The facial proportions of beautiful people
We consider Saira Mohan again; this time with funky lines drawn on her face. The lines are part of a unisex beauty mask/archetype that allegedly depicts the facial proportions of the most beautiful face, irrespective of race.
Figure 1: Saira Mohan with a superimposed beauty mask that is the brainchild of Stephen Marquardt of Marquardt Beauty Analysis.
The beauty mask appears to fit Saira Mohan reasonably well. If the mask proportions apply to beautiful faces irrespective of sex or race, then the mask likely has some interesting biological significance. Let us examine this issue.
Firstly, I would like to thank Cevan for bringing Figure 1 to my attention. Next, we consider the basics of the beauty mask. Stephen Marquardt, a surgeon, has worked on human beauty for decades and claims to have described facial beauty in an elegant manner by assembling several decagonal matrixes formed of golden-ratio sections to form a beauty mask. The golden ratio is the ratio that divides a line segment into two parts having a ratio that is equal to the ratio of the larger part to the entire line segment, i.e., a 1:1.618 ratio.
Many proportions in nature are compliant with the golden ratio, which is also known as phi or the divine proportion (Figure 2).
Figure 2: The golden ratio in nature; adapted from Gary Meisner/Yosh Jefferson. [1]
Marquardt claims that whereas nobody fits the mask perfectly, women fit it better than men and the most attractive people fit it the best; see a compilation by Yosh Jefferson in Figure 3.
Figure 3: Stephen Marquardt’s beauty mask applied to attractive women; it fits well the Asian woman, the African woman and the white women. [1]
Figure 3 shows something interesting. Among black-skinned Africans, many Somalis/Ethiopians are among the least Negroid-looking people, but the black woman shown in Figure 3 is even farther removed from the typical Negro, and I would bet that she has substantial European ancestry. Similarly, the Asian woman has many facial proportions more typical of whites and less typical of Asians. Are Marquardt and Jefferson arguing that the most attractive non-whites are those that are closest to the basic facial proportions of whites?
Jefferson has noted golden-ratio proportions in a classic drawing (Figure 4).
Figure 4: Golden-ratio proportions in a drawing by Leonardo DaVinci. [1]
On the other hand, the arm length of the Igbo woman, a typical example, shown in Figure 5, is surely not in compliance with the golden ratios in Figure 4; an Igbo man would be even less compliant since for the same height, men have longer arms than women.
Figure 5. Igbo woman.
Jefferson has also described the golden-ratio proportions of the ideal face (Figure 6).
Figure 6: The golden-ratio proportions of the ideal face. [1]
Next, we turn our attention to images of various individuals, each roughly typical of the population that they descend from (Figure 7). Note how compliant the facial features of these individuals are with Marquardt’s beauty mask (Figure 1, Figure 15) or Jefferson’s golden-ratio proportions (Figure 6).
Figure 7: Some examples of human facial biodiversity.
An examination of Figure 7 suggests that if Marquardt and Jefferson are correct, then some human populations have few individuals who could be considered very attractive and a few populations likely do not have a single such individual.
Next, we turn to some formal analyses, starting with laser-measured facial variation across four populations: white British, Inuit/Eskimo, Australian aboriginals, and West African Negroes; the landmarks compared are shown in Figure 8. [2]
Figure 8: Facial landmarks compared across populations. [2]
Discriminant analysis largely separated the four groups; the percentage misclassifications being: white British (23.5%), Negro (22.8%), Australian aboriginal (22.9%) and Inuit/Eskimo (6.9%); the discrimination would obviously have been better if more landmarks had been used. Figures 9-11 visually depict the discriminant functions; in each figure, the front view is shown at the top and the side view at the bottom. The dotted lines connect the average of the landmarks shown in Figure 8 for the entire sample, and the solid lines connect the shifted landmarks, which are shifted in the direction that distinguishes one specified group from other specified groups; Figures 9-11 depict shape variation, not size variation.
Figure 9 depicts discriminant function one, which largely separated the Inuit from the others.
Figure 9: Depiction of discriminant function 1. Compared to others, the Inuit have flattened faces and more prominent cheekbones. [2]
Figure 10 depicts discriminant function two, which largely separated the white British from the Australian aboriginals and the Negroes.
Figure 10: Depiction of discriminant function 2. Compared to Australian aboriginals and Negroes, whites have narrower faces, longer noses, closer-set eyes, cheekbones that are smaller when seen from front and regressed backward when seen from side, and flatter teeth; other differences are shown in the figure. [2]
Figure 11 depicts discriminant function three, which largely separated the Australian aboriginals from the Negroes.
Figure 11: Depiction of discriminant function 3. Compared to Negroes, Australian aboriginals have smaller cheekbones (front view) and teeth that jut out more; other differences are shown in the figure. [2]
Given notable between-races central tendency differences with respect to shape as depicted in Figures 9-11, in addition to many additional differences concerning the lower jaw and the cranium (the part of the skull minus the face), it is clear that if Marquardt and Jefferson are correct, then the percentage of people that are highly attractive considerably varies by race, with the highest percentage found among whites. I don’t believe that this is what the authors are trying to convey, but this is what they come across as conveying.
Let us also address a study that evaluated racial cranial variation. [3] It should be obvious that physical variation involves both shape and size differences concerning the same structures, and then there are different kinds of shape differences, too. Therefore, with respect to the traits examined, it is desirable to separate shape from size and also separate the different aspects of shape. The statistical tool that does this is known as principal components analysis, which divides the variability of the traits measured into principal components that do not covary with each other. The first principal component (PC1) explains the largest amount of the variance, and subsequent PCs such as PC2, PC3, and so on, explain successively smaller proportions of the variance in the traits examined.
In this study, “the first six PCs individually account[ed] for 26.1%, 9.7%, 7.2%, 6.6%, 6.45%, and 5.3% of the variance, respectively,” and cumulatively accounted for 61.3% of the variance. [3] PC1 and PC2 are of special interest to us because both concern the shape of the region of the skull where the nose meets the forehead, which is notably different across the races.
“PC1 mainly reflects upper nasal projection but also breadth.” Compared to flat-faced Asians, whites have projecting and wide upper nasal bridges, with other races in between. “PC2 mainly reflects an inverse relationship between upper nasal breadth and projection.” The upper nasal bones are wide and flat in Negroes.
Figure 12 shows a plot of PC2 against PC1. The abbreviations mean: EU = European, AM = American Indian, AU = Australian aboriginal, PO = Polynesian, FE = East Asian and SS = sub-Saharan African. Each of these abbreviations lies at the center of the ellipse it represents.
Figure 12: PC2 vs. PC1. [3]
As seen in Fig 12, there is an overlap between within-population and between-populations variation. It is useful to know what proportion of trait variation in a species is due to its population structure, i.e., what proportion of the variance is between populations. This is measured by a statistic known as Fst; Fst values are listed in Table 1. The h-squared value = 0.55 in Table 1 means that the Fst values are calculated for a heritability of 55%, i.e., the proportion of the between-individuals variance accounted for by genetic factors is 55%, which is a reasonable value for cranial development. [4, 5]
Table 1: Fst values for the principal components.
Thus, Table 1 shows that 24% of the variance is between populations for PC1, 33% of the variance is between populations for PC2, and so on. Fst values are used in genetics for labeling extent of population differences; the magnitude of Fst being classified by Sewall Wright as follows: little genetic differentiation (0—0.05), moderate genetic differentiation (0—0.15), great genetic differentiation (0.15—0.25), and very great genetic differentiation (0.25 and above). [6] Overall Fst values in the 0.10—0.15 range are sufficient for racial classification, which the craniometric data in this study as well as genetic data elsewhere are compliant with. Although the Fst values in Table 1 are not based on genetics, they represent the same idea, and it is noteworthy that the Fst values for PC1 and PC2 are two- to three-fold higher than necessary for racial classification, i.e., the upper nasal region is considerably different across the races. Additionally, the analysis in Figure 12 was done after removing some cranial traits that were so different across the races that they dominated all analyses and the first few principal components. The authors of this study have cautioned against using the Fst data to support the existence of human races, but this caution is based on an article by Templeton, and this article has been debunked; see the “Fst follies” section here.
Anyway, why have I bothered to address the upper nasal region at length? Consider Marquardt’s beauty mask again (Figure 13). The shaded nasal region is unambiguously European, especially in the upper nasal region, and most non-whites and a number of whites don’t possess this type of nose.
Figure 13: Note nasal region (shaded).
Most non-whites--and some whites, too--have no hope of producing offspring with the fine nasal bones, especially upper nasal region, of the woman shown in Figure 14, even if they bred with her like.
Figure 14: A woman with fine nasal bones. Her facial proportions are more appealing for a European than some of the allegedly ideal proportions depicted by Yosh Jefferson in Figure 6; for instance, the eyes in Figure 6 are farther apart than the European norm and thereby more like that in non-Europeans.
Let us also address Marquardt’s beauty mask from the side (Figure 15). Marquardt’s beauty mask is clearly that of a European and also that of a masculinized woman; some of the clearly observable masculinized traits [7, 8] include a nasoglabellar region (where the nose meets the forehead) that is curved in a masculine manner, a nose that projects in a masculine manner, a masculine chin region and a sharp gonial angle.
Figure 15: The beauty mask of Stephen Marquardt from the side. Note arrows pointing to the masculinized regions.
Other than using the golden ratio, Marquardt has used a large database of attractive individuals of different races to come up with his beauty mask, yet claims that white women, on average, have a face that is somewhat broader than the beauty mask, which should not be the case given the finds seen in Figures 9 and 10. Now, a quick examination of Marquardt’s website reveals the pictures of mostly high-fashion models, which he apparently has used to come up with his mask, and which in turn explains the masculinization in his mask proportions since high-fashion models tend to have masculinized faces, reflecting the fact that most top fashion designers are gay men.
