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 (190) | 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?
Posted by Isaiah on June 26, 2008, 10:40 AM | #
Hand clap. You have become officially the most racist being on the planet. All of your theories can be easily disproved. This article is extremely biased on your judgments. It takes a white man to sit down and put together pictures and try to crack the code of how human see beauty. But he can not because he is blinded by his racism. Now the funny part about this is that everyone has their own opinion on beauty. Now you can sit down and say well the majority of the people think this face is idea and by doing so you are right because the majority is white. Now if you say this is everyone’s opinion on beauty then you are wrong! Why, well I don’t find women with that facial structure attractive, so I disprove your theory. 
Next beauty or facial attractiveness is based on gain. In this world to gain benefits you must be or have white facial features. Why? Example: If two African men, one half Caucasian, was to be hired by the majority man (Caucasian man); the white man would probably hire the half Caucasian black man. Now this is were it get interesting. Women pick men by which one can take care of them and their young, so they would pick the one with the job. Also beauty standards are set by the media. The majority of the media is controlled by white people, so in a way white people set the standards of beauty. Now say two white guys were in Japan and wanted a job, both have the same qualification but one had Japanese features which one would get the job? Easy, the Japanese looking white guy. Last whites are a majority in the United States. The United States is the most powerful country on the face of the planet which relates to the media and makes it the most powerful media on the face of the planet. I hope you understand because i’m getting sleepy, and i don’t feel like further explain or correcting my errors. I am not in anyway a racist. I don’t in any way believe in the idea of race. I believe the idea of race was a way for a certain type of people to privilege each other. My email is feel free to email me if you want to debate, or want me to theorize.
Posted by vairocana on July 04, 2008, 02:42 AM | #
If “people” were not supposed to inter/cross breed, then the egg would not become fertilized within the uterus...Hot is Hot. If I remember correctly, early european treasure hunters looking for egyptian treasures claimed that Nubian woman were the most beautiful..? And how is the article going to show a white black girl for “beautiful black woman”...This is obviously is some Eugenical Nazi propagnda “science”..
Anyway...I’m sure there will be a follow up article suggesting beauty is identified by political assertations, and that the submissive , co operative european species are more beautiful than the more aggressive african countertypes…
Truly. the end is near
Posted by Mai on July 09, 2008, 06:08 AM | #
This article is soo full of shit. Whites are just as ugly. Face it. Beauty is art and art has no limitations and NO RULES. Even the rules of beauty that you stated was created by whites. Another thing I wanted to say is that black comes in many forms so even if an African woman looks like the has some Arabic or white “taint” she is usually full blooded African. Black is beautiful. Why? Because there are way too many full blooded sistas out there who are just gorgeous. The person who wrote this article wrote it from a racist perspective. There is no “science” here, and science cannot solve everything. beauty just is. White women are considered more beautiful because of white propaganda, but when whites eventually die out or lose their power and influence they will not be so “pretty” anymore. Peace.
Posted by Shifter on August 13, 2008, 09:48 AM | #
It’s clear you put a lot of thought and effort into this. However, many angry comments have been posted accusing you of racism (at least, I think they are. It’s sometimes hard to tell!) I believe the people posting them have misunderstood your basic message, and I can see why.
You acknowledge that different races have different standards of beauty, but then go on to state, as if it were fact, that “the beauty of the most attractive whites cannot be enhanced--but will be undermined, instead--via the absorption of non-whites among whites.” By your own admission, not everyone finds the most stereotypically white face the most beautiful. An Asian person who is most attracted to other Asians might see the addition of Asian features to a white person’s face as an improvement, although a white person who prefers white women’s features would disagree.
In your previous paper, you compare Saira’s features with those of “beautiful white women.” As evidence that a mixture of what you charmingly refer to as “Hindoo” and white genetics results in a less beautiful individual, you point out the differences between an average white woman’s face and Saira’s. It’s true, they are different - but the whole argument is based on the fact that the white women are more beautiful, which is not factual, but a matter of opinion. Whether or not people of the same race tend to find the same feautures attractive- I don’t know, so I’ll take your word for it - “aesthetic preferences nevertheless vary by race and species” (I should hope they vary by species!)
