will become boring. There will much more diversity in the world if there are Japanese people in Japan and Swedes in Sweden rather than have a mix max in both places. So what if it is 2009. Why should we change? People ate through their mouths and excreted through their anuses in 1509. We still do the same today. Or because it is 2009, you eat through your anus and shit through your mouth? If we did not have to mix with others in 1009 BC, in 1209 AD, in 1509 AD why do we have to do the same in 2009 or even 2609? It is not out of hatred we do this but out of love for our own kind. Secondly there are many non Whites do not want to mix with other races as well. Arabs prefer marrying Arabs, Hindus prefer marrying Hindus. And you may like it or not but the vast majority of them will never change. I have lived in India for 3 years. I had several Hindus tell me it is wise to marry your kind. I know what I am talking about.
Race mixing is harmful
http://erectuswalksamongst.us/Chap29.html
http://erectuswalksamongst.us/Chap30.html

From

http://www.euvolution.com/articles/racereality.html

Dr. Baker leads us firmly back to biology with an account of how evolution gave rise to different species, how species are classified, the nature of hybridity, and the circumstances under which animals can be made to mate with differing species. Anthropology indeed becomes a branch of zoology. However, in this discussion it becomes clear that man differs from animals in at least one important way: humans are exceedingly unselective in their mating habits and will copulate with individuals--across racial lines, for example--from whom they are physically very different.
The contrast with the seven kinds of European mosquito, for example, could not be greater. Their eggs can be distinguished because of slight differences, but adults are so similar that not even experts can tell them apart under a microscope. What experts cannot do, the mosquitoes do without fail; they never interbreed.
Dr. Baker likewise reports that Grant’s gazelle and Thompson’s gazelle live together in mixed herds and are so similar in appearance that it takes a trained eye to tell them apart. They, too, never interbreed. It is only under domestication that animals can be made to overcome their repugnance for mates unlike themselves and thus produce mules or leopons (a cross between tiger and leopard). Domesticated dogs breed indiscriminately with widely different types but wild dogs like wolves, foxes, and coyotes breed only with their own kind.
Man is the most domesticated of animals and the least exclusive in his amours--but his promiscuity varies enormously by group and individual. As Dr. Baker points out, the Indian caste system successfully prevented interbreeding even among racially similar people. At the same time, there are individuals whose lust for animals is so great that bestiality has had to be specifically forbidden ever since Biblical times.
The races and sub-races of man have evolved largely because of geographical separation, but Dr. Baker also refers to what he calls “ecological races” that evolved to fill different but overlapping niches. The small stature of African pygmies, for example, fits them to forest life while the larger Negrids live in clearings.
If humans had continued to evolve in isolation or if they were as discriminating as animals in their choice of mates, racial differences would eventually lead to mutually infertile species. This would be diversity of a truly remarkable kind.

Nature wishes to keep us separate.

Posted by nonsense on April 26, 2009, 12:10 PM | #

Please more rubbish coming from retarded racists, is Baker a member of the KKK or something? Ive never heard such nonsense in all my life. Look people have been mixing since the beginning of time we all did originate from AFRICA...if mixing wasn’t good why does it keep on happening over the world then and produce such beautiful people? The world is constantly forever revolving and changing sounds like you people don’t like it..tough and why do u keep on comparing human mixing with animals? Your comparing wolves with foxes and dogs...oh lord...u lot are so crazy. We humans are not a different species we are all the same. And don’t give more rubbish about the Arabs and Hindus, they don’t go by skin color or the shape of someone face it’s about class and religion and money. oh and lets look at the Arabs what are they..mixed race humans of European and Africans descent over the thousands of years and that’s the same with the Brazilians and with nearly every single person on planet earth...we all originated from AFRICA and headed north of the globe, everybody has got a little something in them that’s from other parts of the world because humans are travellers and seekers and go to seek out each other out, its human nature. all of this site putting down of other white people, the Celts (Irish/Scottish) making out they look ugly or different, is ridiculous they are all originally from middle Europe before settling in the British isle so what on earth are you talking about? You lot are jokes, and you wonder why normal people laugh at you white supremacists now...next you’ll be say Jesus wasn’t a Jew.

Posted by Destroyer on April 26, 2009, 04:12 PM | #

What a lot of rubbish. the so called scientific study you’ve done with photoshop is inaccurate and pointless. your even insulting your own people the scots and irish, are you racists really that retarted? some of the mixed race people are the most beauitful race on this planet and should not be compared to four legged animals its obsurd-get with reality. the world is turning is brown whether u like it or not, sorry too bad. so why do u think the world is turning brown anyway? because theres opened minded and intelligent white woman/men that sleep with opened minded and intelligent non whites on a regular basis and love it and are having mixed babies all over the world...open your eyes, this is 2009, not 1509. if you dont like whats going on in the western world, tough...what negative and boring world all you racists live in....such haters.
Posted by nonsense

Nattering wogs and niggers are unsure of themselves that they need to repeat falsehoods:  I.E., that “the world is turning brown.” Sorry, Untermenschen, only a small percentage of whites are marrying exogamously despite the overwhelming wave of jew-assisted propaganda.  When the policy of “you breed, we feed” falls apart, your third-world shitholes will go back to mass starvation and decay.  The most “open-minded” thing any white could do is expel you rabble parasites.

we all did originate from AFRICA

No, fucker, we did not.  But I don’t expect a talking ape to know anything of science.

Posted by Apollonian is a Dipshit on April 26, 2009, 05:27 PM | #

Free elections and death to Fed.

Posted by jeanie on April 26, 2009, 09:38 PM | #

This whole study is ridiculous. Beauty is in the eyes of the beholder. Please people stop analyzing yourselves and embrace all of who you are. There is no supreme beauty, all real beauty is within. I think this report is a sad case of someone looking for some sort of superiority. Just ignore it and accept and embrace your unique qualities, as we all have our own unique qualities, whether it’s physical, spiritual or mental. No matter what ethnic group you are in, please don’t try to make one superior than the other over “looks.” Love who you are completely.

Posted by obviously on April 29, 2009, 05:32 AM | #

if the two races are both not superior to each other (Political correctness). the mix the two races couldn’t be called superior either. it’s as simple as 1 and 1 is two....

someone is using the double standard

Posted by White Western Man on April 29, 2009, 06:55 AM | #

Karma: “When the world turns brown it will become boring. There will much more diversity in the world if there are Japanese people in Japan and Swedes in Sweden rather than have a mix max in both places.”

You are exactly correct Karma.  If Whites around the world keep failing to reproduce in larger numbers or start breeding more with Blacks, Asians, Arabs, Hispanics, and so forth the world will indeed turn browner, more boring, more uniform, and have even more of the same ol’ black or dark brown hair + brown eyes.

By permanently preserving people of White European descent as we on this site heartily endorse, we are actually encouraging more physical/genetic diversity rather than plain/boring uniformity.  Think about it: most racial/ethnic groups around the world only have black or dark brown hair along with brown eyes.  However, Whites have hair that ranges from many hues of blond(e) (almost white blond to strawberry blond to medium blond to dark blond), as well as red/auburn hair (light to dark) to dozens of shades of brown (from flaxen/wheat to light brown to medium brown to very dark brown), as well as black, and of course eventually often gray and white as we age. 

Also, instead of having plain brown or dark eyes like all of the other racial/ethnic groups on Earth, Whites have eyes that are many different and highly unique shades of blue, green, hazel, amber (which includes some yellow), gray (even gray-blue-green eyes which constantly seem to change their color depending on the lighting), many shades of brown of course, and even black, not to mention violet which is sometimes found amongst Whites as well.  Whites are also much more likely to have a condition called heterochromia where the iris (the colored part of the eye) is a different color or colors in each of the person’s separate eyes.  It’s a pretty rare condition, but it occurs in people of predominantly White/European descent almost exclusively.

Whites also have a large variety and assortment of other comparatively unique physical features, including nose types and shapes, ear types, variations in forehead and chin structure, freckles, a wide height variation, and of course a large range of White skin tones (from the very pale to dark brown).  So as you say, and as the evidence and/or simple observation of Whites easily proves, Whites overall tend to be physically unique and diverse when compared to their more similar and uniform looking Asian, Arab, African, and Amerindian racial/ethnic groups.

A good article on this topic can be found at the following link - http://pages.globetrotter.net/peter_frost61z/European-hair-and-eye-color.htm

Posted by well on May 02, 2009, 05:29 AM | #

eurasians more attractive than europeans means asians more attractive than europeans

eurasians more attractive than asians means asians less attractive than europeans

Posted by Ashley on May 10, 2009, 11:07 PM | #

I just found this forum to be EXTREMELY offensive.  I understand that you will throw comments at me like “Freedom of speech.”, “Just stating our opinions.”, “Why’d you even bother reading this?” and things of that nature but I just wanted to express what I felt after reading this.  First off it was my misfortune of finding this site when I typed in “Supreme Order of Caucasians” into Google while researching the Chinese Exclusion Act for a school project.  While I don’t have as high of an education as most of you (assumed), considering I’m still in high school, I still know enough to follow.  I’m of Asian and Caucasian race; my mother is of Chinese descent and my father is Irish along with German.  While some of you will make snide and ignorant comments like “That’s disgusting” or “That should never happen”, I would like to point out that there is absolutely nothing wrong with me; no birth defects, and at school I’m classified as “gifted”.  Sure, to some I might be considered unattractive but to others I am, I don’t need a scientific study or a rebuke to tell my otherwise.  The fact that someone has to prove their race’s attractiveness is absurd.  If you are so undaunted that you’re the “superior race” then why would you waste you’re time deploring another?  Who are you to inform me that to my father’s race I’m viewed as “ugly”?  If this is the perspective of the majority then why do you hide behind the internet to declare your viewpoint?

Posted by battle on May 11, 2009, 02:04 AM | #

Posted by Menge on March 19, 2007: “This article (by Rechards) does not make sense at all. I don’t have the time to write a reaction paper but will pick up some sentences to explain. (1) “The average female Caucasian in Figure 1 looks like an average of obese white women; notice the large cheekbones and facial breadth.” -----If you come to the United States, you will know the female in the fiture is truly “average”. In the US at least 50% females at her age is heavier than she is. Many Anglo people have a relatively round face too, such as Bill Gates (who has Anglo background.).”

Actually, Bill GATES hails from a Bavarian Jewish family named Goetz (pronounced Gets):

http://archiver.rootsweb.ancestry.com/th/read/EURO-JEWISH/1999-01/0916252361

Posted by battle on May 11, 2009, 02:19 AM | #

Posted by Ashley on May 10, 2009: I just found this forum to be EXTREMELY offensive.  I understand that you will throw comments at me like “Freedom of speech.”, “Just stating our opinions.”, “Why’d you even bother reading this?” and things of that nature but I just wanted to express what I felt after reading this.  First off it was my misfortune of finding this site when I typed in “Supreme Order of Caucasians” into Google while researching the Chinese Exclusion Act for a school project.  While I don’t have as high of an education as most of you (assumed), considering I’m still in high school, I still know enough to follow.  I’m of Asian and Caucasian race; my mother is of Chinese descent and my father is Irish along with German.  While some of you will make snide and ignorant comments like “That’s disgusting” or “That should never happen”, I would like to point out that there is absolutely nothing wrong with me; no birth defects, and at school I’m classified as “gifted”.  Sure, to some I might be considered unattractive but to others I am, I don’t need a scientific study or a rebuke to tell my otherwise.  The fact that someone has to prove their race’s attractiveness is absurd.  If you are so undaunted that you’re the “superior race” then why would you waste you’re time deploring another?  Who are you to inform me that to my father’s race I’m viewed as “ugly”?  If this is the perspective of the majority then why do you hide behind the internet to declare your viewpoint?”

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

http://restoretheconstitutionalrepublic.com/forum/index.php?topic=3658.0

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

THE CHINESE EXCLUSION CASE, 130 U. S. 581 (1889): http://supreme.justia.com/us/130/581/case.html

ASSIMILATION is easiest “among people who are culturally similar to the dominant group,” but when different races are involved, “assimilation efforts become irrelevant”. Milica Zarkovic Bookman, ‘The Demographic Struggle for Power’, 1997.

The historical record indicates that ethnic separatism among Caucasian-derived groups has a tendency to collapse within modern Western societies unless active attempts at ethnic and cultural segregation are undertaken. As expected from a resource-reciprocity point of view, in the absence of rigid ethnic barriers, marriage in Western individualist societies tends to be importantly influenced by a wide range of PHENOTYPIC features of the prospective spouse, including not only genetic commonality but also social status, personality, common interests, and other points of similarity. This individualist pattern of marriage decisions has characterized Western Europe at least since the Middle Ages. The result has been a remarkable degree of ETHNIC ASSIMILATION in the United States among those whose ancestry derives from Europe. This is particularly noteworthy because ethnic conflict and violence are on the rise in Eastern Europe, yet European-derived groups in the United States have an overwhelming sense of commonality. The long-term result of such processes is GENETIC HOMOGENIZATION, a sense of common interest, and the absence of a powerful source of intrasocietal division.