I have previously pointed out that beautiful people tend to possess multiple population-typical traits, and this has biological significance. Therefore, given the finds in Figures 8-12, which should be mostly known to keen observers anyway, it is unlikely that one could come up with a beauty mask/archetype that describes the facial proportions of the most beautiful people in all races. There are additional problems with Marquardt’s beauty mask since he claims that his mask applies to the most beautiful people. As I have alluded to previously, the most beautiful people tend to somewhat deviate from the average with respect to some traits, and there are at least two such types of deviation that are relevant to us: one related to sex hormone profiles and another related to gracility of facial features (details to be posted later). Obviously, different sex hormone profiles in men and women and racial variation in central tendency/gracilization make it impossible to come up with a unisex and cross-racial beauty mask that describes the facial proportions of the most beautiful. Marquardt’s beauty mask doesn’t do justice to white beauty and it is clearly unfair to non-whites, which I do not believe to be deliberate on his part but it is something that has apparently resulted from his over-eagerness to describe beauty in simple terms. Beauty has a complex nature. The association of beauty with having multiple population-typical traits, sex hormone profiles, and gracilization suggests that it is not completely subjective, i.e., something that can be dismissed as simply lying in the eye of the beholder, but aesthetic preferences nevertheless vary by race and species, reflecting the fact that population-typical traits vary by race and species; there is also individual variation, but most individuals within a race assess facial beauty in a similar manner.
Marquardt and Jefferson could make a powerful case for their work if they came up with beauty masks for various animal species and showed how masks for ancestral species could be transformed to that of their different-looking present descendents without seriously undermining the alleged biological significance of the mask among the intermediate types, but I don’t believe they would be able to do this.
Further, a great many proportions/patterns in nature undoubtedly have nothing to do with the golden ratio, i.e., in many cases, it is surely futile to attempt to reduce visual appeal to patterns derived from the golden ratio.
Returning back to Saira Mohan, even though she is able to fit Marquardt’s beauty mask reasonably well, she still doesn’t qualify as a great beauty by European standards. Finally, the racial differences talked about in this post strengthen my previous argument that the beauty of the most attractive whites cannot be enhanced--but will be undermined, instead--via the absorption of non-whites among whites.
[Note: My previous post attracted close to 250 comments, most of them off-topic. If you feel like commenting, please note that there will be plenty of future opportunities for you to discuss immigration, Jews, free speech and Roman history at MR, i.e., please avoid off-topic comments.]
Literature cited:
1. Jefferson Y: Facial beauty: establishing a universal standard. International Journal of Orthodontics 2004, 15:9-22.
2. Hennessy RJ, Stringer CB: Geometric morphometric study of the regional variation of modern human craniofacial form. American Journal of Physical Anthropology, 2002, 117:37-48.
3. Roseman CC, Weaver TD: Multivariate apportionment of global human craniometric diversity. American Journal of Physical Anthropology, 2004, 125:257-263.
4. Devor EJ: Transmission of human craniofacial dimensions. Journal of Craniofacial Genetics and Developmental Biology, 1987, 7:95-106.
5. Sparks CS, Jantz R: A reassessment of human cranial plasticity: Boas revisited. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences--USA, 2002, 99:14636-14639.
6. Hartl D, Clark AG: Principles of population genetics. Sunderland, MA: Sinauer Associates; 1989: 118-119
7. Rosas A, Bastir M: Thin-plate spline analysis of allometry and sexual dimorphism in the human craniofacial complex. American Journal of Physical Anthropology, 2002, 117:236-245.
8. Walrath DE, Turner P, Bruzek J: Reliability test of the visual assessment of cranial traits for sex determination. American Journal of Physical Anthropology, 2004, 125:132-137.
Posted by J Richards on Friday, June 3, 2005 at 03:14 PM in Anthropology, Race realism
Comments (162) | Tell a friend
Comments:
Posted by Guessedworker on June 03, 2005, 05:28 PM | #
But 250 posts is definitely happy trouble.
We wander, JR. In my case it probably correlates with early onset bedtime.
Posted by Super Guy on June 03, 2005, 07:00 PM | #
The world-wide beauty contest is already over, my friend. Whatever your race is, anybody can agree that this is the hottest woman on Earth:
Posted by Tournament of Champions on June 04, 2005, 03:00 PM | #
Simply a marvelous post. Too far above my head for me to make any technical comments.
Posted by waoesrghj on January 14, 2006, 11:54 PM | #
Dumnasses....
Posted by Rob on January 29, 2006, 02:59 PM | #
An awesome post. Thanks for all this info.
Really helped alot in my math project… 
Posted by Lurker on January 29, 2006, 03:32 PM | #
waoesrghj - what exactly is/are Dumnasses? A sort of boiled sweet? Herbs growing on the rocky coasts of Norway? The mind boggles…
Posted by sarnia on February 06, 2006, 04:53 PM | #
it might be maths but is it art?
Posted by alsdfj on March 16, 2006, 09:28 PM | #
i think anyone who argues that there is a level of perfect beauty has way too much time on there hands. there are all types of beauty that are not based on math. odds are that any guy who made this up could never hook up with a “beautiful woman” (only assuming that a woman did not make this whole thing up). go eat some more organic food and draw some nifty shapes to fit the shape of a perfect person.
Posted by Eleanor-Rose on March 31, 2006, 12:57 PM | #
This topic was briliant for my art project although a little complex. I’ll have to print it off and take my time slowly. 
Posted by Ivan on April 21, 2006, 07:00 AM | #
You should do more research if you attempt to publicize such controversial topics. Aside from the fact that it sounds like pure nonsense, it is not well sourced. Logic does not even play an important role in your arguments as they are weak and contradicting.
The perfect proportion mask for example is specifically designed for the female face. There is one that accomodates to the male face as well with a claim that testostorone creates an elongation of the nose and lip area according to Marquardt’s research on beauty analysis. That is just one of the thousands of other errors that you have in these arguments that have caused you to fall in an endless circle.
Posted by Azurefoxgirl on April 24, 2006, 06:41 PM | #
Thank 4 the info. Though personally I agree with the saying, “beauty is in the eye of the beholder.”
Posted by J Richards on April 26, 2006, 01:37 AM | #
Ivan,
Just because it sounds like nonsense does not mean that it is. You have not identified the contradictions, lack of logic, the circular arguments or the more prominent examples among the “thousands of errors” in this entry.
Marquardt’s mask is invalid. Only someone ignorant about racial variation would claim to find ideal facial proportions that apply across races. Marquardt has only one mask at his site rather than separate masks for men and women.
Posted by nube on May 11, 2006, 05:10 AM | #
You all have way to much time on your hands. I think all different people have different preferences. I may think someone you consider absolutely repuslive to be the most beautiful person on earth.
Posted by J on May 17, 2006, 02:08 AM | #
Despite a few valid points, this article has some outright nonsense.
It’s WAY too Nordic-centric. I would say Saira is far more attractive than the blonde chick who looks a little TOO Aryan, a little plain-jane.
I do agree Caucasoid blood makes pretty much anyone look better though.
Just remember that Saira Mohan is more pure Indo European than most Germans.
Posted by J Richards on May 17, 2006, 06:36 AM | #
J,
What is outright nonsensical about this article? And, how is it Nordic-centric? Posting one picture of a Nordic woman does not make it Nordic-centric.
Besides, the Indo-Europeans who went toward India left only a minor genetic impact on the Indian population:
Sahoo S, Singh A, Himabindu G, Banerjee J, Sitalaximi T, Gaikwad S, Trivedi R, Endicott P, Kivisild T, Metspalu M, Villems R, Kashyap VK. A prehistory of Indian Y chromosomes: evaluating demic diffusion scenarios. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2006 Jan 24;103(4):843-8.
Therefore, I don’t see how Saira Mohan qualifies as more Indo-European than the Germans.
Posted by J on May 18, 2006, 01:48 AM | #
What is outright nonsensical is the amount of subjective opinion in here. Certainly no one will disagree that the ugly people he posted would be universally considered unattractive to almost everyone, but to say that some rather plain looking woman is considered more attractive by the European population in general is ludicrous.
Other research I will have to locate has cited that people find signs of genetic diversity to be attractive which is why half-Asian, half-Whites are almost universally considered very attractive (and I’ve yet to find an ugly one who isn’t simply overweight). The reason people like this is surmised to be a sign of robustness, as opposed to inbreeding. While I love a good Swedish blonde, there’s such thing as looking TOO nordic. Too blonde, too pale, too angular. It looks inbred indeed.
Personally, if I have to take a stance, I’d say the ideal of beauty is a cross of Nordic and Mediterranean. I’ll have to look through files on ethnicity and see if most attractive models and celebs fit this definition.
Posted by J Richards on May 18, 2006, 02:53 AM | #
J,
The focus in the Nordic woman shown is on the nasal bones, and they will obviously be well-appreciated by Europeans in general.
I am aware of research about the alleged good looks of half-Asian and half-white people, and I have debunked this idea here. Don’t be mistaken about notions such as hybrid vigor. Race mixing in humans increases the incidence of health problems and causes some loss of morphological integration in the skull, both outcomes apparently explicable in terms of disruption of co-adapted gene complexes.
Whereas too blonde or too pale is a personal issue, Nordic women have finer facial features than Mediterranean women, and you can go through some of the examples in the comments here.
Posted by J on May 18, 2006, 04:36 AM | #
Yes, which is why I pointed out that the ideal is both Nordic and Mediterranean. I’m not necessarily championing Caucasoid/Mongoloid hybrids.
The ideal is as I stated because it combines the Nordics’ tall stature and fine facial features, with the Mediterranean’s skin resillience, and physical robustness.