Your argument seems to be that for people who prefer Nordic features, the introduction of non-Nordic features makes a person less attractive. This is irrefutable logic. What is confusing people is that you’ve taken such a long time to say it. Really, one sentence seems to sum it up pretty well. In addition, some parts are worded in a way that seem to imply that it is a FACT that white people are the most attractive race. My advice is not to try and prove your own opinion; it’s unnecessary, and might provoke bloodshed, or at the very least a demonstration of total illiteracy that makes me fear for the future of the country. 
Of course, I may be totally misinterpreting your message. If so, please respond and set me straight.
Posted by stephanie on August 18, 2008, 08:25 AM | #
This is the most repulsive, racist, pseudo-intellectual rant I’ve ever had the displeasure of being exposed to. I’m white and insecurity lead me to this site, but now i am just ashamed. There are good looking people of every ethnicity and that’s blatantly obvious to those of use who are not blind. EAT SHIT
Posted by Guessedworker on August 18, 2008, 11:27 AM | #
Shifter,
The standard of beauty is founded on within-race averages for each facial component. Shifting away from those within-race averages is shifting away from the standard. Your point that, say, a North African would find a North African-Swedish face more appealing than a Swedish face is true for North Africans, but not for Swedes.
Now reflect that Swedish migration into North Africa is non-existent, and there is no long-term threat to the standard of North African beauty. You understand? We are being told that miscegentaion is good in its own right, that the products of miscegenation are superior ... more beautiful, healthier, etc. It is part of the war - distressingly often by Jews like Alon Ziv - on European Man. It is morally wrong and it is wrong on the basis of its own supporting facts.
That’s all we are saying, essentially.
Posted by elizabeth Perkins on September 01, 2008, 11:47 PM | #
I don’t understand this.
The posting of ‘unattractive’ africans and showing how they don’t fit the golden proportion. And then posting the picture of one pretty woman who does, and then generalising to whole nations/peoples/races.
To any reasoned mind this is absurd.
Fact: High cheekbones are possessed by a minority of Europeans, unlike all other ethnic groups.
Fact: Full lips are possessed by a minority of Europeans, unlike all other ethnic groups.
It’s stupid. White people have a more diverse look purely because of one different hair and eye colours, which in today’s modern age 90% of the time for hair turn out to be enhanced or utterly fake.
Even eye colour in every single magazine is digitally enhanced, and a study showed that the highest prevelance of ‘colour enhancing contact wearers’ were people with blue or green eyes. It’s hilarious.
I’m a white woman, and have never understood the whole, europeans are more beautiful. We live ina more privelged society, which goes to extreme lenghts of plastic surgery and women spending an hour ‘doing themselves up’ befor ethey even leave the house. Not to mention long term selftreatments such as fake tans, hair dyes, limp plumping.
I find it remarkable that the peoples of countries such as India and Africa coudl be so beautiful considering the conditions they live in.
Wasn’t it India and America who win the most beauty contests in the world? How do you explain that. And to say that oh, of course they will in respect to the population of 1 billion is ridiculous as well considering 3/4 of them aren’t even eligble to enter such a contest due to issues with skin colour, background and social status.
My husband is Indian. Yes, ok he isn’t atypical, in that although being completely full blooded he is very light and has the brightest blue eyes. But still Indian. There are probably around 50 million people who have his colouring. What other nation can ‘boast’ such diversity.
Gernalisations generalisations. we’re all beautfiul. get over your ‘laws of beauty’ rubbish.
Posted by silver on September 02, 2008, 06:39 AM | #
Liz, “Indian” isn’t a racial term, so it’s meaningless to call him “full-blooded.” If he’s a lighter caste Indian, you can safely assume he has a greater amount of ancient “aryan” (ie, European) blood than the average Indian, and much more so than the typical southern Indian Dravidian, all of which goes towards confirming the connection between European and beauty.
India’s a country riven with racial divisions. Diversity of this sort of no strength at all. It’s a pity you’ve allowed yourself to be misled by the propaganda describing it as such and thus acted to increase the amount of divisive diversity in your own society (wherever that is). Take note, however, that you’ve also taken a step towards eliminating an important segment of the world’s diversity by terminating your own line; obviously if all whites (however that admittedly nebulous term is defined) followed suit, an entire branch of human biodiversity would be, for all intents and purposes, permanently extinguished.