The recent MULTICULTURAL movement may be viewed as tending toward a profoundly non-Western form of social organization that has historically been much more typical of Middle Eastern segmentary societies centered around discrete homogeneous groups.

ETHNIC SELF-INTEREST is important in human affairs, and obviously ETHNICITY remains a common source of group identity in the contemporary world. People appear to be aware of group membership and have a general tendency to devalue and compete with outgroups. Individuals are also keenly aware of the relative standing of their own group in terms of resource control and relative reproductive success. They are also willing to take extraordinary steps to achieve and retain economic and political power in defense of these group imperatives.

It is noteworthy that minority groups, especially African-American and Latino groups, have already developed strong ethnic identities in the U.S. These movements often have militant, racialist overtones. For example, Afrocentrism is often associated with racialist ideologies, such as those of Molefi Asante (1987), in which ethnicity is viewed as the morally proper basis of self-identity and self-esteem and in which a close connection exists between ethnicity and culture. Latino ethnic activists Latino activists have a clearly articulated policy of “reconquering” parts of the United States via immigration and high birth rates.

In the long run, globalism and multiculturalism are a threat to almost everyone’s ethnic interest because both ideologies actually legitimize and increase ethnic competition. Globalism results in increased competition because everyone has potential access to everyone else’s territory, opening opportunities for plundering another’s backyard. Multicultural societies sanction ethnic mobilization because they inevitably become cauldrons of competing ethnic interests. In this very dangerous game of ethnic competition, some ethnic groups are better prepared than others. Ethnic groups differ in intelligence and ability to control economic resources. They differ in their degree of ethnocentrism, in the extent to which they are mobilized to achieve group interests, and in how aggressively they behave toward other groups. They differ in their numbers, fertility, and the extent to which they encourage responsible parenting. They differ in the amount of land and other resources held at any point in time and in their political power. Given these differences, it is difficult at best to ensure peaceful relations among ethnic groups. Even maintaining a status quo in territory and resource control is very arduous, as can be seen by the ill-fated attempts of Americans to achieve an ethnic status quo with the 1924 immigration law. Accepting a status quo would not be in the interests of groups that have recently lost land or numbers. It would also likely be unacceptable both to groups with relatively low numbers and control of resources and, conversely, to high-fertility groups. Yet the alternative—that all humans renounce their ethnic group loyalties—seems unrealistic and utopian. Indeed, given that some ethnic groups, especially ones with high levels of ethnocentrism and mobilization, will undoubtedly continue to function as groups far into the foreseeable future, unilateral renunciation of ethnic loyalties by other groups means only their surrender and defeat and disappearance—the Darwinian dead end of extinction. The future, then, like the past, will inevitably be a Darwinian competition. And ethnicity will play a crucial role.

From the present perspective no fundamental conflict exists between the latter two sources of American identity; social homogeneity and hierarchic harmony may well be best and most easily achieved with an ethnically homogeneous society of peoples derived from the European cultural area. Indeed, in upholding Chinese exclusion in the nineteenth century, Justice Stephen A. Field noted that the Chinese were unassimilable and would destroy the republican ideal of social homogeneity. The incorporation of non-White peoples, and especially peoples derived from Africa, into peculiarly Western cultural forms is profoundly problematic.

THE CHINESE EXCLUSION CASE, 130 U. S. 581 (1889): http://supreme.justia.com/us/130/581/case.html

http://restoretheconstitutionalrepublic.com/forum/index.php?topic=3057.15

http://restoretheconstitutionalrepublic.com/forum/index.php?topic=3191.0

WESTERN SURVIVAL: Emulating Key Elements of Judaism: http://restoretheconstitutionalrepublic.com/forum/index.php?topic=3292.msg15286#msg15286

In the United States we are presently heading down a volatile path--a path that leads to ethnic warfare and to the development of collectivist, authoritarian, and racialist enclaves. Although ethnocentric beliefs and behavior are viewed as morally and intellectually legitimate only among ethnic minorities in the United States, the development of greater ethnocentrism among White peoples is a likely result of present trends.

The prediction, both on theoretical grounds and on the basis of social identity research, is that as other groups become increasingly powerful and salient in a multicultural society, the White peoples of the United States will become increasingly unified; among these peoples, contemporary divisive influences, such as issues related to gender and sexual orientation, social class differences, or religious differences, will be increasingly perceived as unimportant. Eventually these groups will develop a united front and a collectivist political orientation vis-a-vis the other ethnic groups. Other groups will be expelled if possible or partitions will be created, and Western societies will undergo another period of medievalism.

http://restoretheconstitutionalrepublic.com/forum/index.php?topic=3658.0

Posted by battle on May 11, 2009, 02:26 AM | #

Posted by George Chell on December 08, 2006: “Mix whites and Asians, you get smarter people.”

ASIANS CAN’T THINK, CAN’T WRITE: http://restoretheconstitutionalrepublic.com/forum/index.php?topic=3341.0

Can Asians Think? (Blog)

Posted: 24 Mar 2009 04:17 PM PDT

A recent piece by John Derbyshire, very much worth reading in its own right, contained a link to a brutal depreciation of the Asian intellect by one Satoshi Kanazawa, professor at the London School of Economics.

http://www.epjournal.net/filestore/ep04120128.pdf

Prof. Kanazawa has plainly had it up to here with Asians and puts the smackdown on white multiculturalists who gain virtue points by talking up Asian superiority. The article begins with a section pleasingly entitled “Asians Can’t Think” that documents their pronounced inferiority to white people in creativity. (I’ve also written about Asians’ creativity deficit.) Intelligent Asians are great at making “making the robot dog Aibo look and behave even more like a real dog,” but they’re very bad at formulating the radically new concepts that make for major scientific innovations.

http://whiteamerica.us/index.php/Blog/Blog/can_asians_think/

Posted by tittenjaeger on May 11, 2009, 02:34 AM | #

“Supreme Order of Caucasians”

Brilliant name for an elite Aryan terrorist hit-squad! watch out, here comes the White Supremacy!

my mother is of Chinese descent

So you have small tits.

and my father is Irish along with German.

Ah, so you might have big tits!

I would like to point out that there is absolutely nothing wrong with me; no birth defects, and at school I’m classified as “gifted”.

At the zoo, the monkeys are “gifted”.

Who are you to inform me that to my father’s race I’m viewed as “ugly”?

It is why your father is Asian and your mother European, not the other way. The modern European female is the vehicle for all the world’s spermatozoa; you are the result.

Posted by tittenjaeger on May 11, 2009, 02:37 AM | #

If this is the perspective of the majority then why do you hide behind the internet to declare your viewpoint?

Because we have to, by the way. Some veeeery influential folks on high have restricted our access to the public mind, which they diligently clutter with their own narrative. Do you have a guess as to who these folks are? I’ll give you a hint:

Starts with J!

Ends with EW.

Posted by battle on May 11, 2009, 02:47 AM | #

Great response, tittenjaeger!!!

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

WESTERN SURVIVAL: Emulating Key Elements of Judaism: http://restoretheconstitutionalrepublic.com/forum/index.php?topic=3292.msg15286#msg15286

In the United States we are presently heading down a volatile path--a path that leads to ethnic warfare and to the development of collectivist, authoritarian, and racialist enclaves. Although ethnocentric beliefs and behavior are viewed as morally and intellectually legitimate only among ethnic minorities in the United States, the development of greater ethnocentrism among White peoples is a likely result of present trends.

The prediction, both on theoretical grounds and on the basis of social identity research, is that as other groups become increasingly powerful and salient in a multicultural society, the White peoples of the United States will become increasingly unified; among these peoples, contemporary divisive influences, such as issues related to gender and sexual orientation, social class differences, or religious differences, will be increasingly perceived as unimportant. Eventually these groups will develop a united front and a collectivist political orientation vis-a-vis the other ethnic groups. Other groups will be expelled if possible or partitions will be created, and Western societies will undergo another period of medievalism.

http://restoretheconstitutionalrepublic.com/forum/index.php?topic=3658.0

NATIONAL SOCIALISM: MIRROR-IMAGE OF JUDAISM: http://restoretheconstitutionalrepublic.com/forum/index.php?topic=3358.0

MULTI-RACIAL IMMIGRATION AND ITS DISASTROUS CONSEQUENCES FOR WHITE ANGLO-AMERICA: http://restoretheconstitutionalrepublic.com/forum/index.php?topic=3292.msg15286#msg15286

In the long run, globalism and multiculturalism are a threat to almost everyone’s ethnic interest because both ideologies actually legitimize and increase ethnic competition. Globalism results in increased competition because everyone has potential access to everyone else’s territory, opening opportunities for plundering another’s backyard. Multicultural societies sanction ethnic mobilization because they inevitably become cauldrons of competing ethnic interests. In this very dangerous game of ethnic competition, some ethnic groups are better prepared than others. Ethnic groups differ in intelligence and ability to control economic resources. They differ in their degree of ethnocentrism, in the extent to which they are mobilized to achieve group interests, and in how aggressively they behave toward other groups. They differ in their numbers, fertility, and the extent to which they encourage responsible parenting. They differ in the amount of land and other resources held at any point in time and in their political power. Given these differences, it is difficult at best to ensure peaceful relations among ethnic groups. Even maintaining a status quo in territory and resource control is very arduous, as can be seen by the ill-fated attempts of Americans to achieve an ethnic status quo with the 1924 immigration law. Accepting a status quo would not be in the interests of groups that have recently lost land or numbers. It would also likely be unacceptable both to groups with relatively low numbers and control of resources and, conversely, to high-fertility groups. Yet the alternative—that all humans renounce their ethnic group loyalties—seems unrealistic and utopian. Indeed, given that some ethnic groups, especially ones with high levels of ethnocentrism and mobilization, will undoubtedly continue to function as groups far into the foreseeable future, unilateral renunciation of ethnic loyalties by other groups means only their surrender and defeat and disappearance—the Darwinian dead end of extinction. The future, then, like the past, will inevitably be a Darwinian competition. And ethnicity will play a crucial role.

ETHNIC SELF-INTEREST is indeed important in human affairs, and obviously ETHNICITY remains a common source of group identity in the contemporary world. People appear to be aware of group membership and have a general tendency to devalue and compete with outgroups. Individuals are also keenly aware of the relative standing of their own group in terms of resource control and relative reproductive success. They are also willing to take extraordinary steps to achieve and retain economic and political power in defense of these group imperatives. It is noteworthy that minority groups, especially African-American and Latino groups, have already developed strong ethnic identities in the U.S. These movements often have militant, racialist overtones. For example, Afrocentrism is often associated with racialist ideologies, such as those of Molefi Asante (1987), in which ethnicity is viewed as the morally proper basis of self-identity and self-esteem and in which a close connection exists between ethnicity and culture. Latino ethnic activists Latino activists have a clearly articulated policy of “reconquering” parts of the United States via immigration and high birth rates.

http://restoretheconstitutionalrepublic.com/forum/index.php?topic=3057.15

Posted by Boromir on May 11, 2009, 03:08 AM | #

Ashley -

You list your feelings first among your objections. Your feelings are not an important consideration. How important do you expect white people to consider your feelings in comparison to their children’s future?

You do make one relevant and accurate point in your lengthy paragraph, however: “that someone has to prove their race’s attractiveness is absurd.”

But what you see here is a reaction, not an assertion. This particular blog entry is in response to the assertion that mixed race Eurasians are more attractive than Caucasians, and Asians. If there weren’t this assertion, this study with its contentious conclusions that mixed race people are more attractive, there would be no need for the response.

Posted by Ashley on May 11, 2009, 08:26 PM | #

You list your feelings first among your objections. Your feelings are not an important consideration. How important do you expect white people to consider your feelings in comparison to their children’s future?

My father is a white person, I am his child, and I do have a future.  You should correct that statement.

“How important do you expect Caucasian purists to consider your feelings in comparison to their children’s future?

Posted by Karma on May 11, 2009, 09:13 PM | #

Nonsense, by calling facts ‘rubbish’, they will not go away. The Marxists can spend as much money as they like to spread their stupid lies and propaganda, the Universe will not change itself to Marxist specifications.  Mixing produces beautiful people? Are you nuts. Some of the most beautiful people I know are pure. Comparing humans to animals crazy? Science finds very little difference between humans and animals. Race is not only about skin colour, you stupid retard. It is about common ancestry, similar genes. ARABS ALWAYS TEND TO MARRY OTHE R ARABS. Have you lived in the Middle East, in India? Obviously you have not. Indians prefer that their children marry within their castes. Brahmins marry Brahmins, Bunts marry Bunts. In many villages of India, if a person of a particular caste marries with that of another, their families are shame.  It may not be about skin colour but it is definitely about ancestry.  Many Arabs countries like the UAE are full of South Asian workers but it is nearly impossible for an Arab from the Emirates marrying an Indian or Pakistani. No we are not mixed. Baker is not a member of the KKK but a scientist whose work was too un PC for the Marxists at our so called ‘Universities’.
Besides I do not care if jesus was a Jew or not. I do not care about Jesus at all. I even doubt if he even existed.