Posted by J Richards on May 19, 2006, 06:21 PM | #
J,
What do you mean by the physical robustness of Southern Europeans? Their greater robustness is in the facial skeleton, but their physique is less robust compared to that of Northern Europeans, on average.
Posted by Ania on May 24, 2006, 03:32 PM | #
this was very helpful! now I know I’m beautiful! lol
Posted by heywood jablowme on May 24, 2006, 09:10 PM | #
You are all fucking assholes who deserve to burn in hell forever. Ill find out where you live and burn your house down, you peice of shit!
Posted by Dick Trickle on May 24, 2006, 09:12 PM | #
The beauty of Woman is inherent in Her femininity and grace rather than her facial features. So, fuck you.
Posted by Kurt on September 12, 2006, 01:19 AM | #
Whoa, someone named “heywood jablowme” seems to be in a bad mood. Maybe he hates people who are attracted to Nordic women.
Posted by common sense on September 24, 2006, 07:00 PM | #
Okay, isee dick trickle doesnt even seem to understand that this is about PHYSICAL beauty.Well anyway.
Im going to be the only one here to bypass all the technical BS in this article and say what it REALLY means(whether or not its true)
Basically this article is saying that darker people(especially negroes) look like monkeys and therefore are ugly.
This rascist idiot wrote 2000 words just to say that the darker skinned people of this earth are uglier than whites.
Saira is a super hot babe: http://www.preetlari.com/~preetadmin/up/Super_Models1070991660saira.mohan.jpg
Im a white guy and i only date white women but i know a hot babe when i see one.
Look at her lucious full lips.All the skinny white bitches in hollywood spent a pile of money injecting fat and colegen just to get lips like that.
I think white women are more attractive also but thats because....IM WHITE.
Beauty is in the eye of the beholder dumbass. Do you think that a black guy would be more attracted to a curvy black girl with dark skin the same as his own or a pale skinny white girl?
Well ill stop back i a couple days so let me know what you think
Posted by Guessedworker on September 24, 2006, 10:45 PM | #
common sense,
You are wrong in your reading of JR’s post (which, for a start, you might notice is titled “The Facial Proportions of Beautiful People").
The fundamental meaning of JR’s thesis is that exogamy is always dysgenic from a physical evolutionary perspective, and this is especially - indeed rather obviously - true of fine-boned Nordic European.
The foul-mouths on this thread are merely betraying their own paucity of intellectual equipment. If all these people can do is to explode in anger on this page, then I would rather they don’t bother to post.
Rebuttals are welcome if they are well-reasoned and civil.
Posted by commonsense on September 26, 2006, 07:18 PM | #
Guessedworker,
Apparently you dont get my point of view.I dont see truth in the title, but see the point of view of the author and while i dont know anything about him and have never heard of him id be willing to bet a chunk of cash that hes white.
Okay, Let me explain your statement so everyone can understand it and also see that it is opinion and so is the sentiment of this article.
Your statement “The fundamental meaning of JR’s thesis is that exogamy(mixing races) is always dysgenic(For the purpose of this article means, making uglier) from a physical evolutionary perspective, and this is especially - indeed rather obviously - true of fine-boned Nordic European"(a.k.a white people)
This statement is an OPINION camaflauged with fancy words.Correct me if im wrong but i think what your saying is that mixing races makes people less beautiful, but really only significantly in WHITE people because WHITE people are the most beautiful people, well atleast according to a geometrical theory.
Oh ,and people i dont mind little cussin’, lets stir things up a bit!!
Posted by Guessedworker on September 26, 2006, 07:46 PM | #
commonsense,
It is dysgenic for Africans in Africa to interbreed with Europeans. This is so irrespective of the existence - or not - of any objective scale of physical beauty.
I certainly think there can be a science-based case to be made for challenging JR’s science-based position on beauty, and there is a case to be made just out of lay opinion (since science-based opinions are not infallible or always necessarily the gold standard of truth).
But the avoidance of dysgenesis - which is, I think, expressed in our natural preferences for mates from among our own distinctive people - must be paramount for Europeans since it is only Europeans’ societies that are being subjected to Third World invasion ... and only Europeans who are being told that exogamy is beneficial.
We are entitled, I think, to be very angry about both of these issues and to argue, as JR does, for our own interests AND for some objective truth.
Posted by jeanne on October 21, 2006, 07:17 PM | #
sorry my english, but where do you people live? on another planet?
I am danish with blonde hair and green eyes and i know that i am beautiful but not because of my hair and eyes and yes i am 1,79 tall so yes i am hot and i know it:-) sorry people. But you know wath, not all blonde are beautiful sorry but thas the truth. I have the chance to came from a countrie with many blondes, and i can say that they are not all beautiful, i have seen some damm agly blondes , and some damm beautiful ones too. and let me tell you, white feature is not the most beautiful, I am white but we most tell the truth. white is beautiful but........................... you people can finish the rest
Posted by Guessedworker on October 21, 2006, 07:41 PM | #
Jeanne, remember yourself ... who you are, where you are from, why you are as you are, etc. Don’t inhabit only the world of political modernity with all its lies and distortions designed to get you to throw away the precious heritage of your Western beauty. Place yourself and your kind first in the world. Discriminate. Don’t miscegenate.
Posted by Rnl on October 22, 2006, 05:19 AM | #
common sense wrote:
I think white women are more attractive also but thats because....IM WHITE. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder ...
I’m more or less in agreement with you about the cultural character of beauty, but you really should have selected a pure-blooded Negress to illustrate your point. This Saira of yours is Saira Mohan. She is not at all negroid: “I am constantly asked about my background, so I thought I would just offer up some info: My mother is French-Irish-Canadian and my father is Punjabi.”
http://www.perfectpeople.net/biopage.php3/cid=1300
In the text beside the picture you posted she talks about her upcoming Bollywood movie. Bollywood, by the way, is notorious for its hostility to Blacks, and most Bollywood directors prefer light-skinned actresses:
Posted by Rnl on October 22, 2006, 06:09 AM | #
I should have read the link at the top of the thread. I didn’t know that Saira Mohan’s ancestry had already been discussed. (She remains a beautiful woman, notwithstanding JR’s analysis of her supposed defects.)
I doubt it’s a good idea to discuss multiracialism through the medium of beautiful mixed-race women. The latest crime statistics, or the next explosion on the subway, are a better indicator of the effects of multiracial demographics.
Posted by poop on October 24, 2006, 06:20 AM | #
Why would you care about the mathematical proportions of beauty? And what kind of site is this, a place where people can come to compare their faces that they were given beyond their control to a so called “golden mask” which is sooo perfect and beautiful. Seems like a healthy thing to do, especially considering the problems with body image and the media today in young women. So thanks for telling us that caucausians are so much better and “golden” than other races, that really makes everybody feel WONDERFUL about themselves and what they were given.
Posted by Carrie Starkey on November 16, 2006, 01:24 AM | #
http://www.anonym.to/? to gnxp.com links;
e.g., http://www.anonym.to/?http://www.gnxp.com/…
Well, I thought it was a fantastic post. I looked this site up because I read about the Divine Proportion in the DaVinci Code. Nice job on this peice. And anyone who spells “dumbass” as “dumnass"… I have no more more words.
Posted by I'm beautiful on December 14, 2006, 11:30 PM | #
BEAUTY IS IN THE EYES OF THE BEHOLDER
So the ugly people say.
Go fuck yourselves, ugly people. I’m beautiful.
Posted by Andy Wooster on December 14, 2006, 11:38 PM | #
I’m going to need some photographic evidence to back this up, I’m beautiful.
Posted by jkzsb on January 13, 2007, 08:52 AM | #
The people Stephen Marquardt thinks are beautiful all look pretty ugly to me. And in my opinion, Asian cheekbones rule.
Posted by Kain on January 31, 2007, 02:30 PM | #
I really like this page it helped me a lot, I really wanted to understand this better and now I do. Thanks.
Posted by Kourtney on February 10, 2007, 10:49 PM | #
Are you trying to suggest that white ethnic groups are more attractive?I dont believe that is true.And whose standard is it by?A white standard?
Posted by German on February 11, 2007, 12:25 PM | #
OMG when I read this SHIT of a racistic Skull-Shape-science-post, I shook my head almost with every line I read. Can someone mean this serious? Use these pseude-scientific words and phrases for a subjekt, that has NOTHING to to with science. Whoever says a race (especially when white people do it, they are infected with superiority-illusion easiest) is better than an other in wich way ever and may it beauty, is a dumb racist.
And freaks like Guessedworker who use terms like dysgenic and interbreed for human beeings are psychopaths who have no social relations at all I guess, sit at home the whole day and breed out there ill thoughts about the world until they grab themselves a little shotgun and visit there old school.
Posted by Bud White on February 11, 2007, 02:10 PM | #
To German, and Kourtney:
Here’s some proof you both are idealistic luns.
See for yourself. LOL
http://niggermania.org/tom/stylin/stylin.html
PS, my apologies to, GW, for sinking to the opposition’s level.
Posted by PF on February 11, 2007, 09:00 PM | #
“And freaks like Guessedworker who use terms like dysgenic and interbreed for human beeings are psychopaths who have no social relations at all I guess, sit at home the whole day and breed out there ill thoughts about the world until they grab themselves a little shotgun and visit there old school.”
1) Dysgenic breeding exists as a result of the fact that different alleles convey differential fitness.
2) Interbeeding exists as result of the fact that differnet alleles exist, with conserved frequencies across different groups.
Everyone on the other side of the ideological divide from you is a gun-wielding psychopath, was that the sense of your attack on Guessedworker?