Posted by ltti on September 08, 2008, 10:48 PM | #
In my opinion and most others...European women are by far the most attractive in the world. Obviously no others compare to the Germanic and Celtic women of the world. We should feel lucky to be blessed by their angelic presence. Hopefully the European people will not be subjected to further ethnic genocide. All nations deserve the right to preserve their genetic and cultural individuality. STOP MISCEGENATION TO PRESERVE GLOBAL DIVERSITY!!!
Posted by WGWAG on September 23, 2008, 09:36 AM | #
I think that Asian Male + White Female breeding will result in beautiful children.
You can see many couples and their interracial children and how simply beautiful they look on WGWAG.net, some of the children are the product of an Asian Male and Black Female...very beautiful.
Posted by Fred Scrooby on October 13, 2008, 02:52 AM | #
Interesting “facial beautification” software shows how you’d look if more beautiful or handsomer, while still you (pfd file, was very slow to load on my machine):
http://www.cs.tau.ac.il/~tommer/beautification2008/attractiveness2008.pdf
Hat tip to Dienekes:
http://dienekes.blogspot.com/2008/10/data-driven-enhancement-of-facial.html
Posted by Fred Scrooby on October 13, 2008, 02:53 AM | #
Posted by Jefferey Lin on October 24, 2008, 05:23 PM | #
Fucking session-timing shit.
I refuse to type everything again.
In succinct: Beauty is based on averageness. What we see as average is media-perpetuated. Because of the globalization of American media, Caucasians are seen as “more ideal.” In the sense that what each person sees is different, beauty is subjective. In the sense that it is what each person sees as average, it is objective.
Posted by Abby on November 04, 2008, 02:39 PM | #
I don’t believe there is a way to mathmatically determine whether someone is beautiful or not. I sure don’t fit the divine proportions, yet I’m still called beautiful. It’s all a complete farce that you have to use measurements to see whether someone is beautiful or not. Apparently Angelina Jolie is a divinely beautiful woman, yet I (and many others) dis-agree. Maths does not determine beauty, the eye does.
Posted by mary stewart on November 16, 2008, 07:53 AM | #
why do you think blonds are best? i’m of euro stock but have brown hair n eyes. does that make me bad?
btw, blonde hair n eyes are recessive genes. only dark hair n eyes are dominant! but i think white skin is the most beautiful as long as it’s not deathy white n veiny. but a nice tan is nice on some.
Posted by Fred Scrooby on November 16, 2008, 04:34 PM | #
“Apparently Angelina Jolie is a divinely beautiful woman, yet I (and many others) disagree.”
I’m with you there, Abby.
Posted by Fred Scrooby on November 16, 2008, 04:55 PM | #
Jefferey Lin (presumably Chinese or half-caste Chinese, going by the name) isn’t right: there’s something about the True West-African Negro face that displeases the esthetic sense, shocks even, something that can’t be made right with media hype no matter how much the media Jews try, such as the new and improved [NOT!] Walt Disney Company’s Michael Eisner (who has thoroughly Jew-ified Walt Disney and totally ruined it). What shocks in that face is its primitiveness, its greater nearness to a less-evolved state of human than the white or yellow face. It’s a coarse face, unrefined, with the face itself too big for the head, too broad and long, the jaw too big, the eyes too far apart, the features gross rather than esthetic. That’s the face; as for the head, the braincase housing the brain is too small. Those are defects of the purely unanimated face. Animated, the West-African Negro facial “body language” further mars the esthetics of the picture, along the same lines of a less evolved appearance — more ape-like, to be perfectly frank about it (that’s the sort of comment polite people ordinarily would never let pass their lips but which is appropriate in the present context in which the Jews keep telling white people they are better off race-mixing: if they won’t stop, we are released from expectations of decent discretion in commenting on other races’ looks and may, nay must reply with the simple truth, and any hurt feelings are strictly the Jews’ fault for deliberately refusing to observe a certain discretion in regard to particular Negro defects which they understand perfectly, as does everyone else in the world).