Posted by BATTAILE ('BATTLE') on May 11, 2009, 10:59 PM | #

Bloody good summary, KARMA ! ! ! I surely want a pure wife who will raise pure kids!!!

Humans are not much different from animals. If one promotes the reproduction of farm horses, one receives farm horses and no racehorses. The power of a people depends upon its percentage of intelligent and efficient ones. These cannot be produced by school and education according to demand, but they must be born before, like racehorses. It is the erroneous belief of the politically correct that ill and weak descendants, if only they are well fed and educated, would be able to uphold the high level of Western civilization or even develop it further. Lack of food is noticed immediately. However, the lack of sufficient space, which prevents humans to test their range, is developing slowly. It is felt by all members of a community as unpleasant proportionally to the respective crowding. When around 1880 people from the villages and towns on their search for work and bread moved into the industrious villages around the large cities, this concentration of people was connected with the rise of socialists, requesting equality and universal suffrage.

http://restoretheconstitutionalrepublic.com/forum/index.php?topic=3190.0

The Population Cycle Drives Human History - from a Eugenic Phase into a Dysgenic Phase and Collapse

http://www.volkmar-weiss.de/cycle.html

http://www.volkmar-weiss.de/englisch.html

Posted by BATTAILE ('BATTLE') on May 11, 2009, 11:05 PM | #

The Concept of Heredity in the History of Western Culture:

http://www.europeanamericansunited.org/school1/Eugenics/Pearson/pson1.html

Western tradition has long recognized that heredity plays a significant role in determining not merely the characteristics of plants and animals but also the mental and physical qualities of human beings. Some elementary recognition of the role of genetics as a causal force may have originated as early as the Neolithic revolution, when cultivators learned how to improve upon the various species of wild grasses and to breed domesticated milk- and meat-giving animals which were biologically more useful to mankind than those they found in the wild. By the time of the great classical civilizations of ancient Greece and Rome it had become commonplace knowledge based on observing and remembering the generations from the same family that heredity also played an important role in determining the character and abilities of men and women.

In most early European societies, as in virtually all early societies that achieved an advanced culture, the social group was seen by its members as an intergenerational affair, with the family and the ancestors playing an important role in the self-concept of the individual. Life does not begin, nor does it end, with the individual. As Fustel de Coulanges pointed out in 1864, in his classic study of ancient Greek and Roman culture entitled The Ancient City (1955), it was the idea of common descent from the same ancestral forebears the idea of belonging to a specific community of families, and of sharing the same, hopefully eternal, thread of life that held the freemen of the Greek city-state together. As long as the lineage survived, the ancestors lived on in the minds and bodies of their descendants; death was only final when the entire nation was eliminated. The biological reality was interpreted into religious terms. The individual was seen as the product of the forces of biological causality, a living link in the chain that was the lineage, just as the lineage comprised a vital component of the nation-state, and the nation-state was a distinctly biological unit, with its own distinctive gene pool:

Reproduction in the ancient community was a religious duty… The religious society was the family, the genos. Paternal dignity and sacerdotal dignity were fused: the eldest son, upon the death of the father, becomes the head and priest of the family. The deceased father is honoured by his children as a kind of divinity. He himself is honoured by his children as a kind of divinity. He himself rendered the same worship to his ancestors: thus the greatest misfortune that his piety had to fear, is that the line shall be stopped. For then his religion would disappear from the earth, his hearth would become extinct, the whole series of his departed ones would fall into oblivion ...

The qualities that characterized individuals were acquired, it was believed, from their ancestors. Thus we find a speaker in the Odyssey (IV, 60) observing that “the blood of your parents was not lost in you, but ye are of the line of men that are sceptered kings, the fosterlings of Zeus, for no churl could beget sons like you.” Similarly there are references to the disguised Athena as being “delicate of countenance such as are the sons of kings” (XIII, 216), whereas in the Iliad Thersites is described as ill-formed with a warped head. It was recognized that the even well-born individuals had to be schooled and trained to develop their inborn qualities to the maximum, but basic potential was inborn. In Homeric Greece, even truthfulness a revered value was deemed to be an inherited virtue, and to call a eupatrid, or “person of good ancestry,” a liar was tantamount to calling him a bastard, a man of impure, inferior descent. Even as late as Classical Athens, Aristotle defined the physical and moral characteristics that were deemed to constitute nobility as “an inherited virtue” (Pol. IV. 8). In this, as in so many of his opinions, Aristotle was echoing ancient convictions expressed in the Iliad, as when a speaker protests that: “Therefore ye could not say that I am weak and a coward by lineage, and so dishonor my spoken word” (Il. XIV, 126).

According to L. R. Palmer, the authority on the Pylos tablets, Achaean kings held their office by virtue of the purity of their descent. Among the Achaeans, he wrote: “Where the `luck’ of the tribe is concerned, there is no substitute for blue blood” (Achaeans and Indo- Europeans 1955, p. 9). Werner Jaeger went even further, describing the Hellenic ideal as an “aristocracy of race (1945, p. 205).” Because of their respect for good breeding, the Greeks honored their women as the progenitors of the race, and it was said that men chose their wives as they chose their horses, by the length of their pedigrees. The desirability of breeding from proven stock had become a cultural requirement, and only children born of legitimate wives (i.e., of quality ancestry) could inherit the social status of the father. Indeed, in ancient Athens and other Greek city-states, the eupatrids were men descended from no less than nine generations of untainted noble stock on both sides of the family tree.

Plato’s interest in eugenics is well known, and he praises the Spartan interest in eugenic breeding (Laws, 630). Aristotle is equally impressed by the need to breed good stock. Theognis of Megara constantly praises the importance of heredity, complaining that well-born men and women will sometimes take inferior marriage partners in pursuit of riches, laments that “We seek well-bred rams and sheep and horses and one wishes to breed from these ... [but] men revere money, and the good marry the evil, and the evil the good. Wealth has confounded race.” (Theognis, V. 183). Racial purity was linked to physical appearance, with Spartan women being renowned for their beauty; and character was seen as inherited along with personal features: “Thou art pleasing to look upon and thy character is like to thy form” (Stobaeus, lxxxviii, 71). In Greek literature the importance of heredity is repeated again and again: “Noble children are born from noble sires, the base are like in nature their father” (Alcmeaon, Fr. 7); “I bid all mortals beget well-born children from noble sires” (Heraclitus, 7);"If one were to yoke good with bad, no good offspring would be born, but if both parents are good, they will bear noble children” (Meleager, Fr. 9).

The early Romans similarly held lineage in great respect and enforced a system of connubium, whereby freeborn Romans could only marry into certain approved stocks. However, the Romans were relatively few in number and, when their unparalleled military and administrative ability converted the Roman empire into a fully multi- ethnic community of enormous size, the circumstances became ripe for the rise of egalitarian political ideologies. Rome, the “multicultural giant,” disappeared before the onslaught of the smaller, more homogeneous, Germanic nations, which still retained a sense of group identity.

The Germanic peoples (the Germans, Dutch, Flemings, Anglo- Saxons, Franks, Lombards, Scandinavians, Goths, Burgundians and Vandals) who founded so many of the modern states of Europe following the demise of the Roman Empire, carried the concept of heredity to its logical conclusion in their virtually unique system of kinship. Unlike their kinsmen, the Greeks, Italics, Celts, Slavs, and East Balts, they did not organize themselves in patrilineal clans and phratries which recognized only their father’s kinfolk, but saw kinship in fully genetic terms. The Germanic “kindred” comprised all the individual’s relatives on both the paternal and the maternal sides, assessing the degree of closeness according to the closeness of their actual genetic relationship; this was a quite different system from the concept of patrilineal or matrilineal clans so widespread amongst other peoples of the world. This Germanic kindred was the subject of the exhaustive study Kindred and Clan in the Middle Ages and After (Phillpotts, 1917). To this day most North Americans of European descent have come to accept the Germanic tradition, where kinship is determined by the closeness of genetic relationship, whether the relatives be on the maternal or paternal side, as distinct from patrilineal and matrilineal clan systems. In ancient Scandinavia the belief in inherited talents was reflected in the concept of hamingja, an inherited “luck” force. However, it was recognized that siblings inherited qualities in different patterns, and kings who were “unlucky,” and under whose leadership things went badly, were readily replaced by more competent individuals from the same royal lineage that had already produced generations of distinguished and successful leaders. The belief in breeding and the intergenerational transmission of genetic qualities was overriding, or as the old Germanic folk dictum expressed it, one could not make a silk purse out of a sow’s ear!

Indeed, most Indo-European peoples, including those who resided outside the geographical borders of Europe, seem to have placed considerable trust in the powers of heredity. Max Weber documented the same emphasis on heredity among other Indo-Europeans. In The Religion of India (1958), Weber described the semi-magical xvarenah attributed to Indo-Iranian kings as a belief in inherited ability, calling it “familial charisma.” The Indian caste system, he maintained, was sustained by a similar belief in the genetic inheritance of human qualities. The charisma of a caste, of a sib, and of a family, was genetically transmitted; its roots were to be found in the concept of inherited ability.

Posted by BATTAILE ('BATTLE') on May 11, 2009, 11:19 PM | #

ENDOGAMY/EXOGAMY AND GENETIC PATTERNS/ INTERESTS: http://restoretheconstitutionalrepublic.com/forum/index.php?topic=3296.0

http://majorityrights.com/index.php/weblog/comments/http_majorityrightscom_indexphp_hollidays_first_post/

“Thus, this is a further argument against the “have more children to compensate” rationale: not only do you come up against barriers of desired family size and national carrying capacity, but you also must deal with the loss of relative fitness compared to those more racially homogenous nations that are the sources of the peoples with which you are miscgenenating. A Chinese female in the USA may mate with a white American male secure in the knowledge that the 1.25 billion Chinese of her homeland are demographically secure and that her mating choice, while diluting her own personal genetic interests, advances that of her co-ethnics by spreading East Asian-specific gene frequencies while displacing European-specific genes and gene frequencies.  The white mate, on the other hand, has no such compensation, since he suffers not only a personal dilution of potential kinship compared to that he would have enjoyed through endogamy, but he is participating in the genetic dilution of his native stock in its homeland.

This dilution is in no way compensated by a Europe which, unlike China, is itself being swamped with displacement immigration. Thus we can see how a persons choice of mate effects not only themselves but their co-ethnics.  By choosing a Chinese wife the white man harms his fellow whites, who lose the potential greater genetic kinship they would have had with his offspring had he mated endogamously (the same holds for trans-racial adoption as well).  A side point, as Dr. Salter points out in On Genetic Interests, is that when a person out-marries and has children, they then, on a personal level, must adopt some sort of interest in their mate’s ethny since, as Dr. Salter rightfully observes, both parent’s (and hence both ethny’s) distinctive genes and gene frequencies have a common fate in the children.  No wonder that whites who out-marry and have mixed-race children often show a distinct interest in their mate’s non-white ethny - a fact that harms white interests by dividing loyalties of group members.”

Posted by BATTAILE ('BATTLE') on May 11, 2009, 11:21 PM | #

A CONFUSED, PATHETIC, IGNORANT, MULTIETHNIC, THIRD WORLD-SWAMPED WEST:

http://restoretheconstitutionalrepublic.com/forum/index.php?topic=3224.0

Only a cancerous Western civilization could make a Messiah of a 45-year-old “community organizer” of no significant accomplishment who has drunk deeply from the wells of communist agitator Saul Alinsky, communist poet Frank Marshall Davis, terrorists William Ayers and Bernadine Dohrn, and white-hating black racists Jeremiah Wright and Khalid Abdullah Tariq al-Mansour.

Posted by BATTAILE ('BATTLE') on May 11, 2009, 11:23 PM | #

ETHNIC NEPOTISM & THE REALITY OF RACE

http://restoretheconstitutionalrepublic.com/forum/index.php?topic=3665.0

http://whiteamerica.us/index.php/articles/articles/against_genetic_similarity_theory/

A few points—

1.) Only 1.9% of married white men and 2.2% of married white women have nonwhite “spouses” (http://tinyurl.com/cmsqj7). In contrast, 13% of British males and 12% of Norwegians have practiced homosexuality (http://tinyurl.com/bcpc6g, http://tinyurl.com/dlgk39), and 4% of the American electorate self-identify as homosexual. Homosexuality thus seems to be more prevalent than interracial dating. By your reasoning, heterosexuality is not an inborn disposition, since a “substantial portion” of the populaton are evidently “open” to homosexual experiences.