Posted by W.LindsayWheeler on February 12, 2007, 01:28 AM | #
As to everything in nature, Beauty has Laws to it. The ancient Greeks discovered this and tried to implement it in all their doings. The Parthenon is an example of the Golden Mean. Much of their art especially of the human incorporates this concept.
The three laws of Beauty are Proportion, Harmony, and Symetry. What makes someone generally ugly is something that is disproportionate. Breast augmentation or the opposite is about bringing things in proportion. Personal opinions may differ on what THEY FIND is beautiful and there is always exceptions to the rule but the General idea is that Beauty follows certain laws.
Posted by German on February 12, 2007, 10:06 AM | #
Ooops, I apologize for my post....in the sense that it was senseless. After some further reading of other articles on this site I realized that this is an “official” racist site, and opinions like that of guessedworker are pretty shared among all of you...hmmm, then theres nothing more to say.
Posted by Lurker on February 12, 2007, 11:38 AM | #
And majorityrights.com is left reeling against the ropes, theres just no coming back after a knockout punch like that…
Posted by Al Ross on February 12, 2007, 12:20 PM | #
Bud White,
I dont believe you need to apologise for referencing ‘niggermania’.
Firstly because GW is infinitely laid back, as befits someone who is on the side of the angels and secondly because, despite the proletarian ruderies resplendent there, niggermania concerns itself with the all-too-common behaviour of our natural enemies.
Posted by Guessedworker on February 12, 2007, 12:47 PM | #
German (why is it I think you may be not wholly German ... and, in fact, see yourself as different, left-out and let-down by indisputably German Germans?),
Is it racist to deny a people their right to discriminate in their own interests? Or is the only interest that matters that of the outsider, the minority, the immigrant? Because it has to be one or the other, doesn’t it. There isn’t a half-way point between genetic continuity and discontinuity.
So then, why is it “racist” for continuity to be proposed but not racist for continuity to be demonised? Why, in essence, are we the racists but you are not?
Posted by Bud White on February 12, 2007, 03:10 PM | #
“I dont believe you need to apologise for referencing ‘niggermania’.” --Al Ross
There are so many thoughtful and learned people that post on this site, I felt a need to apologize for dragging the debate down into the muck. But since most liberals dwell within the muck I hastily lowered the debate to their level.
When trying to reason with liberals, I get extremely frustrated trying to get through the dense matrix that surrounds their brainwashed psyches. They simply can’t - or won’t - comprehend they are aiding and abetting a kinder and gentler form of genocide aimed specifically at the white-race.
I often wonder if their type of thinking is a trait that can be traced back to a defective DNA sequence. It certainly appears to be the case.
Posted by matador on March 09, 2007, 01:33 AM | #
discrimination is like biting....you don’t respect peoples personal right to bite…
it’s very simple, if you wana respect people’s right to discriminate, then you can discriminate against people that discriminate and so on, nobody can logically respect peoples right to discriminate, its a paradox. so you gonna give that up sometime,
i mean, com’on man, just because you have grew up with that attitude doesnt mean you can’t progress and really grow,
people like you and all other racist people,
Mr. “whites are more attractive” included, just make me feel fatigue, very very fatigue
Posted by someone on March 26, 2007, 01:43 AM | #
i love how these comments go from some people being conceited… or maybe just confident saying they’re hot to idiots thinking this was all meant to be racist. People these days can’t look at things with an open mind, it’s either..."You’re saying black people are ugly” or “That’s racist.” In my opinion I didn’t see any of that and if you can’t read something without being open to what it means then don’t even bother commenting on the topic you idiots.
Posted by Fred Scrooby on March 26, 2007, 02:08 AM | #
“I often wonder if their type of thinking is a trait that can be traced back to a defective DNA sequence.” (—Bud White)
You’re onto something, Bud: yes we’re dealing with defective DNA sequences. In the case of the Jews it’s the Jewish nation-destroying gene, and there are heterozygous and homozygous Jews for that (Jews devoting their lives to destroying, respectively, all nations but Israel and all nations including Israel). For the Euros there’s apparently some minimal amount of a certain kind of ability required before you can see race — you have to have the gene that makes your eyes line up with the holes in your face so you can see out of them — lacking which you just can’t see racial topics. There’s apparently also an asshole gene for Euros — you have that gene and you’re just a general all-around asshole and because of it you can’t see race. So yes, we are dealing with defective DNA, you’re right. You’d think seeing race would be pretty straightforward but it turns out you have to have the right genes for it.
Posted by Bud White on March 26, 2007, 12:44 PM | #
“There’s apparently also an asshole gene for Euros —[IF] you have that gene and you’re just a general all-around asshole and because of it you can’t see race. “--Fred Scrooby
LOL: Ain’t that the truth!!!
Also, I have come to believe that Euros have successfully, en mass, been mentally afflicted/conditioned by our anti-white oppressors with the ‘Stockholm Syndrome.’
Posted by ff on April 02, 2007, 11:43 PM | #
This is stupid…
They’re using geometrical patterns to fin “beauty”?
Ha Ha Ha
What’s beauty anyway?
This is just wrong
Posted by ok on April 22, 2007, 05:25 AM | #
who is most beautiful?
1 white caucasoid
2 non white caucasoid (arabian ,east indian etc)
3 mongoloid mixed with caucasoid
4 negroid mixed with caucasoid
5 mongoloid
6 mongoloid mixed with negroid
7 negroid
case done!
Posted by Arwen on May 01, 2007, 11:06 AM | #
What a load of crap! Seriously, science is sounding really “white”. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. Realistically, no race is prettier than another. But because we live in a “Europeanized world” aka “White Man’s World”, the world’s image of beauty favors caucasian features (skinny/thin, straight hair, light-colored skin/hair/eyes). When the Europeans began to explore other lands (originally for survival, becuz they lacked natural resources… but greed/power drove them on) they pushed their own ideas upon the natives of that land, since most indigenous cultures welcomed guests & associated wealth w/ wisdom. They took advantage of the people, by dividing them, introducing racism (lighter skin/ small nosed were given power/titles) and taking land/natural resources. A divided nation is a weak nation. They used religion to do this ("saving the savages"). They raped thier women and even tried to “whiten out” the races by impregnating the native women (legal rape). Thats why u’ll find non-whites w/ blonde hair, light eyes, etc. Every nation in the world favors light skin (they’ve all been colonized or have traded w/ whts).
“White/Euro beauty” is a trend. While foreign beauty is based on religion/nature. Even, according to “this mask”, alot of whites would be considered ugly in the time of the monarchies. Plus in nature (we are natural beings), attraction is sexual. Larger hips = good mothers, darker skin = skin protection, higher body fat = insulation & nutrients. The whites even consider the scottish/irish country women as ugly & fat. Why did alot of these Europeans keep “concubines” (who were foreign)? They enjoyed sex w/ them more than w/ their wives. Scientist are biased, they apply concepts to others but not themselves. Exactly why “modern technology” is polluting/killing the world. As well as harming people (obesity, cancer, depression,etc.). This article is “white propoganda”. By the way, I’m half “English” and half “African” (my mother was raped by an “english” contractor who was doing work in her village aka my father). As bad as that is, it is because of my green eyes and straighter hair that I was granted the oppurtunity for me and my mother to leave Africa and move to the US. I’m the “acceptable negro”.
Posted by alex on May 01, 2007, 11:14 AM | #
HI I THING THIS IS CORRECT EVEN THOUGH ITS RACIST !!!!
BUT THIS IS PLANET EARTH AND THAT IS JUST HOW EARTHLING ARE IT IS SOOO TRUE THE PROPORTIONS ARE IDEAL AND EVERYONE WOULD LIKE TO HAVE THE IDEAL >>
PEOPLE ARE IN CONSTANT SEARCH FOR THE MISSING LINK AND >>>> THIS IS IT NO MATTER HOW MUCH IT MIGHT HURT >>
BEAUTY WITHOUT SPIRIT AND SOUL THOUGH IS ZERO SO IF THE MASK FITS AND THE SPIRIT IS SHIT >> THE MASK IS SHIT >>>
PEACE
AL
Posted by Shoop the Ultimate Whoop on May 01, 2007, 11:21 AM | #
Man, this post is ANCIENT and it’s still getting comments? Lulz.
Posted by camsha on May 07, 2007, 05:36 AM | #
does it really matter. you see beautiful people in all races almost everyday...it’s so expected. and the thrill wears off. nowadays what matters most now is seeing or meeting someone that has a good heart because that is rare and to me the most attractive.
Posted by livewire on May 15, 2007, 01:48 PM | #
I can’t see how any of this argument makes sense. Every post thus far is attempting to prove without proof.
Racism exists, against blacks, against whites, and against all of the other races. However, blacks and whites get the most attention because we’ve had the most violent tussles, yet still live in the same country.
Beauty isn’t something that you can prove. People can either attract you or not, and not everyone is attracted to the same people. And, looks are not the only aspect of that.
I mean, what if you were right? That blacks aren’t as attractive as whites? Then, at what point did the races begin to mix, and what attracted one race to another?
You guys are claiming that due to how someone looks, their offspring can’t look much different, but have you ever seen unattractive parents have attractive children? I have. So what’s to say that these pictures, OBVIOUSLY chosen specifically to “make a point,” of black people that are supposedly the “average” aren’t just the unattractive people of the family?
Stating that blacks are generally unattractive is like saying that whites are generally attractive. Go to New York, then go to London, and see how many girls turn your head.
Posted by watchin' dem NECs on May 15, 2007, 02:26 PM | #
“Stating that blacks are generally unattractive is like saying that whites are generally attractive. Go to New York, then go to London, and see how many girls turn your head.
Gee, given that the populations of those two cities are roughly equivalent (with the exception of a lesser levantine, and greater desi presence in London), what’s your “point?” Both cities are signficantly non-white and multiracial.