Posted by Salim on January 16, 2009, 11:08 PM | #
A brilliant article. I agree Nordic women (and people in general) are the most attractive people in the world. And a bigger percentage of them are attractive. I am South Asian BTW.
If races were ranked by beauty it would be like this
1] Northern Europeans
2] Southern Europeans
3] North East Asians
4] Light Brown Caucasians like some Arabs, Iranians, Afghans, North Africans.
5] Indians, Ethiopians/ Somalis, darker Arabs, South East Asians, Mongoloid Pacific Islanders, Native Americans.
Subsaharan Africans are very ugly but the ugliest race is that of Aboriginal Australians and Papuans. They have apelike facial features and even their body movements are apelike. So the hierarchy is angel-like Nordics on top and apelike-Aboriginal Australians/Papuans/ Melanesians at the bottom.
I find Siara Mohan attractive but only little. I would not mind her as my wife. But the Nordic woman is really beautiful. Very fine, highly evolved angelic features.
Posted by Observer on January 28, 2009, 02:14 AM | #
Nordic beauty is a miracle, I question how something so immaculate could end up coming into existence. I find all of Europe to have beauty, but the nordics are special. I’m quarter swedish myself.
Posted by tehya on February 18, 2009, 03:47 AM | #
First of all everyone came from africa so lurker whatever they spreaded across asia and europe asians went to north america (native americans) then to south and other islands
so do this mean hispanics and etc are native american
native americans are asians
asians are black
and plus euros did it to themselves came into africa and north american raped the omen enslaved them and aspect it to go away i am of mxed raced very mixed and i am in love with a white male very in love
race is subconcious and the more you dwell on it the less you live of stress and did you know before obama there were black descendants of presidents and their native american descend just about everyone is mixed on the planet deal with it and if you think the white race is threaten your in fact are wrong it lives in most of us even in asia and africa from the past why do think the somalians, ethipians, egyptians, middle easterns, eritians, african americans, native americans, and many other euros rapd look like the way they do
it is true beauty is in the eye of the beholder someone could be beautiful in one eye and ugly in the next or modern day beautiful could be ugly and modern day ugly are are kind any race man or women are beautiful and no one should be bias i am sick and tired of race wars and think it should stop love has no color now if someone is love with an alien i am out of this and i bet you dont care what i am writing anyways but people are people i guess
Posted by Lurker on February 18, 2009, 04:43 AM | #
Re Tehya’s comment.
Is there some sort of software that generates this sort of content? Often seems that way?
Posted by billy on February 26, 2009, 11:38 AM | #
The math is cool and stuff and it seems really deep and scientific and therefore could be used to bamboozle people into agreeing just because it sounds so cool and logical, but the premise is ultimately flawed. Why? One word. Subjectivity, my friends. The beauty mask says more about Stephen Marquardt and his personal opinions of what is beautiful than it does about us or about beauty. He has an ultra specific definition of beauty that he does an excellent job of defining and guess what? It’s culturally biased! Different cultures have developed different standards and concepts of beauty quite independently of each other at different times and we don’t need a universal standard. One would have to be supremely pompous and arrogant to try to set out to prove that their standard of beauty should be universal; it kind of reminds me of Hitler’s ideas about blood lines and master races. My counterproposal would be that true beauty lies in diversity, not conformity to a particular standard. The survival of our race depends on the fact that there is a diverse array of different kinds of people to fill the plethora of needs and niches in our society. The idea that there is an objective or universal standard of beauty is really a rather desperate attempt on the part of the person defining that standard to trick people into agreeing that their point of view is somehow dominant over all others. It is tantamount to claiming objective taste in food, music, religion, or politics. Taste is always subjective and arbitrary. I am here to tell you that you are free to make up your own mind and come up with your own ideas for what constitutes beauty; and that a mirror is a better source to inspire those ideas than say, a television. The reverand Billy has spoken.
Posted by SM on February 26, 2009, 09:36 PM | #
Frenology --in whatever manifestation it’s taking--degenerates to BS real fast. Keep away from it and focus on migration and balkanization etc (and ultimately the underpinning flaws of European philosophy—eg equality and feminism).