2.) According to a Hawaiian study, exogamy is less stable than endogamy:

“Findings suggest that even after controlling religion and many other demographic variables, inter-racially married individuals report lower happiness than those in intraracial unions, especially women… . Marital happiness depends on many factors, and homogeneity of race and culture between the couple is surely among them.”http://tinyurl.com/cfmgls

Also like homosexual relationships, interracial relationships amongst adolescents are more fleeting than endogamous ones:

“We find that adolescents who are involved in interracial relationships are more likely to terminate their relationships than their counterparts involved in intraracial relationships even after we adjust for individual, relationship and social network factors.” http://tinyurl.com/b9zc7p

If exogamous relationships are fleeting and unstable, it is fair to assume that they are less likely to result in the production of offspring than endogamous relationships.

3.) Just because men are capable of acts of brutality does not mean that altruism is purely a matter of upbringing and not an inborn disposition. By the same token, just because some people are open to interracial “dating” does not mean that the general pattern of endogamous breeding is purely a matter of cultural conditioning rather than an inborn preference. Endogamy is the norm not only across cultures, but amongst primates and other social animals. There is no reason to suppose that when the same phenomenon is observed in Westnern man, it is entirely learned.

4.) In primal conditions, individuals who were willing to cohere in a group and tune their individual needs to the survival of the group had the best chance of surviving, and those groups comprised of individuals endowed with the patriotic spirit — that mental machinery, inherent in virtually all social animals, which urges the individual to defend the group against the enemy — had the best chances of surviving as groups. Patriotism thus served, and continues to serve, an evolutiory utility, and explains a wide variety of otherwise puzzling cross-cultural phenomena.

By J. Wingfield on 3/10/09 at 6:02 am

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

Steve Sailer also strongly believes in the existence of ethnic nepotism—-the tendency of humans to favor members of their own ethnic group. In fact, here’s a snippet from an article he wrote on the subject back in 2004:

“So, the genetic basis for ethnic nepotism with each racial group is roughly as strong on average as the etymologically classic case of nepotism among close kin—-the uncle-nephew bond.

Ethnic nepotism isn’t a metaphor. It’s a reality.

And we’d better accept it—-whether Richard Dawkins thinks it would be good for his career or not.”

What Steve Sailer is saying is that ethnic nepotism definitely exists, and that it is about as strong on average as the uncle-nephew bond.

In addition, Mr. Sailer also documents how political correctness has prevented the concept of ethnic nepotism from getting a fair discussion:

“You may not have ever heard of ethnic nepotism before. That’s largely because the most media savvy-explicators of Darwinism—-such as Richard Dawkins, recently voted Britain’s top public intellectual by Prospect magazine—-are terrified that their entire field might be tarred as “racist” if the concept is given a fair public discussion.”

Anyway, the article provides strong evidence for the existence of ethnic nepotism—-as does the work of Salter, Rushton, and MacDonald. Anyone who is interested in this issue should definitely read it. Here’s the link:

http://www.vdare.com/sailer/nepotism.htm
By Victoria on 3/31/09 at 7:17 pm

Posted by tittenjaeger on May 12, 2009, 12:06 AM | #

My father is a white person, I am his child, and I do have a future.  You should correct that statement.

Ah, so your father’s a chinkhound. That’s another story. Still, one more thing to consider. You say you have no defects; well, no one here claims miscegenation breeds defects in the individual issue—although in societies where miscegenation has been or is the norm, ugliness preponderates and one sees beauty (fairness, symmetrical features, etc.) as an exception; Latin American populations are a good example of this. The truth is that your very existence points to a defect in the arrangement of races in Western society, a defect we, in our wildest dreams of course, would see corrected. You, yourself, are probably a quite fuckable specimen, but the problem is the state of affairs which allows mongrels like you to arise at all. We don’t like having to accept 1,000 white women breeding with as many negroes for a trade-off of a few decent Anglo-Asians; black male on white female is the norm, white male on Asian female an exception. The circumstances which permitted you to exist are not worth the trouble because they allow thousands and thousands of worse, more dysgenic cases to arise and plague our society. You, physically, are not defective; the society which allowed the pairing that birthed you is defective.

Posted by Ashley on May 12, 2009, 12:30 AM | #

That has nothing to do with what I stated.  If you want to take stabs at me with derogatory terms then fine; you’re only proving that you feel the need to talk down to someone in order to feel “superior”.  I am no mongrel, and I’m certainly no mistake to society. 

I’m not going to bother posting again.  There’s no point in trying to argue with a 20+ year old man.  It’s even pettier that you’re attempting to demean a teenager.  I’m glad you finally found a place where you can blog about your warped views.

Posted by Captainchaos on May 12, 2009, 12:48 AM | #

Ashley,

I’m sure you would not ask of us the dissolution of our people for your own benefit.  Surely we have the right to be and to affirm our being as White people.  Apart from all the other noise being emitted here, that is really our only point.  Don’t White people have a right to exist, and concomitantly the right to the necessary conditions to insure their continued existence, in your opinion?

Posted by tittenjaeger on May 12, 2009, 12:51 AM | #

I am no mongrel, and I’m certainly no mistake to society.

My point was: you are the result of a mistaken society. Don’t take “mongrel” the wrong way though, sweetheart; I use it with affection, being a euro-mongrel myself.

There’s no point in trying to argue with a 20+ year old man.

Now shagging one ......

Posted by BATTAILE ('BATTLE') on May 12, 2009, 01:37 AM | #

Posted by tittenjaeger on May 12, 2009: “Ah, so your father’s a chinkhound. That’s another story. Still, one more thing to consider. You say you have no defects; well, no one here claims miscegenation breeds defects in the individual issue—although in societies where miscegenation has been or is the norm, ugliness preponderates and one sees beauty (fairness, symmetrical features, etc.) as an exception; Latin American populations are a good example of this. The truth is that your very existence points to a defect in the arrangement of races in Western society, a defect we, in our wildest dreams of course, would see corrected. You, yourself, are probably a quite fuckable specimen, but the problem is the state of affairs which allows mongrels like you to arise at all. We don’t like having to accept 1,000 white women breeding with as many negroes for a trade-off of a few decent Anglo-Asians; black male on white female is the norm, white male on Asian female an exception. The circumstances which permitted you to exist are not worth the trouble because they allow thousands and thousands of worse, more dysgenic cases to arise and plague our society. You, physically, are not defective; the society which allowed the pairing that birthed you is defective.”

TAKE YOUR CHOICE: http://www.churchoftrueisrael.com/tyc/

Separation or Mongrelization

By Theodore G. Bilbo

Early in our Nation’s history, the immortal Thomas Jefferson knew that there were only two permanent solutions to the race problem, and he advocated the policy of separation of the races. His famous words have echoed through the corridors of time:

Nothing is more certainly written in the book of fate than that these people are to be free: NOR IS IT LESS CERTAIN THAT THE TWO RACES, EQUALLY FREE, CANNOT LIVE IN THE SAME GOVERNMENT.

Civilizations, the product of race, have been maintained only so long as the race which created them has maintained racial integrity. The Caucasian has founded all great civilizations, and this race, remaining white, has not lost civilization. But when the blood of the white man has become mongrelized, civilization has not been maintained. The mongrel can neither create nor continue civilization. The record of written history offers the proof.

A god created the whites;
I know not who created
the blacks; certainly a
devil created the mongrels.
-African proverb

In the Biological Basis of Human Nature, H. S. Jennings, one of the world’s leading authorities, writes: “To the superior race admixture with the inferior one is adulteration; it means a lowering of quality. All other biological consideration give way to this one.”

And Lothrop Stoddard says: “Two things are necessary for the continued existence of a race: it must remain itself, and must breed its best.... Hence, when a highly specialized stock interbreeds with a different stock, the newer less stable, specialized characters are bred out, the variation, no matter how great its potential value to human evolution, being irretrievably lost.... And, of course, the more primitive a type is, the more prepotent it is. This is why crossings with the negro are uniformly fatal. Whites, Amerindians, or Asiatics - all are alike vanquished by the invincible prepotency of the more primitive, generalized, and lower negro blood.”

Concerning the inferiority of the mixbreed, Professor Smith has said:

We shall content ourselves with citing a single authority, than whom there is none higher; whom not even the most suspicious will suspect of Southern ignorance and prejudice. We allude to the distinguished author of ‘The American Commonwealth,’ and the ‘Assimilation of Races in the United States.’

In his Romanes Lecture of June 7, 1902, on ‘The Relations of the Advanced and the Backward Races of Mankind,’ Mr. Bryce says (p. 24): ‘Where two races are physiologically near to one another the result of intermixture is good. Where they are remote, it is less satisfactory, by which I mean not only that it is below the level of the higher stock, but that it is not generally and evidently better than the lower stock.... But the mixture of whites and negroes, or of whites and Hindus, or of the American aborigines and negroes, seldom shows good results. The hybrid stocks, if not inferior in physical strength to either of those whence they spring, are apparently less persistent, and might - so at least some observers hold - die if they did not marry back into one or other of the parent races. Usually, of course, they marry back into the lower.’ (N. B. Mr. Bryce, it appears, is so ‘provincial, unintelligent and unchristian’ as to assume that the Whites are superior - a higher stock, and the Negroes inferior - a lower stock!) Again, p. 26: ‘… the two general conclusions which the facts so far as known suggest are these: that races of marked physical dissimilarity do not tend to intermarry, and that when and so far as they do, the average offspring is apt to be physically inferior to the average of either parent stock, and probably more beneath the average mental level of the superior than above the average mental level of the inferior.’ Again, p. 35: ‘Should this view be correct, it dissuades any attempt to mix races so diverse as are the white European and the negroes.’ And on p. 36: ‘The matter ought to be regarded from the side neither of the white nor of the black:, but of the future of mankind at large. Now for the future of mankind nothing is more vital than that some races should be maintained at the highest level of efficiency, because the work they can do for thought and art and letters, for scientific discovery, and for raising the standard of conduct, will determine the general progress of humanity. If therefore we were to suppose the blood of the races which are now most advanced to be diluted, so to speak, by that of the most backward, not only would more be lost to the former than would be gained to the latter, but there would be a loss, possibly an irreparable loss, to the world at large.’ Lastly, p. 39: ‘The moral to be drawn from the case of the Southern States seems to be that you must not, however excellent your intentions and however admirable your sentiments, legislate in the teeth of facts....’

The half-breeds are objectionable factors to our Nation and to our civilization. Many of them specialize in agitating the race question and promoting conflict.

In the majority of interracial marriages which take place the man is a Negro or mulatto and the woman white. It has been estimated from studies of intermarriage in Boston, New York, Michigan, Rhode Island, and Massachusetts that in eighty-three percent of the white-Negro marriages, the groom is a Negro. The social and economic status of Negroes who marry white persons is generally higher than the average, while the white men, and particularly the white women, who marry Negroes are of a lowclass, socially and economically.

“Boston furnishes us with the best record of mixed marriages available.” says Stuart O. Landry. “From 1867 to 1890 the mixed marriages in Boston averaged 25 per year. In 1904 in Boston 13.6% of all the Negro marriages were mixed marriages. In 1918 this percentage had gone to 5.2% and in 1923 it was 3.1%, but in 1938 it rose to 3 7%.” (23) And from studies in other states, Mr. Landry concludes that about 575 marriages between whites and Negroes take place yearly in the United States.

In asking for the complete political, economic, and social equality of the races, the Negro leaders are unquestionably asking that Negroes be accorded the right to marry white people. In addition to the attempts to abolish the legal restrictions on such unions, the propagandists are extremely active in advising interracial marriage and in advertising the “success” of mixed marriages.

There is no middle ground on the question of interracial marriage. A person either favors or condemns such unions.

The danger of amalgamation may be stated very simply - it means the destruction of the white race.

“Where two distinct species are located side by side,” says Madison Grant, “history and biology teach that but one of two things can happen; either one race drives the other out, as the Americans exterminated the Indians, or as the negroes are now replacing the whites in various parts of the South; or else they amalgamate and form a population of race bastards in which the lower type ultimately preponderates. This is a disagreeable alternative with which to confront sentimentalists, but nature is only concerned with results and neither makes nor takes excuses. The chief failing of the day with some of our well meaning philanthropists is their absolute refusal to face inevitable facts, if such facts appear cruel.”

Any student of biology knows that races which live side by side will eventually mix, and the mixing will occur, as it has in the United States, when organized society does its best to prevent it.

The race problem has now reached alarming proportions.

Amalgamation will make America negroid, destroy race, culture, and hope for the future. Separation will make America white, guarantee the preservation of the white race and the maintenance of our white civilization.