“You guys are claiming that due to how someone looks, their offspring can’t look much different, but have you ever seen unattractive parents have attractive children? I have.”
I see. So your unverified claim of what you “have seen” trumps studies using an objective measure of facial dimensions. Interesting. And I say that as someone generally uninterested in these types of posts; however, the importance of the golden ratio cannot be dismissed, and certainly should not dismissed by someone claiming of what they “have seen.”
Posted by grandoncaro on May 22, 2007, 05:24 AM | #
Seems very logical. If i understand it discriminates black people and other races and it´s not objective at all. I don´t speak o wrte english very well, but i think there are very good arguments .
Posted by Sanjay on May 24, 2007, 10:08 PM | #
Is this writer blind or just stupid? Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. As simple as that. What I might find beautiful is different from what you might find beautiful. It’s a matter of personal taste.
Gay fashion designers’ are trying to epitomize universal feminity as a long, flat-chested, wide-shouldered, narrow-hipped, manly woman with lantern-jaws who can easily pass for a man - BECAUSE THEY ARE GAY and that’s what they subconsciously find attractive. Really attractive women are curvy, busty, wide-hipped, shorter and generally have noticeably smaller jaws than the men of whichever race they come from.
Likewise, Americans (Whites) dominate the international movie audience and so they have been promoting white, and near-whitish (Salma Hayek, Jennifer Lopez) women as the epitome of beauty. A black heterosexual man from Africa who has never been exposed to gay fashion or American cinema would most likely find a manly female fashion model unattractive, and would also most likely find white women to be too tall, have poor quality skin with too many blotches, and have features that are thin, sharp and cruel looking.
Meanwhile the wanker who wrote this article is using pseudo-science and white-biased media-conditioning to prove that white women are better looking than all the other types of women? Jobless bugger.
And besides, don’t merge the connatations of the word FINE. Fine means “delicate”, and it also means “something better”. Just because a person has fine (delicate) facial features doesn’t make it “something better”.
Learn to think a bit you jobless wankers.
Posted by Brett on May 26, 2007, 06:43 PM | #
I read the article some time ago while looking up info on an art project, though at the time I had figured the commentary on it dead and had noticed alot seemed fairly ignorant and racist.
Ultimately beauty is defined by /culture/ and media (which at the moment is dominated by the americans.) On some way the Artcle is correct in that the narrow definition of beauty that the author used. (western white dominant culture) That amazingly enough people who appear white fit the ‘mask’ best.
However go through a gallery of renaissance masters. You should note all the models are extremely large women. (because at the time that was the definiton)
It will be different when another culture rises to dominance in the next century or so.
Posted by Guessedworker on May 26, 2007, 07:48 PM | #
I think that is simplistic, Brett.
Back in the early seventies, I think before EO Wilson published Sociobiology, I came across a book by a psychologist named Stan Gooch. In it he argued for the inate, and brought out numerous instances of hereditary influences on our sexual and social mores. One I remember was the observation that female sexual desirability was, in fact, the tireless pursuit of females (well OK, we all know this), and found its ultimate expression for us (meaning his European readers) in the young lady clothed in black stockings, suspenders et alia.
These, Gooch suggested, were clear (not to say screamingly obvious) visual representations of other physical phenomena which I shall not venture into in any detail now, but which accompany ovulation. He held that not only do said representations drive us nuts today, but the eponymous caveman who had never seen such devices would, on emerging from his rocky bed and finding in the glaring light of day a vision of loveliness from 1974 all bedecked in her own private fantasy, go totally ape.
So what I am trying to tell you here is to respect your genes a little. The argument we are having is really no different to all the other nature/nurture arguments. Nurture tends to be wrong, and you just gave us a nurture argument.
The beauty of the female face is an evolved phenomenom. The male capacity to appreciate and act upon discovered beauty is evolved.
The Old Masters are not a place to look for wisdom on this subject. They drew the wives and daughters of the rich for money, mostly. And when they drew for themselves they did that from life - that is, from the models available to them. Since for the most part these were servants and street whores, you are asking us to formulate a judgement of sociobiological significance on a very narrow factual basis.
It isn’t adequate.
That said, I do think there is a high degree of suggestibility in Man, and the dominance of Western images will have a warping effect on non-Western tastes. The extent to which that is true is the extent to which nurture has a place in this discussion.
But there are other, more sincere indicators. For example, ninety-eight percent of inter-racial rape in America is black on white. Are there not enough black females held out to us in popular culture and on the media as attractive and desirable for these rapine SOBs? Are they, by some unexplained mechanism, only influenced by the definitions of white female beauty in, as you put it, “culture/media”?
No, there is something beyond nurture at work, and J Richards post is an honourable attempt to get at the laws which underpin it. Give it some more thought.
Posted by Cyndia on June 08, 2007, 07:13 AM | #
I’d just like to put my two cents worth in by firstly objecting to the use of handsome African-born model/actor Djimon Hounsou’s photo, which was so carelessly thrown in (fourth row, first column from top) with what are deliberately chosen, mostly unattractive, almost monstrous shots of native/ethnic people.
As a young African-American woman with some Euro blood, I found most of the photos to be very poor representations of what so-called “Negroes” look like. I know no member of my family looks even remotely ike these people!
And as an aspiring writer, I have researched many cultures in Africa, and have found beautiful looking people not to be a rarity in any of them. Gorgeous Djimon, who is from Benin in W. Africa, is one example (although this article does not have the most flattering photo of him).
I hope to live to see the day when all people can appreciate the diversity in beauty that the Creator has given the human race. Until then, these stupid arguments will go on.
Posted by David on June 09, 2007, 12:53 AM | #
Well I know I’m just a “crazy liberal” so I’m not going to tell you guys that you just have a terrible outlook on race and human beings in general, just gonna throw in my two cents.
Even though I think it’s incredibly ignorant, I don’t really have anything against you guys for believing that whites and nonwhites shouldn’t mix, because you feel it’s a threat to white race, and that the white race is something that must be protected or whatever. My only issue with racists is when you guys treat nonwhites like they’re less human than you are, which is obviously unreasonable. The first humans definitely weren’t white, and if your a religious guy, the first people created by God (Jesus and all those folks too) definitely were not the same color as you.
I’m pretty white myself, I’m completely German as far back as my family can trace, and find all kinds of women attractive. There are high odds my children will be mixed race, as is the case with many people in my generation, and I could honestly care less. All your proof about this stuff comes from biased sources.
What bothers me is your little collage of “unattractive” nonwhite people you got there. “Pure blooded” tribal folks from Africa, Asia and Oceania. First off, a few of those people are not unattractive at all. And second, I could, with ease, walk down the street in any white podunk town around here and create a collage of people I considered extremely or universally unattractive.
What’s your goal? To start a race war? There’s nobody trying to cover anything up. People are people. Humans are a race. There are genes for face shape, height, eye color, nose size etc, that is passed on by our ancestors. But there aren’t genes for race. There isn’t a “Mongoloid” gene, there isn’t a “Negroid” gene and all I think you need to do is look at some multiracial people to figure this out.
Oh fuck it. Face it. You guys are a dying breed. I don’t mean whites. I mean ignorant, insecure, scared, racist losers like yourself. Race is an idea thought up of by humans not too long ago to make it okay to exploit other human beings. We’re far from getting there, but every day, more and more ignorant folks like you are dying of old age and every day more and more openminded people (and multiracial people I might add too) are being born. Try all you want, your not going to change the world’s opinion. The fact is, the overwhelming majority of people do not share your beliefs and think your crazy. It’s not even about the science and facts. It’s about your unwillingness to have an open mind, appreciate the world God made for you, and have respect for individuals and groups for who they are and to make whatever decisions they want to make.
Get over yourselves.
Posted by Guessedworker on June 09, 2007, 05:13 AM | #
David,
You are, like most ordinary folks, a conventionalist and not the originator of your own ideas - race denial being one of them. You are wrong in virtually everything you have said, and completely lacking in the basic information necessary to make any informed judgement.
Please indulge me a little and read this. It will provide you with some sort of grounding for understanding the world, and from there it might be possible for you to begin thinking straight - not least about people like us who, believe me, you do not understand at this point. It is clear to me that all your understanding comes through media manipulation. To grow up you have to begin to think for yourselves, outside the the usual trammells.
Here’s a warning, though. It takes a long time, at least a couple of years and perhaps as long as five, to wake up and focus on reality. But it is necesarry if you want to call yourself a man.
Posted by Maguire on June 09, 2007, 05:07 PM | #
Guessedworker,
That was a good reply. More temperate than I would have made.
“It is clear to me that all your understanding comes through media manipulation.”
And let us not forget modern educational ‘institutions’ (in every sense of the word).
“To grow up you have to begin to think for yourselves, outside the the usual trammells.”
This above all else is instantly sanctioned by the System.
My expectation is ‘David’ will not return. He’s had his masturbatory moralgasm; “Oh I’m such a good person...I’m not like THOSE others...OHHHHHHHHHHHHHHhhhhhhhh!” This is accompanied and reinforced by subliminal expectations of the transient ‘wealth’, ‘success’ and hedonistic pleasures bestowed as rewards on Good Thinkers like himself.
It used to be discouraging to encounter real life 1984 ‘Parsons’ type people. Now it’s just mildly interesting in a clinical way. And, also like 1984 Parsons, many of them can wind up in the dungeons of the Thought Police without altering their proclaimed worldview in the least. Take a look at the Duke University Three and their families.
Or listen to the relatives of dead victims of anti-white racial violence perpetrated by non-whites. It’s becoming routine for the anti-white media comes around to solicit ritual denunciations not of the criminals but of whites protesting the crimes. These people also had their analogs under Stalinism.