Posted by BATTAILE ('BATTLE') on May 14, 2009, 12:41 AM | #

Fair (White) Skin as an Ideal of Beauty: The Ideal Complexion in Asian and Western Cultures‏

http://majorityrights.com/index.php/weblog/comments/eurasians_more_attractive_than_ugly_caucasians_not_average_caucasians_a_rep/P200/

BEAUTY

The January l986 issue of the journal of Ethnic and Racial Studies, “Skin Color Preference, Sexual Dimorphism and Sexual Selection: a case of Gene-Culture Co-evolution?” by Peter Frost and Pierre Van der Berghe, stated that in any given race, the women tend to have lighter complexions than the men. Using standard ethnographic files from 51 societies on five continents which have recorded their preference for human skin color, the study found that 30 preferred lighter women and 14 preferred lighter women and lighter men.  The cultures of India, China, Brazil and Bali, as well as the Arabs and Negroes regard the lightest women as the most beautiful. --perpetuating the aesthetic appeal of the ivory-skinned, rosy-cheeked, blue-eyed, blond “nordic ideal” of feminine beauty- -even though they themselves do not possess the genetic capacity to reproduce such an organism. Over time, the study said, the upper classes of all races have become lighter-skinned than their fellow countrymen because they have repeatedly skimmed off fairer women from the lower classes.

Scientific research on what constitutes human beauty, in which 300 judges of various backgrounds were shown portrait photographs and asked to rate the beauty of the individual’s face, has revealed that nordic Whites are universally recognized as the most attractive humans, even by Blacks. The judges were instructed to evaluate the faces solely on his or her “personal standards of beauty and not to consider popular norms.” The results of the study “Age, Sex, Race, and the Perception of Facial Beauty.” Developmental Psychology, 5, Nov., 1971, pp 433-439.

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

Peter Frost
Anthropologist, Ph.D.
Université Laval

http://pages.globetrotter.net/peter_frost61z/

Sex Differences in Physical Attractiveness Preferences

Sex differences in physical attractiveness preferences

Feinman, Saul; Gill, George W

Journal of Social Psychology. Vol 105(1), Jun 1978, pp. 43-52

Abstract

Investigated the validity of stereotyped beliefs about sex differences in preferences for opposite sex coloration. The likes and dislikes of 482 female and 549 male Caucasian college students for eye color, hair color, and complexion color of the opposite sex were investigated by means of sexual selection questionnaire. Results indicate sex differences in both likes and dislikes for all 3 features. Males indicated somewhat greater preference for lighter female coloration, while females indicated somewhat greater preference for darker male coloration. These results are discussed in terms of the “kernel of truth” hypothesis of stereotyping, and the possible relationship to earlier research on semantic meanings of color and gender words. Special attention was paid to the aversion of both sexes to redheads, and to the implications for understanding the predominance of Black male/White female couplings in Black-White interracial marriage in America.


* * *

The literature of the Middle Ages does attest to an awareness of differences in skin color, but these differences were seen as existing largely between individuals rather than between races. Descriptions of human complexion as “white,” “brown” or “black” would correspond in modern usage to “fair,” “tan” or “swarthy.” Medieval Europeans had no awareness of belonging to a “white” race, if only for want of contact with other races.

This ignorance made them more sensitive to color differences among themselves, particularly between the sexes. Although about only a tenth of the difference separating blacks from whites, there does exist a perceptible dissimilarity in pigmentation between men and women. Male skin has more melanin and hemoglobin than does female skin, i.e., men are browner and ruddier; women, paler.

In medieval romances, a fair complexion was deemed an essential mark of womanhood, the heroine being invariably compared to snow, ivory, ermine, swans, starlight, or briar blossoms. Attitudes to male skin color seem to have been more ambivalent. A man was considered handsome if fair-skinned; yet manly and courageous, if “brown.” The tenth token of a knight of “strong Corage” was that he be of “broun coloure in al the body.” Many noble English knights were named “the broun.”

Men have browner and ruddier complexions in comparison to the relative pallor of women, a result of differing melanin and hemoglobin levels in the skin’s outer layers. This sex difference is universal and arises at puberty, as does differentiation in skin texture, body hair, fat distribution, and other cutaneous characteristics. Specifically, it arises because girls lighten in color much more than boys do during adolescence. It may widen even further in adulthood. Repeated tanning causes a gradual darkening of permanent, “constitutive” pigmentation and this effect seems to be stronger in men than in women, although women may also darken with successive pregnancies.

Skin lightens in girls from puberty on. This sexual differentiation has been noted in a wide variety of populations, including the above Indian and Spanish samples (Kalla 1973; Mesa 1983). Here the measurements were taken at the upper inner arm.

Women’s skin reflects more light than does men’s across the entire visible spectrum.

Across a wide range of populations, women’s skin color is lighter than men’s at the upper inner arm (Jablonski & Chaplin 2000; van den Berghe & Frost 1986). At this relatively unexposed site, reflectance (the percentage of light reflected by the skin) has an 83% heritability and thus provides a good measure of constitutive pigmentation. The constitutive sex difference seems to decrease from strongly to weakly pigmented peoples and is not significant in the Dutch — the least pigmented sample yet examined. Because the Dutch are already close to the physiological limit of human depigmentation, it may be that the skin of their adolescent girls cannot lighten any further (Rigters-Aris 1973).

Guthrie (1970) suggests that a fairer skin is one of several infant-like features—smaller nose and chin, smoother skin texture, relative lack of body hair, higher pitch of voice—that women have evolved to deter male aggression: “the sexual differences in skin color resulted from female whiteness being selected for because it is opposite the threat coloration, although the selection pressures may have been rather mild. Light skin seems to be more paedomorphic, since individuals of all races tend to darken with age. Even in the gorilla, the most heavily pigmented of the hominoids, the young are born with very little pigment.”

In some primate species, the adult female retains the infant’s body color, apparently in response to a family environment that includes not only offspring but also a continually present male partner. Of the eight primate species where adult males and females differ in color, seven have the female retaining the infant’s lighter color and five (63%) are monogamous—versus only 18% of all primate species (Hrdy & Hartung 1979). In monogamous animals, the male contributes more to infant care and cohabits more with the female, thus increasing her vulnerability to aggression and desertion. To reduce this risk, the female may look more like an infant as a way to inhibit aggressive impulses in her mate and to stimulate parental feelings of care. It is perhaps for similar reasons that much of mammalian sexuality seems to come from infant behaviors, like cuddling, murmuring, nipple sucking, and mouth licking.

Skin color has been thought of primarily in terms of race ever since the postmedieval European expansion and the ensuing creation of multiracial colonial societies. Previously, however, it was perceived in a more homogeneous milieu. Our expression ‘the fair sex’ harks back to a time when people conceived skin color in terms of sexual identity.

In this earlier environment, the sex difference in complexion may have structured how the mind responds to skin color, at least for minor variations of hue. If so, skin color should evoke different responses from men and women. In our ancestral environment, a person with a dark, male coloration would have meant one thing to a man and another to a woman—either a potential rival or a potential mate.

This view has support from several lines of evidence. It has long been known that a hardwired mental mechanism enables us to recognize human faces and even the gender of human faces (Perrett et al. 1994). Recently, one gender cue has turned out to be complexion. People can distinguish a man’s face from a woman’s by complexion alone, even when the image is blurred and offers no other details (Russell 2004; Tarr et al.2001). A critical cue seems to be the contrast between facial pigmentation and eye/lip pigmentation (Russell 2004).

Gender consciousness

Skin color was seen as a sexual characteristic: fair skin incarnated femininity; dark skin, masculinity.

Awareness of this duality was already present in simple hunting and gathering societies, as may be seen in this quote from a Hopi amerindian: “We often talked of the types of women we liked best … I preferred a light complexion for we say that a woman with a dark skin may be half man.” (Talayesva 1942:281). Skin color as a criterion of sexual identity is found across a wide range of culture areas. In a survey of the main anthropological data bank, the Human Relations Area Files (Category 832, “Sexual Stimulation, Ideals of Erotic Beauty and Sexual Attraction"), 47 of the 51 societies with relevant information showed an asymmetric preference for lighter skin in women (van den Berghe & Frost 1986).

The sex difference in complexion is attested in the visual arts of many peoples. Thus, the Egyptians depicted their women as yellow and their men as red-brown. The Etruscans and Greeks followed a similar pattern, with women in rosy white and men in brick red. This convention also appears in Aztec, Chinese, Japanese, Roman, medieval European, and even modern art. Another attestation may be found in the authors of antiquity, such as Aristotle:

Speaking generally, this [vaginal discharge] happens in fair-skinned women who are typically feminine, and not in dark women of a masculine appearance.
Aristotle Generation of Animals 1: 20

Beyond sexual identity per se, human complexion was associated with a number of personal qualities, derived at least in part from notions of femininity and masculinity. In the writings of Ancient Greece, the white skin of a woman incarnated not only her beauty but also her weakness and need for protection. The dark skin of a man evoked his virility and ardor in combat. Although a woman would feel flattered if complimented on her white complexion, a man would take the same remark as an insinuation of effeminacy, impotence, or cowardice. Many expressions associate darkness with virility: a brave, strong man had a ‘black rump’ whereas a coward had a white one. This dichotomy was projected onto the internal organs and, by extension, onto the soul itself. A ‘black heart’ signified strong emotions; a ‘white heart’, indifference (Irwin 1974).
A similar pattern came up during my fieldwork in a small French-Canadian community. The local inhabitants associated a ruddy-brown complexion with a hard (), quick-tempered (), proud (), and malicious () temperament; by contrast, they identified paleness with a soft () and accommodating () one. Similarly, among the Berti, a Sudanese people, “men and women affirm without any hesitation that men are black, hot and hard and women are white, cold and soft” (Holy 1988).

A word-association test on Navajo and Anglo-American subjects found that “BLACK tends to be the more potent and masculine but WHITE the more active and feminine” (Osgood 1960).

In general, lighter skin suggested a soft, weak, calm, or inoffensive person. Darker skin evoked someone who was hard, strong, emotional, or ominous. Depending on the context, each of these qualities might be positive or negative. Whiteness could signify peaceful serenity or cowardly indifference. Blackness could refer to any strong emotion — anger, indignation, sadness, hate — however justified or malicious. Overall, a light complexion was not judged to be superior to a dark one. Everything depended on the context, within which the most important variable was gender.


Racialization of skin color

People consciously linked skin color to gender only as long as other sources of pigmentary variability remained minimal. This linkage weakened as smaller, mono-ethnic societies gave way to larger, multi-ethnic ones. The transition occurred gradually and unevenly, at first perhaps in certain zones of interethnic contact on the Indian subcontinent. Other zones of contact opened up as the slave trade brought blacks into areas outside sub-Saharan Africa: Pharaonic Egypt from the second millenium B.C. onward; the eastern Mediterranean basin of Late Antiquity; and the Middle East and North Africa after the great Islamic conquests.

http://pages.globetrotter.net/peter_frost61z/

Posted by BATTAILE ('BATTLE') on May 14, 2009, 12:48 AM | #

Interfaith and Interracial Couples

http://restoretheconstitutionalrepublic.com/forum/index.php?topic=3799.0

Risk factors for marital discord among interfaith and interracial couples

Kohn, Carolynn Susan

Dissertation Abstracts International: Section B: The Sciences & Engineering. Vol 61(8-B), Mar 2001, pp. 4410

The purpose of this investigation was twofold. The first objective was to examine clinical and theoretical explanations for intermarried couples’ greater risk of divorce compared to homogeneous couples. It was hypothesized that compared to homogeneous couples, intermarried couples would report less family support, more severe problems with religion and family, more discrepant marital role beliefs, and greater discrepancies in acculturation. It was further hypothesized that intermarried couples’ greater discrepancies in marital role beliefs would be associated with greater discrepancies in acculturation. The second objective was to examine for theoretical and clinical assumptions that intermarried couples with greater differences between the partners (i.e., interfaith/interracial couples) experience more distress and difficulties compared to intermarried couples with fewer differences between the partners (i.e., interfaith-only or interracial-only couples). Finally, exploratory analyses examined whether group status (intermarried versus homogeneous) would moderate the association between family support or communication/problem-solving skills and relationship satisfaction. Participants were 150 heterosexual couples (75 intermarried and 75 homogeneous couples), engaged or married less than 18 months, who completed a set of self-report measures. Results indicated that intermarried couples reported less family support, more severe problems with religion, and greater discrepancies in acculturation levels. Contrary to the hypothesis, no association was found between intermarried couples’ acculturation and marital role belief discrepancies. In partial support of the hypothesis, results indicated that among intermarried couples, interfaith-only couples reported less distress and difficulties compared to interfaith/interracial couples. Contrary to the hypothesis, interfaith-only couples also reported less difficulties compared to interracial-only couples. Moreover, no differences were found between interracial-only and interfaith/interracial couples. Exploratory analyses revealed that group status moderated the association between communication/problem-solving skills and relationship satisfaction, such that communication/problem-solving skills were highly associated with relationship satisfaction among homogeneous couples only, and not among intermarried couples. These findings suggest that differences between couples at higher-risk versus lower risk for divorce, as well as the differential impact of culture and ethnicity on relationships, may have important implications for models of marital functioning and divorce prevention programs. Implications and limitations of these findings were discussed and recommendations for future research were made.