Maguire
Posted by 17% on June 09, 2007, 08:01 PM | #
“My only issue with racists is when you guys treat nonwhites like they’re less human than you are, which is obviously unreasonable.”
When has anyone on this blog done so? Point to the hard evidence, or admit that you are a liar.
“The first humans definitely weren’t white...”
Certainly true, especially if you include as “human” all in the genus “Homo.” By the way, there is one human race that shares considerable dental traits with extinct forms of hominds and australopithecines, as well as extant and extinct forms of apes. Hint: it isn’t whites. By the way, this isn’t “treating non-whites as less human”; that is merely reporting the findings of a peer-reviewed publication.
“...and if your (sic) a religious guy, the first people created by God (Jesus and all those folks too) definitely were not the same color as you. “
There is no “God” and save that crap for all the Jesus freaks and other softbrains.
“I’m pretty white myself....”
Which means what?
“....I’m completely German as far back as my family can trace...”
Congratulations.
“...and find all kinds of women attractive.”
In the grand scheme of the universe, that means what?
“There are high odds my children will be mixed race, as is the case with many people in my generation, and I could honestly care less.”
Sure, if you don’t care about the basic foundation of life, and that your children being more genetically similar to you than is a random stranger, then, yes, I guess your typical drooling, MTV-addicted nihilist wouldn’t care.
“All your proof about this stuff comes from biased sources.”
What “proof” about “stuff” are you talking about? And what are the “biased” sources? I assume you mean that your personal opinion is unbiased, while scientific papers are “biased.” Interesting. I think you have the makings of a typical “movement activist”: you can create reality out of your personal opinions.
“What’s your goal? To start a race war?”
Evidence for that libel?
“There’s nobody trying to cover anything up. People are people.”
That’s brilliant. Think that one up yourself?
“Humans are a race.”
Humans are a species, idiot.
“There are genes for face shape, height, eye color, nose size etc, that is passed on by our ancestors. But there aren’t genes for race.”
Wrong. Gene frequencies of neutral markers can identify a person’s race with ~ 100% accuracy. A recent paper discussed on this blog (Witherspoon et al), demonstrated _zero_ genetic overlap between Europeans, Africans, and East Asians. You are either ignorant, or a liar.
“There isn’t a “Mongoloid” gene, there isn’t a “Negroid” gene and all I think you need to do is look at some multiracial people to figure this out. “
First, you are wrong. Second, how does the existance of multiracial mongrels invalidate race, any more than canine mongrels invalidate breeds?
“Oh fuck it.”
Yes, indeed, you are ready to be a “movement activist.”
“Face it. You guys are a dying breed. I don’t mean whites.”
Why not? Whites are indeed a dying race. That’s the problem.
“I mean ignorant, insecure, scared, racist losers like yourself. “
Hmm. Who are the losers? Those who fight for their genetic interests, or the slack-jawed nihilists who accept, nay embrace, their own race’s genocide?
“Race is an idea thought up of by humans not too long ago to make it okay to exploit other human beings.”
How can it then be determined by scientific assays? Better yet - if race is a fiction, then who are these “multiracial” people you refer to? Obviously, if race does not exist, a “multiracial” person differs not at all from anyone else. Why then do YOU make a distinction, retard?
“We’re far from getting there, but every day, more and more ignorant folks like you are dying of old age and every day more and more openminded people (and multiracial people I might add too) are being born.”
In other words, media and academic brainwashing is increasingly effective on today’s low-character, ignorant, and dumbed down youth.
“Try all you want, your not going to change the world’s opinion. The fact is, the overwhelming majority of people do not share your beliefs and think your crazy.”
Yes, I believe they said the same to Galileo. And Bruno.
“It’s not even about the science and facts.”
Of course not. Since “the science and facts” prove us right, they need to be ignored.
“It’s about your unwillingness to have an open mind...”
I see. You reject all evidence and science as being “biased”, believe that the popularity of an opinion is a basis for its legitimacy, and then you complain about _us_ not being openminded. Fascinating.
“appreciate the world God made for you...”
More evidence that religion is poison. Stick that crap up your ass.
“...and have respect for individuals and groups for who they are and to make whatever decisions they want to make. “
I see. So, if, for example, we should respect criminals, terrorists, sexual predators, and the like; they are what they are and make the decisions they want to make.
“Get over yourselves.”
No..I think that ethnic genetic interests are, to me, sufficiently compelling not to “get over.”
Posted by 17% on June 09, 2007, 08:41 PM | #
J. Irish, J. Hum. Evol. 34, 81-98, 1998:
“Sub-Saharan Africans are characterized by a collection of unique, mass-additive crown and root traits relative to these other world groups. Recent work found that the most ubiquitous of these traits are also present in dentitions of earlier hominids, as well as extinct and extant non-human primates; other ancestral dental features are also common in these forms.”
Posted by 17% on June 09, 2007, 08:43 PM | #
Posted by 825 on June 09, 2007, 10:42 PM | #
David said “...and have respect for individuals and groups for who they are and to make whatever decisions they want to make.”
Think it through Dave....
Posted by Lurker on June 09, 2007, 10:58 PM | #
Dave - There are high odds my children will be mixed race, as is the case with many people in my generation, and I could honestly care less
OK Dave, lets say tomorrow we halt the immigration of all non-Europeans. What do you say to that?
Nothing, thats what, because as you said yourself I could honestly care less.
The day after that we start deporting all non-Europeans. What do you say to that?
Why nothing again, because as you said yourself I could honestly care less.
Its of no interest to you what the racial make up of the country is. All brown, all white, something in between, as you said yourself could I could honestly care less.
Therefore you are out of the debate, end of story.
If however you do have an opinion, that in fact the possibilty of your children marrying non-Europeans, is in some way desireable over their marriage to Europeans then you do care. Maybe it turns out you would care about restriction on immigration.
Sounds like then you care after all, which means your claims about the inevitable race replacement of whites is not something thats just a blind natural process. You care about it, you want it to happen, you want to help it along. See, if you are allowed to actively root for it then we are allowed to root against it are we not?
If its a pure, inevitable, process as you seem to think, as you point out what we do doesnt matter (so why bother complaining Dave?), but then nor does what you do either. If though the process (race replacement) is not quite as natural and inevitable as you contend then it has to be worked for, encouraged, forced even. Well then logically, morally, surely its OK to work against it as well.
Posted by Bob on July 10, 2007, 04:29 AM | #
“Her facial proportions are more appealing for a European than some of the allegedly ideal proportions depicted by Yosh Jefferson in Figure 6”
Yeah, I can see now how this is objective research.
Posted by frank on July 23, 2007, 02:46 PM | #
I am glad to see the pictures because i wanted them for some assignments.
Posted by Tre on August 02, 2007, 10:43 PM | #
“I’d just like to put my two cents worth in by firstly objecting to the use of handsome African-born model/actor Djimon Hounsou’s photo, which was so carelessly thrown in (fourth row, first column from top) with what are deliberately chosen, mostly unattractive, almost monstrous shots of native/ethnic people.”
I, too, noticed this ...The author PURPOSELY posted pics of unattractive Negroids to make his “point” on whites being most beautiful - most “pure” Africans do not have features (i.e. the very nose on the African man IS NOT a common, African feature!)
Basically, Negroids have noses that are shorter and wider with flatter bridges, while Caucasoids have noses that are more longer and extended in bridge and tip - and WHO IS TO SAY that a longer and more extended nose is more attractive than a wider one?
Physical beauty is more about GOOD ALIGNMENT than anything else - and NOT the little “geometric theory” this idiot has given! As long as that wide nose is in good alignment with the wider mouth and in good alignment with the eyes, ...and as long as the features fit the face ..Whether you are Negroid, Caucasoid, or Mongoloid THAT is what spells a beautiful face!
If you have TRULY been to Africa, you will see how black women REALLY look! National Geographic just shows you what they WANT YOU to see, and even so, ..who’s to say that the women are “ugly”? Of course, if a woman does not wear a bra, her breast will sag, and if you are eating less nutrition, you will look less “healthy” (which adds to beauty), but African models are chosen over African-American models because they have BETTER alignment!
In fact, it is the racial “dilution” of Africans in the Americas that have hindered black beauty - causing an “imbalance” where you have a nose that is too wide for the mouth, (wide nose, thin lips), or a thin nose with large lips, which cause “smile lines”, or facial creases (i.e. Tisha Campbell)
Look at Mariah Carey ...She is so “diluted” that her face is so off balance! Her nose is too high for her mouth, etc., etc.
Sade and women of Brazil are beautiful because they are a more DIRECT BLEND (Sade’s dad being straight from Africa, and her mom being straight from Europe)! Brazillians are more of a “blend”; however, African-Americans are just DILUTED! More and more biracials, today, are less and less attractive (i.e. Richard Pryor’s daughter, Rain). And this is because they have become so “diluted”! Like, Richard already appears to have Caucasion blood in him down the line (giving him lighter skin), and then he has a child with a white woman, and the child is even MORE diluted and put “off balance”!
But go to YouTube, and check out Uwe Ommer’s “black ladies”, showcasing beautiful women of Africa ..These are some of the most BEAUTIFUL women I’ve ever seen!
BTW, I do not find the “beautiful white woman” in his example very beautiful ..She’s rather PLAIN and BORING! The caucasian “beauty” is just “safe”, whereas, African beauty breaks rules, and is more “daring”. It draws your eyes, more, and for GOOD reasons! ..The only hang-up blacks still have is with the hair, but they are finding that Negroid hair can also be beautiful (and it grows at the SAME RATE, like we see in dreadlocks, if taken care of properly - w/ no chemicals and heat added to it, which is why so many black women are losign hair while black men’s hair is getting longer)
If alot of these “animalistic” African women were groomed (in the way that “Westeners” see as “well-groomed"), and were more well-nutritioned, you’d see the competition!
Posted by Tre on August 02, 2007, 10:49 PM | #
BTW, alot of those Negroids weren’t unattractive, at all, ..and the African tribal woman, in my opinion, was dressed differently and had her hair in a different style (since I, being of another culture, is attracted to a different style), she’d be MUCH MORE sexy to me than the boring white woman!
In fact, she is STILL more appealing to me, in her native “dress”!
Posted by nordisk sven on August 09, 2007, 05:39 AM | #
Why does it always have to be about women why do women have to be perfect in your eyes why not men? this is why women go to extremes to fit your ideal image of beauty bastards
Posted by tiger on August 25, 2007, 12:08 PM | #
The ‘beautiful’ white woman is actually pretty unattractive. So she’s got a narrow nose - big deal. What about the bushy eyebrows and the large & clumsy facial bones. Personally, I find Nordic type women too masculine looking and big boned: nothing ‘delicate’ or ‘graceful’ about the average Northern European female. Mediterranean women (Spanish, Italian, Lebanese etc) are the prettiest IMHO.
Posted by sunshinenfred on August 26, 2007, 09:39 PM | #
I think persian woman, berber woman and arab woman, pakistani and Indian are the most beautiful and soft face woman of the world.
this is arab women with albino icq aqua eyes, soft face.
http://good-times.webshots.com/album/560216507ZbDEsO
and this is the persian women with green eyes or blue (very beautiful)
http://good-times.webshots.com/album/559467274YXOouq
and last one far east asian with blue eyes, moroccan princess and some arab with blond hair
http://travel.webshots.com/album/559183053WkSgXd
I truely sure if you could look at all those websits I posted, you will concern aryan is exsite is middle east.
Posted by florentien and fred on August 26, 2007, 09:58 PM | #
another one http://www.pantip.com/cafe/woman/topic/Q5750138/Q5750138.html
Posted by Amy on October 31, 2007, 06:52 PM | #
Does anyone notice how this argument is unreasonably racist, imperialistic and promotes an ideal that homogenizes ethnic and cultural differences? Didn’t Hitler purport similar ideals? Why is Nelson Mandela, Mother Theresa, and Gandhi in the “reject pile”? What about uniqueness as beauty? Infuriatingly superficial.
Posted by Tommy G on October 31, 2007, 07:30 PM | #
Amy,
Your powers of observation aren’t up to what they should be. See if you can pick out the three differences between the two pictures in the following link. Hint: They’re easier to find if your speakers are on and the volume is turned up.
Posted by Bambus on November 09, 2007, 09:49 PM | #
The posts in reponse to the posts are even more interesting to me than the initial article. So many of you have strong and conflicting responses to the question of an “ideal” aesthetic subject. And so many obvioulsy hold strong to your opinions, fervently defending them ...
The human subject, I feel, cannot be neatly or easily summed up in terms of math or science or art alone. We understand little about the totality of who we are. At this moment, my conception of what is or is not “beautiful” is dependent on a variety of factors: my sex, my age, my race, my economic status, my education, my country of origin and habitation, the cultural and social influences exerting force on me, probably my biology (to a certain extent), my personal background and experiences, my response to the article and my history of reading other texts (to name just a few). And all of this is just at this moment, me, existing in 2007.
This is, of course, just my opinion. And it might put me in a sticky spot to jump the gun and perhaps rashly generalize to this crowd that most other people might be similarly effected by factors such as those listed in the above paragraph.
I think the notion of the “ideal” is just that: a notion. An idea or concepted generated by people - not a real thing existing independently of historical, cultural, or social paradigms.
The hard part for a lot of is trying to figure out how our opinions have been formed, where we got them from, who gave them to us, and what we do with them once we start to see them for what they’re really made of.
Posted by Guessedworker on November 10, 2007, 01:15 PM | #
Bambus,
Try replacing the notion of the “ideal” with that of the “evolutionarily adaptive”, and see where that takes you. Closer, I think, to the position of the defenders of European beauty ... and, indeed, of all evolved distinctiveness. Phenotypic distinctiveness is itself an ethnic genetic interest for all peoples. The claim that we humans are not hard-wired to prefer the dictinctive in our own racial sub-set is also a claim against evolution.
Posted by Lynn on December 02, 2007, 12:53 AM | #
i’m curious - what do you people think of hitler and his views on race? (question is for people like guessedworker and 17%.
Posted by commenter on December 03, 2007, 02:02 PM | #
I noticed there are no whites amongst the unattractive faces. Why is this? And why do you need to throw in so many Black faces? Oh wait, I don’t need to ask.
By the way, I have seen far more beautiful non-whites than that picture of your “ideal beauty”. You should visit planet Earth one day, travel the world… You’re clearly missing out.
Posted by Josh on December 13, 2007, 07:26 AM | #
Cambodian women are so good looking! I like their shorter stature and their smooth skin.. but I digress.. I find the most appealing face is the most average face, which is the most combined face, or what give you. Jessica Alba, for instance.. she has a diverse ancestry. Besides, the more genetically diverse someone is means they will have a greater variety of genetic combinations. Imagine the possibilities… Besides, Angelina jolie is not 100% caucasian. so there.
Posted by GT on December 13, 2007, 03:58 PM | #
Such a lovely family!
Posted by Tommy G on December 13, 2007, 04:44 PM | #
The radical Leftists are cleverly using the pretty face of Angelina Jolie to promote the new prototype of what the ideal multicultural/multiracial family should look like.
Heck, if this sick twisted anti-white trend continues, pretty soon it will be considered a hate-crime if a white women gives birth to a white child.
Posted by GT on December 13, 2007, 05:03 PM | #
Below is a “fair” representation of African-descended females:
http://img136.imageshack.us/img136/2978/africanbeauties2007ke0.jpg
“Fair" because it is overwhelmingly comprised of 2007 Miss World contestants.
Posted by Tommy G on December 13, 2007, 05:18 PM | #
The three in the lower left-hand corner look like the refugees from Hurricane Katrina in New Orleans.
Posted by Tommy G on December 13, 2007, 05:20 PM | #
Make that the lower right hand corner.
Posted by Lurker on December 13, 2007, 06:19 PM | #
Josh - “I find the most appealing face is the most average face, which is the most combined face, or what give you. Jessica Alba, for instance.. she has a diverse ancestry.”
“the most average face, which is the most combined face” - Really? And how do you come to that conclusion? So, though most people in Korea bear some general resemblance to each other this is just a random outcome because in fact the average Korean is just as likely to have Danish father and a Kenyan mother or whatever. After all the average face is the most mixed one. The fact there are different ‘ethnic groups’ or ‘races’ is just some weird statistical freak based on geography. So people born in Korea just happen to end up looking like Koreans even though, of course, their parents come from all over the world because of course the mst average face is the most mixed face.
But how is it the average Korean face is different from the average American one? Ill leave you explain that Josh. Arent they all mixed?
“Jessica Alba, for instance.. she has a diverse ancestry.” Diverse European ancestry pretty much, a bit of Mexican in there too, so I assume a (smaller) indian ancestry. Is that what makes her average, I suppose your family tree is just as average. Its the Mexican bit that gets you going isnt it Josh, thats the deciding vote, the bit thats special.
Posted by GT on December 13, 2007, 07:43 PM | #
While looking through the faces of Africa’s 2007 Miss World contestants it occurred to me that most have a certain European, Indian, or Arab “taint” about them. If true, then it’s clear that African leaders are in agreement with us: The best-lookin’ negresses have one or more caucasoids in the woodpile.
----
And now from the chuckle file we have “worldly” commentary from the entity calling itself commenter, a race traitor who betrays his own racism toward Africoons with the following, self-answered question:
And why do you need to throw in so many Black faces? Oh wait, I don’t need to ask.
That’s right, princess, Africoons are included because they are fucking ugly and excluding them would be discriminatory! You like that? Eh? Eh?
Posted by GT on December 13, 2007, 08:01 PM | #
The radical Leftists are cleverly using the pretty face of Angelina Jolie to promote the new prototype of what the ideal multicultural/multiracial family should look like.
Jolie’s fundamental hatred toward her biological daughter, Shiloh, is what got me.
I felt so much more for Madd, Zahara, and Pax because they were survivors.
I hope Shiloh has the brains to recognize this statement for what it is in the years to come.
And Brad Pitt? That sonofabitch is not a man. Jolie wears the pants in the family.
Posted by Tommy G on December 13, 2007, 08:39 PM | #
“And Brad Pitt? That sonofabitch is not a man. Jolie wears the pants in the family.”
They are both sickening, repugnant, white-liberals. When it comes to ranking enemies of the white-race, white-liberals (both Jew and Gentile) are BY FAR the most dangerous animal in the jungle.
Posted by Tommy G on December 13, 2007, 10:21 PM | #
James Bowery is acually Liza Minnelli.
Posted by Fred Scrooby on December 13, 2007, 11:48 PM | #
In Hollywood the message gets across to stars that the Jews who run the place will look with favor on those Euro celebrities who refrain from having or adopting Euro babies — who refrain, that is, from reproducing the Euro race.
Jews frown on Euros reproducing because you want less of what you hate.
A way in which Euro movies stars can please the Jews with the power to advance their careers is neither to have nor to raise Euro babies/children. This can be done by childlessness or by having/raising mostly non-Euro babies/children. If you’re a Euro movie star and devote yourself to bearing/raising non-Euro children the Hollywood Jews will reward you by protecting your career: they’ll never forget that you sacrificed your race for Jewish tribal interests, and will thank you by seeing to it your career never suffers eclipse. This is what Angelina Laide and Madonna are after in their promotion of miscegenation: Jewish approval, and resulting career advancement and security. Again, why specifically Jewish approval? Because in their chosen careers Jews make or break you.