Posted by BATTAILE ('BATTLE') on May 14, 2009, 12:54 AM | #

A CRITIQUE OF RACE-MIXING

http://restoretheconstitutionalrepublic.com/forum/index.php?topic=3799.msg16718;topicseen#new

by Andrew Ryan and Peter J. White

http://www.alor.org/Race, Culture and Nation/A Critique of Race Mixing.htm

“Some races are obviously superior to others. A more thorough adjustment to the conditions of existence has given them spirit, vitality, scope and a relative stability…. It is therefore of the greatest importance not to obscure this superiority by intermarriage with inferior stock, and thus nullify the progress made by a painful evolution and a prolonged sifting of souls. mReason protests as much as instinct against any fusion, for instance, of white and black peoples… The Jews, the Greeks, the Romans, the English were never so great as when they confronted other nations… but this greatness falls whenever contact leads to amalgamation.”
-- George Santayana [1]

“One world - one race: the deliberate encouragement of inter-racial marriage.”
-- Rabbi Abraham Feinberg.

“A bastard [Hebrew Mamzer - mongrel] shall not enter into the congregation of the Lord; even to his tenth generation shall he not enter into the congregation of the Lord.”
-- Deuteronomy 23: 2.

“The most glaring departure which all persons affected by the idealistic, humanitarian conceptions of brotherhood make from the instincts of the man in the street, is that of condoning mixed-marriages, since to these far-sighted intellectuals, racial suicide is not committed. The America of the future, the believe, belongs to the new breed of men which will arise from the glorious intermixture of ethnic odds and ends thrown together from every corner of the earth, blinding themselves to the evidence that this has been the general course of events throughout the world, in Latin America, the Mediterranean and Near East regions, in Southern Asia, and nowhere is the plight of their precious humanity so desperate as in these same areas. On the other hand, the peoples which have saved themselves from extreme out-breeding - the Germanic Caucasian, the Chinese, the Japanese - are similarly the ones which aspire to greatness.”
-- Wayne MacLeod, [2]

“The mixing of very different races modifies their ancestral influences, but takes away at the same time their mental stability. A miscegenated people is ungovernable. The anarchy of the Latin American republic is the proof.”
-- Gustave le Bon [3]

ON MISCEGENATION AND THE DESTRUCTION OF RACE

Posted by clingo on May 22, 2009, 04:36 PM | #

hello there
hey i’m clearly” eurasian admixture “ yeah i’m really cute looking and everything people tell me they ar ein love with me ¬¬
but my first impressions on people are generally negative , my face in profile looks weird .. not for me of course but to the new people who see me for the fisrt time ..
i’m from russian nordic i mean from north type from my granmother and from grandparent side adugeyan pure adugyean surname , my mother is very attractive indeed my father was russian but the results are weird XD

Posted by Ally on June 06, 2009, 02:31 AM | #

Interesting article. I think the 75% Caucation 25% Asian mixes looked the best in all of the samples. Maybe this is the “magic” combination for the highest attractiveness between these two racial groups. I happen to be from a country with mixed heritage--mostly Caucasian, with a spattering of Asian and South Asian (wonder if you can guess which country that is lol). I happen to have a mother who is 75% Caucation and 25% Mongoloid, and I must say she is gorgeous and was known to be one of the most beautiful women in her hometown, in addition to her sisters. They are all just beautiful and they are also aging wonderfully (perhaps due to their Mongoloid roots). Some look more Caucasian and some look more Mongoloid, but overall she and all her sisters and brothers are really attractive. They also have green eyes in their family, so a very exotic mix indeed. Since they fall into the 75%C/25%A mix, that def further promotes my conclusion above.

On a side note, my dad has very Caucasian features but dark skin. I ended up getting most of his facial features, my mom’s arched eyebrows and very slightly upturned eyes (almond shaped), and a light olive complexion. I get compliments all the time and I’m sure some of it has to do with my slightly asian eyes, yet still having Caucasian chin and nose. In fact, if you look at the women found to the be the mose beautiful right now (Angelina Jolie, Adrianna Lima, Megan Fox, Kim Kardashian, Giselle Bundchen, etc.) they all have slightly upturned eyes with arched eyebrows, yet Caucasian in their other features. So I do believe that some Mongoid definitely adds to attractiveness.

Posted by Ally on June 06, 2009, 02:35 AM | #

Oh I almost forgot to mention Katherine Zeta Jones. She’s a mega-hottie, and she definitely has some Mongoloid features. I don’t know where they came from since she’s from the UK, but she has them for sure, esp compared to others of her background. I think a hint of Mongoloid in women adds to their feminine appeal. It probably has the opposite affect on guys, though, although I have t admit that a little in guys isn’t bad either. Men with smaller eyes (not necessarily upturned, just slightly squinted) are considered much more attractive than men with large, round eyes.

Posted by Ally on June 06, 2009, 02:40 AM | #

Ohhh, one more specimen to add to the list lol. Look up Jayde Nicole. She was Playboy’s Playmate of the year last year. She looks very Eurasian mixed (perhaps Caucasian mixed with Native American?) and I’m sure many people must find her attractive if she got Playmate of the Year.

Posted by Fiotheth on June 06, 2009, 04:55 AM | #

In fact, if you look at the women found to the be the mose beautiful right now (Angelina Jolie, Adrianna Lima, Megan Fox, Kim Kardashian, Giselle Bundchen, etc.) they all have slightly upturned eyes with arched eyebrows, yet Caucasian in their other features.

Oh please.

Jewish media pushes these mischling types on us.  Do not believe the Jewish hype!

Generally speaking when-ever actual people are allowed input in the form of voting or polling usually Hyper-Aryan appearing Females are the most popular.  Such as the Aryan Appearing Scarlett Johansson who usually wins these types of polls now-a-days. 

Katherine Zeta Jones

This is some serious projecting on your part.

KZJ is not some Eurasian mongrel! 

She is full-blooded Welsh.  What you are seeing is the semitic phenotypical remnants of her ancestors.  Welsh are descendents of a semitic caucasian sea-faring Phoenician type Race that had sailed and settled in the British Isles long before Anglo-Saxons (Germanics) arrived.

Posted by Frank on June 06, 2009, 01:13 PM | #

Welsh are Semitic? That’s mere myth isn’t it? And a disgraceful one at that.

Anyway, even East Asians seem to think Nordic women are most beautiful (I’d add Celtic women in that too). Semites are some of the ugliest people in the world though.

Posted by cannon on August 15, 2009, 11:54 AM | #

Posted by Guessedworker on December 07, 2008, 12:27 PM | #

‘’Our understanding is that this is a consequence of the white self-estrangement by, enslavement to, an alien-imposed cultural environment.  It’s a small part of what’s wrong overall, and what needs correcting.

The truth is that European feminine beauty and European masculinity are evolved as an indissoluble pair.  European males who exhibit a preference for Asian women need reminding of that fact, and of the fact of their own enslavement to the zeigeist.  Essentially, they have already been deprived of their true masculinity, and that is not an appropriate station for any man.  They need to be more independent and to take control of themselves again.  The same goes for European women who encourage negroes to fuck them.’’

If you put your money where you mouth is your ugly white women wouldnt be fucking negros and thats ‘’a small part of what’s wrong overall, and what needs correcting’’. The problem is it will never be corrected because you’ll never put your money where your mouth is. Although ‘’they need to be more independent and to take control of themselves again’’ the fact is the majority of Europeans dont think much of themselves on an independent level not only do they have lower self esteem as compared to the majority if not all populations they also have a lower level of opinion of looks too (physical appearance). Catch 22. No win situation. Thats why your digressing in all and every direction possible to not face this fact. Im sure you’ll agree with me.

Posted by cannon on August 15, 2009, 11:56 AM | #

*they also have a lower level of opinion of there looks too (physical appearance).

Posted by John on August 20, 2009, 02:20 PM | #

i just read this post, and i must say, im appalled. fancy wording put aside, all this post really is, is some white racist dumb fuck saying biracial offspring of partial caucasian ancestry are less attractive than pure caucasians. why? well because the primitive looks of non white races ruin the “perfect” angled looks of a caucasian. also, what the hell is with this man saying that any white person in their right mind would find flat faced mongoloids unattractive? i mean, im not going to say i dont think the same, but we’re all human beings here, lets not go around discriminating against other non-white races. this isn’t the 1940’s its 2009, wake up.

Posted by Melanie on September 05, 2009, 04:02 PM | #

I greatly dislike the bias in your argument. I’m not one of those ‘Asian-mad’ teenagers who’ll tell you that any Asian is better than a Caucasian (instead, I’ll just tell you nobody’s better than anyone else.) I’m your general Scandinavian-rooted Caucasian; blonde hair, blue eyes, pale skin. I can trace my ancestry back for centuries, and I know that my family is all totally Caucasian. Yet you make the assumption that a flat facial structure isn’t Caucasian-- well, it’s one of the biggest traits of my family that we all have rather low, flat cheekbones, our eyebrow bones and jaw bones are not at all prominent, our noses button-shaped and round… I’m short, petite, my upper body is quite long compared to my legs. Would you say because of that that I’m default unattractive? Take it as vanity if you really want to, but I think that I’m pretty enough to turn a few heads, low round cheeks or no, even if I don’t conform to the stereotype.

‘...the remarkable extent of facial flatness found among some Mongoloids that no mentally sound white should find remotely attractive.’
I hate that sentence. It’s racially offensive. It upholds the stereotype of the biased, introverted and xenophobic white person that most of us are trying to break while a few people like you run around making others think the worst of us. As for me, I think that Margaret Cho is quite beautiful in her own way. Her facial structure has a rather doll-like effect, which personally I find to be a very attractive trait. Should I call the men in white coats now, or would you like the honour?

Asians think that flatter faces are less attractive? Well, with all due respect to them, almost all societies across the world have been affected by the west. Worldwide, people wear the same style of clothes as us, use the same technology, make the same kinds of art and music. The fad for eye surgery amongst those with an epicanthic fold and the preference for a more Caucasian facial structure is simply another indication of the Westernisation visible in those societies.

Beauty’s in the eye of the beholder, even if there are principles that are considered attractive across the board. You’re dressing up your article as an objective given, despite how biased it is. Beauty’s like art: how can you say that ‘this is a piece of art’ and ‘this is not’, without those statements being nothing but subjective? In the same way, how can you say ‘this person is beautiful’ and ‘this person is not’ when so many others would beg to disagree?

Caucasians are hardly more beautiful than anyone else. If you want proof of that, just go outside and sit on a bench by a street for a while. I’m betting that you’re not going to be seeing a hundred supermodels all walking around there.

Making scientific assumptions based on celebrities, therefore, is misleading: celebrities are picked not just for their talent but also for their attractiveness. The ‘average’ celebrity is not the average person. From my street-walking experience, I can’t see that simply being white makes one any more attractive, even if there is a certain psychological and biological factor involved in our preference. Also, making computer-created images to demonstrate your point is not scientific. How are you supposed to get a good idea of what a Eurasian actually looks like with a computer? However good the software, it’s not going to be an accurate representation. 

I agree most with Kevin Leung here. Social conditioning is a huge factor in this. There’s no reason why anyone should be more beautiful than anyone else based on their race; it’s just what the popular media tells us is right. 

Go and do some better research, one that doesn’t just contain the views of one small group. Then come back and take a good, long look at yourself. Then go away, and get a life for wasting your time trying to analyse the nature of beauty.

Posted by Melanie on September 05, 2009, 04:16 PM | #

Note. When I say ‘street-walking experience’, I don’t mean that kind. xD I didn’t completely think that one through!

Posted by buti on September 05, 2009, 08:36 PM | #

Posted by Melanie on September 05, 2009, 04:02 PM | #

‘’In the same way, how can you say ‘this person is beautiful’ and ‘this person is not’ when so many others would beg to disagree?’’

You are correct that an individual can only be percieved as more beautifull than another based on a majority judgement/majority agreement. Europeans have a higher opinion of the looks of there ethnic group as a whole and it is through these lenses they percieve beauty. There perception of beauty is as a group perception where they percieve beauty and make a judgement based on there whole ethnic group rather than on an individual basis which is how beauty has to be judged. 

‘’Caucasians are hardly more beautiful than anyone else’’

Ofcourse there do exist very excusively beautifull women of Non-European background in the world who can give the most very exclusively beautifull (European) Cauacasion/Nordic women a run for there money. One glance at western culture and it is evident there is no stigma attached to posing nude/exposing ones physical beauty to society if anything such behaviour is encouraged it exists for others all around to see. In such a society (culture) with such an emphasis on making the most of ones physical appearance it is not going to be too difficult to find even the most very exclusively beautifull White European/Nordic women walking around there looks exposed to society. Given that Europeans/Nordics appear to have a higher percentage of ‘’average’’ attractive women it is not going to be a difficult task to find plenty who are willing to enter beauty pagents and give the average attractive non white women a run for there money. However the fact of the matter remains that the most exclusively beautifull/attractive people (women) will never pose nude/enter beauty pagents/expose there beauty openly to society and so given such a situation one can only work with what is available to society and not what is not available so it remains if its not seen doesnt mean it doesnt exist. Therefore as its not possible to compare the most very exclusively beautifull Non-White European/White Nordic women to the most very exclusively White European/White Nordic women one cannot make conclusions that such and such a race is more beautifull than another and so its no surprise to read on some of these pages that such and such a Non-White woman would never beat a Nordic/European woman in a genuine beauty pagent given that Europeans/Nordics appear to have a higher percentage of average attractive looking people than other races and given that there is no stigma attached to them fully exposing there physical appearance/looks openly to society what conclusion can one expect otherwise? The conclusion is if beauty pagents were based on beauty alone then the majority of women in the world including the white European/Nordic women would think twice about entering them and thoose that do end up entering them will always be short of being the most exclusively beautifull/attractive because the best looking women will never expose themselves so openly to society. 

‘’Social conditioning is a huge factor in this’’

It would be ‘’Remarkable’’ if the domination of Western Culture over society did not play a role in shaping peoples preferences and the way they are percieving beauty. To what extent it played a role and the extent of the impact it had is open to debate.

‘’There’s no reason why anyone should be more beautiful than anyone else based on their race;’’

You are correct. You cannot objectively compare the attractiveness of women of different races. You are also correct one cannot be judged to be more beautifull than another based on there race and there do exist in the world attractive women in all category of races. One can only be more beautiful than another based on a MAJORITY judgement based on beauty alone. You cannot come to a true objective assesment of beauty when perciveing it alongside race such a method is incorrect/invalid as it taints your perception of beauty with your own personal bias/liking. Beauty can only be understood objectively alongside beauty and beauty alone. Beauty will ultimately move a soul and quite frankly as attractive as the European/Nordic women are there beauty just doesnt and never has MOVED me.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on September 05, 2009, 08:50 PM | #

Melanie, you make all good points.  That said, you must be aware there’s a powerful movement afoot (spearheaded by the Jews, in my view:  I think that’s obvious) to brainwash whites to the effect that one of the many reasons whites “badly need to race-mix with non-whites” (according to the Jews) is it will tremendously improve their looks.  You can’t deny there is this movement going on.  Do you agree with that anti-white propaganda?  If not, does this movement need to be countered?  If it does, how would you counter it?  Might one solution be to point out ways in which whites can be said to be objectively better looking than others, at least in white eyes and according to white tastes?

We didn’t start this, in other words. 

But we’re not going to just lie down and take it.

As for hurting others’ feelings, many at this site, myself included, certainly cared about that a few years ago, very much so in my own case but it’s gone way beyond that now and I’m done with that.  I frankly don’t care about their “feelings” any more.  We’re being genocided!  What about our feelings? Has anyone acknowledged those?  Has anyone seen the other side acknowledge our situation or the rightness of our anger?  No, no one.  So I’m supposed to be ever so dainty when firing back at them?  I don’t think so, Melanie.  It’s long past time the gloves came off and certain truths were plainly spoken, spoken about the Jews, spoken about non-whites, and let the chips fall where they may.

Feelings might be hurt?  Boo-hoo.  Cry me a river, Melanie.

Somebody pass the Kleenex.

I’ll step up and defend “Korean flat faces” when the Koreans step up and acknowledge the right of the Euros races not to be genocided.  I assure you, I’ll be the first to do it and the loudest, Melanie.

Posted by Bat on September 21, 2009, 05:56 PM | #

What was the standard(beauty) when Mongols had ruled the world in the 13th hundreds ? Any idea?

Posted by Scotty on October 01, 2009, 01:52 AM | #

This is simply one of the stupidest articles the internet has ever witnessed. It seems evidently to have been written by an entirely untravelled American. I agree that beauty is, to some extent, objective. And living in Britain, and having travelled Northern Europe countless times, I can state from a position of authority that British women (not to mention German and French!) are objectively uglier than most of the rest of the world (as in possessing by far the lowest percentage of attractive women per capita). Any un-prejudiced observer will, on his travels, see a far higher proportion of truly beautiful women amongst the Chinese, not to mention the Russians, Italians, Israelis, Finns, Lebanese and Argentinians. So there goes your idiotic theory. Actually the Russian and Finnish beauty is notably Eurasian.

Posted by Lurker on October 01, 2009, 02:03 AM | #

And living in Britain, and having travelled Northern Europe countless times, I can state from a position of authority that British women (not to mention German and French!) are objectively uglier than most of the rest of the world (as in possessing by far the lowest percentage of attractive women per capita).

Position of authority - bollocks. Argument from anecdote is what it is.

Posted by Confused but listening on November 07, 2009, 05:34 AM | #

I stumbled onto this and did not intend to read the entire post and comments, but they were so fascinating that I simply couldn’t stop. And of course I have to leave my comments as well.

I find Asian faces (even flat faces) as attractive as the more traditionally white faces, but as the original poster has implied, I am only one of many and so perhaps I am just an odd person. I did think both women in the “flat face” picture were attractive.
So here is my first question: why is miscegenation a bad thing? I didn’t quite understand the argument against it (if, indeed, there was one, since I realize it wasn’t the main point of the article).

I do think that the DNA comment was perhaps misunderstood by the person who posed the rebuttal. I’m certainly no expert, but it does seem to me (from the little scholarly information I’ve found on the subject) that the concept of the link between race and physical appearance, though ostensibly common sense, is actually not as sound as it would at first appear. Race, depending on who you are discussing it with, is an ideological construction after all - a word, in essence - whereas DNA (excepting the words we use to describe it) is a tangible reality (in a stretched sense of the word, perhaps). Therefore, I would argue that we have imposed “race” on genetics. I’m not saying that that isn’t sensical or necessary, but when a white man discovers that his great grandfather was black, himself presenting no physical characteristics that would identify him as black (but making the discovery solely through DNA testing), I feel forced to question the soundness of too strongly allying genetics with appearance-based appellations of race. (The example I use is not hypothetical.) Obviously, genetics govern appearance, but I don’t know if we can safely say that “race” (as a concept) does as well. But I suppose it depends on how you define “race,” after-all. If you define race by genetic markers, would a man who appears to be white, but who is of African descent, be considered white, black, or mixed? Because if the privileged genes (those that make up the standard of a certain race) are those that solely define appearance, then what are we to make of other “black genes” that do not govern appearance - or is the only way to define “race” to do so purely on genes that influence appearance and to disregard anything else (is there anything else)? Ah, that must be it. That would be the original argument in a nutshell, I feel.

I don’t know if you count Greeks and Romans, and later their imitators, the Renaissance Humanists, among the purest Western conceptions of beauty (and I realize their antiquity confuses the issue of modern aesthetics), but it was my understanding that in their depictions of the nude male (at least as far as sculpture goes) the aesthetically desirable penis is actually rather small. It is the satyrs, the fools of the natural world, who have larger penises. And, I am willing to bet (though, admittedly I have only a handful of testimonies to back this up - all white American women), that you might be surprised at how many heterosexual American (caucasian) women prefer smaller penises.

Lastly, I was concerned at the correlation (hastily made into causation) between the appearance of the woman conducting the study being critiqued and the ethnicity of the caucasian subjects (which seems to be pure conjecture, though of course the person conjecturing is a recognized authority - I assume). I don’t think the argument that unattractive women seek to flatter themselves (I believe this is implied) in their own studies by picking representatives that resemble them can hold any water. The idea that most women hold themselves up as personal standards of beauty (at least in America) must be acknowledged a fallacy, if not an outright fantasy. I think a random sampling of women would prove this beyond a reasonable doubt, but I admit I’ve never done such a study. I’m generally too busy worrying about my weight (101 lbs) and whether my abs are toned enough - like the models I tend to be confronted with on tv. (Forgive the personal digression.) I don’t think the language I use here is too strong. This seemed a very weak argument to me, and damaged the writer’s ethos almost irreparably - which was unfortunate as the rest of the study, despite other unsubstantiated assertions of opinion, was very intriguing.

On the whole, I wonder what the writer will do with this research. Is there a purpose other than aesthetic analysis? I would be very interested to know how this information will be used.

Thank you for an amusing (if vaguely frightening) hour of reading.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on November 07, 2009, 02:50 PM | #

”If you define race by genetic markers, would a man who appears white but is of African descent be considered white, black, or mixed?” (—Confused but listening)

If the genetic analysis of a person who looks white suggests he’s a mixture of white and Negro he should be considered what he is, mixed-race.  Recognizing this reality instead of sweeping it under the rug (sweeping it under the rug as your Jewish college professors, miss, would like because they deem that to be “good for the Jews” no matter how bad it be for gentiles, in fact precisely because it’s bad for gentiles) has practical importance on the “macroscopic” level.  For example, among the children of a population of such individuals will be lots who are obviously non-white, probably the majority, and that population, if it continue to reproduce itself, will for all succeeding generations show itself without recourse to genetic analysis to be obviously non-white, something a population of unmixed whites won’t do.  A population of unmixed whites will stay white through the generations.

A limited number of such mixed-race individuals added to the population of a modern Euro-race country is harmless but not millions, as the Jews, communists, crony capitalists and compradors, organized homosexuals, clueless women voters and “church ladies,” and the Vatican branch of the Homintern want to inflict on us.  Inflicting millions of them on a country (not to mention inflicting millions of not just them but the real deal — actual Negroes, actual Orientals, etc.) will change the country’s race, something Jews love but the people of any Euro-race country so targeted in the Jewish crosshairs will vote down if given the chance in an honestly-worded referendum. 

”[…W]hat are we to make of other ‘black genes’ that do not govern appearance - or is the only way to define ‘race’ to do so purely on genes that influence appearance […?]”

No, there are plenty of inborn behavioral traits that distinguish the True West-Central African Negro from the True European (two groups which I consider distinct species by the way).  There are also inborn physiological, histological, epidemiological, and other traits that differ between the two.  Physical traits aren’t the only ones.

Read this, miss:  http://wiki.majorityrights.com/race .  And forget the “liberal” (i.e., Jewish-nationalist) claptrap your Jewish professors taught you in college.

Oh, and .... getting yourself pregnant, barefoot, and in the kitchen wouldn’t be a bad idea either, hun.

Posted by Todd Charske on November 17, 2009, 12:32 PM | #

I’m stupified with the stupidness of this article.  Shallow!

- Todd Charske

Posted by OlgaKov on November 29, 2009, 05:50 PM | #

Dear J Richards.

You have shown only the ugly eurasians lol

Being half russian and half korean, I find this very offensive.

Besides, from my point of view, eurasians are generally ugly or very attractive.

Come on… Although these are celebrities, I think these guys and girls are attractive and masculine!

Although I have to agree that beauty these days are very eurocentric

Good examples.
http://www.surfersvillage.com/img/st/0225_brianching.jpg
( Brian Ching) Soccer player, half chinese

http://www.funmunch.com/celebrities/actresses/kristin_kreuk/wallpapers/kristin_kreuk_wallpapers_9_1152_864.jpg
(Kristin kreuk) Actress, Half chinese

http://sstv.freechal.com/File/Article/200907/20090715223859_V.jpg
(Julien Kang) Korean actor, half french

http://www.makeup411.com/411_product_images/2207_Lindsay Price_Lipstick Jungle.jpg
(Lindsay Price) Actress, half korean. Her flatness works on her face!

http://blog.naver.com/erica624?Redirect=Log&logNo=56882777
(Half korean half german baby) but I find her german dad more hot lol

Fugly examples.. Like u have posted

I wont even link the pic just because u know how he looks like
Jon Gosselin.... Ring a bell?
Seriously he is fugly as hell

Its obvious that J Richards is envious of us!

BTW u know that Margaret Cho dated Chris Isaak right?

Does that mean Chris Isaak is mentally challenged or something?

lol Ur really funny guy..

I would love to see more of your posts! Keep postin them up!

Posted by Mark IJsseldijk on November 29, 2009, 07:08 PM | #

I’m stupified with the stupidness of this article.  Shallow!

- Todd Charske

Its obvious that J Richards is envious of us!
-Olga Kov

Boo hoo, another mischling with inadequacy/self-worth issues.

Posted by Proud_Mix_Of_Races on January 24, 2010, 12:48 PM | #

I think this whole thing is stupid. Human beings are human beings. Everyone has their own personal preference; although the media and society do influence what we perceive to be beautiful. But no one can say that there is ONE perfect race or ONE perfect example of beauty.

Fair enough if you want to discuss what you see as the perfect example of beauty, but do not think for one second that there is a perfect race. In what way could a single race be seen as “perfect” or “superior” ??

Honestly, anyone who thinks that miscegenation is genocide is a complete idiot and needs to be bashed over the head and re-educated. Miscegenation is a way of evolution. How else do you think they got orchids to become to beautiful or apples to look and taste so good?

Imbeciles. Why are we even discussing this? Idiots need to keep their mouths shut so as to not embarrass themselves with their stupid comments and instead, read a book. There is so much scientific proof out there explaining the truth about the physical advantages of “cross-breeding”.

J Richards, you need to delete this internet page because all it does is offer racists a chance to insult as many people as they can with their narrow mindedness and ignorance.