Wintermute told us there’s a Jewish college professor named Sachs or Sacks or something who hangs out with Euro Hollywood celebrities and encourages/helps arrange for them to bear/adopt non-white babies, the non-whiter the better. (Wow, I wonder what the odds against that must, a Jewish guy running around encouraging Euros to do that — must be astronomical. Who’d have guessed we’d see it in our lifetimes!)
Hollywood Jews would frown on celebrity couples doing this where the man and woman were both Jews: they don’t want to push replacement of Jews with Negroes. This is why you’ll never see Jewish celebrity couples in Hollywood noisily devoting themselves to having/raising non-Caucasian babies: there’s no guarantee of reward since it’s not specifically “in demand” by the Jews who run the place. If they do it they’ll gain nothing so you’ll never see them do it. It might even be a career destroyer, since Hollywood’s Jewish masters might be repelled by it and hate them for it. No, it’s a career-advancement opportunity that Hollywood’s Jewish honchos “offer” only to that industry’s Euro celebrities: they’re the ones whose race Hollywood’s Jews want to see replaced.
I saw part of a movie on TV called “Quigley Downunder” starring Tom Selleck, in which he and the white female lead end up in love and staying together, adopting an Australian aborigine child. This aborigine adoption was no accidental story detail but very much something Hollywood’s Jewish honchos want to promote, and the comtemplation of which without doubt brings them tremendous personal satisfaction: the ending of Euro reproduction, Euro couples abstaining from making babies and, if they want kids, raising non-Euro ones instead. That’s the Jewish Hollywood ideal and it’s in order to curry favor with Hollywood’s career-making-or-breaking Jews that Laide and Madonna are doing what they’re doing (in Madonna’s case there may also be some sort of her own personal sexual perversion involved, as well as ordinary bad taste, low intellience, and generally low-class, vulgar style, interests, and behavior).
Posted by Get real on January 06, 2008, 01:32 AM | #
look at her father though do you think the indian dad is model material ?
even mohan mother is not really good looking too wide faced
see the real mohan with no makeup
models look different in real life
it is the make up artists and the computer generated photos that make her looks good
Posted by Mark on April 29, 2008, 03:38 AM | #
Good job on distancing handsome square jawed whites from your “ideal” skinny face negroid looking whites, fool.
You are a fucking idiot you know that?
Next entry: An Ethnic-Hawaiian government could only be good for the mainland majority
Previous entry: Defining Leftism
Existential Issues
Of note
Recent Comments
Gorboduc commented in entry ''Enlightened' Child Abuse' on 03/19/10, 09:57 PM. (go) (view)
Captainchaos commented in entry ''Enlightened' Child Abuse' on 03/19/10, 09:00 PM. (go) (view)
Englander commented in entry 'Book review of “Breeding between the Lines” by Alon Ziv' on 03/19/10, 08:25 PM. (go) (view)
Gorboduc commented in entry ''Enlightened' Child Abuse' on 03/19/10, 07:37 PM. (go) (view)
Anacleto commented in entry 'Book review of “Breeding between the Lines” by Alon Ziv' on 03/19/10, 07:01 PM. (go) (view)
kurt9 commented in entry 'Europe's Future: Is this what "they" want?' on 03/19/10, 06:59 PM. (go) (view)
Alex commented in entry 'The New Rome; or, the United States of the World (1853)' on 03/19/10, 06:33 PM. (go) (view)
PF commented in entry ''Enlightened' Child Abuse' on 03/19/10, 06:33 PM. (go) (view)
Alex commented in entry 'The New Rome; or, the United States of the World (1853)' on 03/19/10, 06:28 PM. (go) (view)
Guessedworker commented in entry ''Enlightened' Child Abuse' on 03/19/10, 05:03 PM. (go) (view)
Søren Renner commented in entry 'Automatic for the Sheeple' on 03/19/10, 04:14 PM. (go) (view)
Søren Renner commented in entry 'Automatic for the Sheeple' on 03/19/10, 03:52 PM. (go) (view)
ilan commented in entry 'Majority Radio: Bill White’s 2009/11/16 Letter to Alex Linder' on 03/19/10, 11:56 AM. (go) (view)
Gorboduc commented in entry 'Automatic for the Sheeple' on 03/19/10, 11:38 AM. (go) (view)
Gorboduc commented in entry ''Enlightened' Child Abuse' on 03/19/10, 10:46 AM. (go) (view)
Drifter commented in entry 'Automatic for the Sheeple' on 03/19/10, 01:58 AM. (go) (view)
Guessedworker commented in entry ''Enlightened' Child Abuse' on 03/19/10, 01:13 AM. (go) (view)
cladrastis commented in entry 'Automatic for the Sheeple' on 03/19/10, 12:59 AM. (go) (view)
Gorboduc commented in entry ''Enlightened' Child Abuse' on 03/19/10, 12:42 AM. (go) (view)
Søren Renner commented in entry 'Automatic for the Sheeple' on 03/19/10, 12:25 AM. (go) (view)
Guessedworker commented in entry 'Automatic for the Sheeple' on 03/18/10, 11:30 PM. (go) (view)
PF commented in entry ''Enlightened' Child Abuse' on 03/18/10, 11:08 PM. (go) (view)
Guessedworker commented in entry ''Enlightened' Child Abuse' on 03/18/10, 10:32 PM. (go) (view)
Gorboduc commented in entry ''Enlightened' Child Abuse' on 03/18/10, 08:02 PM. (go) (view)
PF commented in entry ''Enlightened' Child Abuse' on 03/18/10, 06:38 PM. (go) (view)
Gorboduc commented in entry ''Enlightened' Child Abuse' on 03/18/10, 02:19 PM. (go) (view)
PF commented in entry 'Romilly Jenkins: Truth and 'Ethnic' Truth' on 03/18/10, 04:10 AM. (go) (view)
PF commented in entry ''Enlightened' Child Abuse' on 03/18/10, 02:39 AM. (go) (view)
Wandrin commented in entry 'Europe's Future: Is this what "they" want?' on 03/18/10, 02:17 AM. (go) (view)
Wandrin commented in entry 'Serious Crime - The Ethnic Dimension; Fact and Fantasy' on 03/18/10, 01:45 AM. (go) (view)
Gorboduc commented in entry ''Enlightened' Child Abuse' on 03/18/10, 01:24 AM. (go) (view)
Guessedworker commented in entry ''Enlightened' Child Abuse' on 03/18/10, 12:35 AM. (go) (view)
Borvo commented in entry 'Europe's Future: Is this what "they" want?' on 03/17/10, 11:44 PM. (go) (view)
PF commented in entry 'Diasporal Hijinks: Christopher Hitchens and the Janjaweed' on 03/17/10, 10:31 PM. (go) (view)
Maximilio commented in entry 'Is Dr. David Duke, Ph.D., a Kosher Nazi?' on 03/17/10, 10:12 PM. (go) (view)
Recent Posts
- Automatic for the Sheeple
- Blowing Bubbles
- Serious Crime - The Ethnic Dimension; Fact and Fantasy
- Saturday Riddle Classic
- Apologies for the down-time
- It’s Official – fake money is as good as the real thing (if not better)
- Wadham and the EHRC win. The existential will go ballistic.
- DDR or Third Reich, which would you choose?
- Greece thwarts Barbarossa, yet again
- Europe’s Future: Is this what “they” want?
- ‘Enlightened’ Child Abuse
- My latest teleology
- The Revolution of Kai Murros
- Linda Carty, the Reprieve lie machine, and the bleeding heart of Clive Stafford Smith
- Humour and the English Disease
- True Science is Barbaric
- The New Rome; or, the United States of the World (1853)
- Cameron on Griffin and the MultiCult
- Absurd assumptions about life’s advantages
- Was It Real For You?
General News
Science News
Science Categories
All Categories
The Writers
Each author's name links to a list of all articles posted by the writer; the hashes link to authors' homepages.
Links
Endorsement not implied.
Crime
General
- American Renaissance
- Age of Treason
- Balder
- Brussels Journal
- Civic platform
- CofCC
- Chronicles
- Crosstar
- Culture Wars
- Dissecting Leftism
- Face Right
- Fallen Freedom
- Fred on everything
- Freedom Site
- From The Wilderness
- Frontierist News
- Gates of Vienna
- God help Britain
- Hogtown Front
- I am an Englishman
- Inductivist
- iSteve
- Modern Tribalist
- National Policy Institute
- Occidental Dissent
- Occidental Quarterly
- Our Way of Life
- Oz Conservative
- ParaPundit
- The Political Cesspool
- Romanian National Vanguard
- Rusty Mason
- Renaissance Press
- Right Now magazine
- Salisbury Review
- Sam Francis Column
- Scotchfriend
- Signals From The Brink
- Spoils of War
- Snouck Hurgronje
- Songlight for Dawn
- Stop ACLU
- Tomorrow in Vinland
- Turnabout
- UK Commentators
- Viking Observer
- Western Survival
- White civil rights
Immigration
- American Patrol
- Immigration watchdog
- Immigration Watch Canada
- Limits To Growth
- Migration Watch
- Minutemen
- Numbers USA
- Private police
- Project USA
- Team America
- Vdare
Islam
Jews
- 9/11 – #1, #2
- Banking – #1, #2
- Eric Hufschmid
- Holocaust – #1, #2, #3, #4, #5
- Immigration
- Jewish deception
- Judenfrei
- Michael Delaney
- Subverted nation
- Why the Jews?
Nationalist Political Parties
- British National Party
- Front National (FR)
- Nationaldemokraterna
- Nationaldemokratische Partei Deutschlands
- Vlaams Belang
New Right
Science
Whites in Africa