Posted by Gudmund on January 24, 2010, 06:17 PM | #

I think this whole thing is stupid. Human beings are human beings. Everyone has their own personal preference; although the media and society do influence what we perceive to be beautiful. But no one can say that there is ONE perfect race or ONE perfect example of beauty.

No, beauty is a phenomenon, experienced by the senses yes but it is not subjective.  It exists or it doesn’t.  No pure Negroid is beautiful.  It doesn’t happen.

Fair enough if you want to discuss what you see as the perfect example of beauty, but do not think for one second that there is a perfect race. In what way could a single race be seen as “perfect” or “superior” ??

Who said the words “perfect” and “superior”?  You did.

Honestly, anyone who thinks that miscegenation is genocide is a complete idiot and needs to be bashed over the head and re-educated. Miscegenation is a way of evolution. How else do you think they got orchids to become to beautiful or apples to look and taste so good?

You’re a communist who thinks your perverted sense of aesthetics ought to be imposed on those who disagree with you.  You are mentally ill. 

And no, miscegenation is not a way of evolution.  In most cases it involves devolution.

Imbeciles. Why are we even discussing this? Idiots need to keep their mouths shut so as to not embarrass themselves with their stupid comments and instead, read a book. There is so much scientific proof out there explaining the truth about the physical advantages of “cross-breeding”.

No.  In certain cases hybrid vigor can be attained through cross-breeding but that does not, repeat not, result from willy-nilly impulses of the gonads.  You’re the imbecile.

J Richards, you need to delete this internet page because all it does is offer racists a chance to insult as many people as they can with their narrow mindedness and ignorance.

“Narrow minded” and “ignorant”, and this from a mischling who has spouted every anti-racist cliche in the book in the space of one comment.  How ironic.

Hey you!  This is a racialist website.  We are racialists.  You don’t like it?  Show yourself the door.

Posted by Cynthia on February 04, 2010, 04:42 AM | #

To the other commenters: Never use the word “miscegenation.” It’s derogatory, disgusting, and classless. It has the connotation of borderline vulgarity. I’m Eurasian, and don’t anybody pull this crap on me that I shouldn’t have read this if I have a problem with it. You know what? I’m posting here because you all are ridiculous. You make it sound as if Eurasians have dirty blood and are lower than the rest of society. I’m not the most beautiful girl in the world, I wholeheartedly admit this, but beauty is an OPINION. Clearly thy let you through kindergarten if you are able to comment on this. Surely they taught you enough that there is no such definition of beauty. I don’t think that Eurasians are any more beautiful than people of any other ethnicities, but there is absolutely no need to discuss us and other Asians as if we are these lowly dogs. This prejudice is utterly appalling. Yes, I understand that not everyone thinks people with certain eyes or a specific nose are attractive, but, by God, NEVER generalize a whole group of people as being ugly or anything like that. It’s a repulsive thing to say.

Posted by Brazilian on February 21, 2010, 11:04 AM | #

I notice that when European women get cosmetic surgery, many will have work done on their nose.  All the procedures for modifying the nose will in some way reduce size.  East Asians have smaller noses than Europeans.  Does this mean that European women are trying to go in the direction of East Asian appearance? 

Not a real question, but I bring this up to point out that there is no one supremely attractive race.  No race has a monopoly on the hot features.

Posted by Carla on April 23, 2010, 09:47 AM | #

WHO CARES ABOUT WHAT RACE LOOKS BETTER jesus h. christ…

whoever originally created this whole stupid thing...is nothing but a limey SLAG. Why asians by the way??? I personally believe EURASIANS are EXTREMELY attractive, have u guys ever seen a very attractive half phillipine and half white person, (and i mean they look exactly HALF AND HALF-- not more white, not more filipino than white) they are EXTREMELY beautiful. Some white ppl are hotter than asians, some asians hotter than white or eurasians, some half asians hotter than full asians or whites.

This whole thing is dumb, but it gave me something to read while bored in class.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on April 23, 2010, 04:18 PM | #

“To the other commenters:  Never use the word “miscegenation.” It’s derogatory, disgusting, and classless.  It has the connotation of borderline vulgarity. […] NEVER generalize a whole group of people as being ugly or anything like that.  It’s a repulsive thing to say.” (—Cynthia)

What about “interspecies hybridization,” my own perferred term for what we’re talking about.  Is that OK?

Posted by Lurker on April 24, 2010, 04:53 AM | #

is nothing but a limey SLAG

Oh dear Carla, I hope thats not intended as a racist coment.

Posted by majoritymyass on May 08, 2010, 10:05 PM | #

Yes, whites have a right to exist, which is why YOU racist white morons are allowed to walk around freely, posting racist articles on the internet. I agree with many of the others who commented, no matter how many scientific terms and fancy words you use, it all boils down to: you think that whites are more beautiful than other races (and you yourselves have confirmed this in your replies) and that is racist.

This obsession with having to “prove” the beauty of whites actually suggests you have inferiority complex. Or do you consider yourself part of this “white elite”. Obviously you are white, so you consider yourselves beautiful just because you are white? Why don’t you guys upload photos of yourselves so we can behold some “fine” white specimens, hm? Let’s see ‘em round bellies and receding hairlines.

Posted by danielj on May 08, 2010, 11:44 PM | #

you think that whites are more beautiful than other races

So does the free market. So do American Negroes with even a modicum of financial success.

and that is racist.

Describe for me, in a non-exhaustive fashion, a system of or even principles of aesthetics that do not result in a hierarchy of beauty with white peoples at its zenith.

Obviously you are white, so you consider yourselves beautiful just because you are white?

You reading comprehension could stand for some improvement. Beauty is distributed across the spectrum of white peoples with more frequency and intensity than in other peoples which does not result in the truth of the conditional that you have formulated. In plainer speech, nobody fucking said “If white, then sexy.” You mistakenly pulled that belief out of your ass.

Posted by Lurker on May 09, 2010, 03:59 AM | #

whites have a right to exist, which is why YOU racist white morons are allowed to walk around freely, posting racist articles on the internet.

And who is it who allows us to do that? Btw who do you think came up with the internet in the first place? It would be entirely reasonable for whites to say that the internet was a whites only preserve, everybody else can get their own.

it all boils down to: you think that whites are more beautiful than other races (and you yourselves have confirmed this in your replies) and that is racist.

To more or less agree with Dan, I think, on average, whites are more beautiful, certainly the porn business and successful non-whites seem to be in general agreement that white women are the most desireable. Thats not to say that women of other races are not attractive, they are - but at a lower frequency.

Posted by Frank on May 09, 2010, 11:53 AM | #

Speak with East Asians, and they’ll tell you northeast Asians are more beautiful than are whites.

They have fewer wrinkles, they have less body odor, they have less hair.

For me, such women appear like aliens, but I suspect that’s how we appear to them. Blacks are just incredibly ugly and smelly, but they’ve apparently chosen for large butts, breasts, and lips over time - so that must be what their people value…

Posted by Frank on May 09, 2010, 11:55 AM | #

A black who dates (which for them always includes sex) a beautiful white woman will complain of how skinny she is. Apparently that leads to uncomfortable sex which for them is very important.

Posted by Noah on May 10, 2010, 03:10 AM | #

Don’t you realize that potential for goodness and love resides within the heart of all men, regardless of race?

Eurasian and mixed people can be very loving, intelligent, etc. just like whites.  If you would open your mind just a little bit, you’d see this is true.

Posted by danielj on May 10, 2010, 01:08 PM | #

Don’t you realize that potential for goodness and love resides within the heart of all men, regardless of race?

Yes. Just at different frequencies.

Eurasian and mixed people can be very loving, intelligent, etc. just like whites.  If you would open your mind just a little bit, you’d see this is true.

I’d be willing to wager that nobody here denies this.

What of it?

Posted by Frank on May 10, 2010, 08:24 PM | #

Noah,

God divided us into different races, making us each distinct and with a place of belonging.

You’d destroy the beautiful diversity of this world by mixing us together - rebuild Babel?

What value has an Englishman if he’s no different from any other? In a diverse world, each nation and within each community and family has proud distinction.

In a mass society, we’re all average nothings, seeking some distinctive niche that’ll offer us definition. And on that note, nothing brings notoriety (not the preferred type of distinction most are seeking) like defending our global heritage of a diversity of nations.

Keep in mind when you encourage us here to mix, you’re not merely promoting the ethnic cleansing of whites but also the ethnic cleansing of every ethnic group in the world.

Posted by RONNI on May 21, 2010, 10:19 PM | #

All of this is subjective. ALL OF IT.

Posted by EA Steve on May 22, 2010, 02:00 AM | #

Miscegenation is a way of evolution.
--Proud Mix of Races

Miscegenation actually counters the evolution which occured with the isolation of two racial groups. For example, Whites evolved in cold climates; and, Blacks evolved in hot climates. How does one become superior by being a 50-50 mix of these two separate and drastically different sub-species?

Posted by Mine on June 09, 2010, 02:53 AM | #

Everyone, chill. There is no need for scientifical....rehash.

This article is TOTALLY biased.
Plain and simple: Asians and Mongoloids are prettier than Whites
Plain and Simple: Irish women are fat and ugly.

Are you Irish? Maybe you’re self-hating.
Like most ugly Sephardic Jews.

Really all of this is totally racist and biased. You can’t back up beauty or preference to racial standards, it’s an individual love. I’m sure a lot of girls get jungle fever and think we must all find at least one black man attractive. Do I? Hell no. Straight noses, blue eyes, and Aryan features for me. That’s just my preference. Because we can’t all like mud races, and we can’t all like superior races.
<3

Just saying.
Two ,...or three...or a million
can play the racism game and try to pull it off as scientific.

Posted by Pink Hairy Monkey on June 22, 2010, 10:16 AM | #

In evolvment level.
The right sequence of human being is
africans->european->east asian
Don’t argue it !!!
The truth is indisputable!!

Posted by Jason on July 12, 2010, 01:13 AM | #

Caucasian male are more masculine than asian male, Im not saying all but most while asian female are more feminine than caucasian female, again Im not saying all but most. Im from South East Asia and I find european girls attractive eventhough I know the fact that asian females are more feminine that means most asian women have smoother skin, softer hair, body build smaller and lesser body hair compare to their caucasian counterparts. I like europeans simply because they look different from us, they have colored eyes and colored hair and you wont find a pure asian with those features. People from middle east and south asia(India) are also caucasian but I dont find them attractive probably because they have black hair and dark brown eyes just like us and considering the fact that they look more masculine than our girls in east asia and south east asia is another factor why Im not attracted to them, the same thing goes with black women. But unfortunately for me most caucasian females dont find asian men attractive because of small body stature and being less masculine on the other hand asian females and caucasian females especially europeans seems to fit together maybe because of modern culture. In my opinion media have a great influence on this matter its like its saying men needs to be really masculine and women needs to be really feminine. Anyway I think it would be better if all countries are mixed race, imagine every country in this world is like Brazil imagine a world wherein supermodels of today are just average people of tommorow wouldn’t it be great.  Our world is shrinking and cultures are starting to fade out its like the whole world is starting to have one single culture and english is becoming more popular than ever, it means a world with one culture and one language(Personally I dont like english as international language its quite unfair because those people whose first language is english have an advantage. I think it would be better if we create a new language and everyone have to study and learn how to speak in it, that would be fair for everyone). I think its time for us to move on like what our ancestors did thousands of years ago when tribes unite and form kingdoms, kingdoms unite and form countries, but this time countries unite and form continents with one single government and later the whole world.

I just want to add, people should not dicriminate others just because they have a different race or simply because they look ugly, we have to consider that we didn’t chose the way we look like. If I’ve been given a chance to choose whom I want to look like before I was born I would say I wanna look like brad pit or those georgeous supermodel out there but unfortuntely we cant do such thing yet so dont discriminate others just beacuse of their looks. I know some of you will think that we can improve our appearance by simply eating healthy food, good diet and proper workout but we have to consider that there are people out there especially in countries where poverty is a primary problem who can’t eat healthy food and therefore can’t afford to have a healthy lifestyle and some people are doing their best to improve themselves in terms of appearance but still they dont look georgeous, we just need to accept the fact that everyone of us got limitations and we are not perfect.

Posted by Lulu on August 25, 2010, 07:57 PM | #

im not Asian (from Kuwait)but Asian guys attract me esp Chang min  

Asian are the most attractive people in the world
if u see singer or actors like:
TVXQ / Dong Bang Shin Ki
Super junior
2PM
U-Kiss
B2st
SHINee
Big Bang
C.N blue
and so many other u know every person have her/his own like or love of people so just dont go say thing like Asian are ugly or something like that

Posted by Wanderer on August 25, 2010, 08:33 PM | #

It’s interesting how “whigger-ized” (chigger-ized?) the Oriental music groups Lulu mentions are.

One of most popular music-groups in South-Korea is “Big-Bang”, a rap group.

But for super whiggerdom, youtube-search for South-Korea girl group “2NE1"…