Golden ratio is BS.
Pattern where there is none. (Question: How many times does the word ‘seven’ appear in the bible? Answer: who cares!)
Beauty is…
.take all people
.take facial images
.Have all people circle the image they like best.
.use mode average circled as template for reconstructive surgery and genetic techno.
.Do the same again for genitals/body shape.
.Next, kill off all people who didn’t circle the mode average (so we’ll all be attracted to what we created).
There: done. Simple, see? (=-p)
Posted by Ada Maria on February 27, 2009, 03:48 AM | #
I’ m spanish mixed with a blonde nordic type mother, my facial features are delicate or ‘’fine’’ as you mention in this page..but as a young girl boys were more atracted to the girls that they did not have my ‘’fine’’ delicate features but to those whose bodys were more voluptuos and sexy than me with all my delicate frame of a classic ballerina..is not the nose bridge..is not the hair color is the way a woman..any woman proyects herself to a man..what appeals to you the author of this page it will not appeal to every one..my husband is australian english and to him Greta Garbo is ugly..you see it depends in each person judgment of ‘’beauty’’ certainly if a woman has a curvaceos body men in general will not notice her nose at all and problably it will not matter to them at all..
Posted by clara on March 01, 2009, 01:05 AM | #
this was really useful for my human biol project
thanks
Posted by Arletta on March 18, 2009, 06:56 AM | #
The true beauty of the white race, is that it is not a race, but just one breed of human - humans are the race. All human breeds are beautiful, and most of them look darn good when combined with any of the other ones. Why? Because they look human, and humans are beautiful.
I do agree that the mask thingy does not do justice to “white beauty” or “black beauty” and etc. In fact, most beauty is perceived to occur in people who fall outside of molds, whatever the molds look like at the time. People with bigger lips, thinner lips, bigger breasts, smaller breasts, longer legs, shorter legs. more fat, less fat, than the average.
.
Which means that beauty is also most easily found by an average. It has nothing to do with supermodels. Just, there are wide set eyes, there are narrow eyes And there are average eyes. It is not subjective of anyone but the person being measured. A person with wide set eyes has eyes that are wider apart than one of their own eye widths; a person with narrow set eyes has less than one eye width between them, and a person with average eyes has exactly, or almost exactly, one eye width of space between their eyes. This is generally found to be beautiful, regardless of color of skin. It is balanced! It looks healthy!
And, that sort of measuring never insults the persons ethnicity, nor does it give one leave to put on airs, based on same.
Posted by Englander on March 18, 2009, 03:21 PM | #
So human races don’t exist, but breeds do? Race in the context we use it is synonymous with breed. Why do you fear the ‘R’ word so much?
Posted by gauche on March 26, 2009, 12:30 AM | #
jolie is bloody ugly. dumb
Posted by Matt on March 28, 2009, 03:35 PM | #
I agree with wot some1 else sed about ‘plain jane’ some of these faces ake good canvases and although i think there is absolutely a truth 2 the correlation between this ratio and physical beauty, in real life there are other significant factors such as charisma andpersonal taste
Posted by bambi on May 03, 2009, 07:10 PM | #
what the hell. The person who wrote this blog or whatever you would call it, is not racist you retards. If you read through the whole thing then you would see that he/she is disproving Marquardt’s mask golden ratio. Read the whole thing before you freaking call someone racist!!!
Posted by passer-by on May 29, 2009, 03:43 AM | #
i came across this article which i found adequately interesting. it seems inevitable to neglect the concept which is deemed an essential demand of man: beauty. while there is the enjoyable beauty (accdg to aquinas), which is “in the eyes of the beholder”. there is a thing called objective beauty. looking at facial features, it is not necessarily true that caucasians are the most beautiful unless one bases it on racial differences/ skin color, which can be categorized as a subjective take on the matter. apparently, you can find beautiful faces in every part of the world, because beauty is based on three important elements namely, harmony, radiance and unity. it’s more or less a combination of everything and not singling out one aspect.
Posted by Ally on June 06, 2009, 03:21 AM | #
Actually, now that I come to think about it, the standard for beauty in the U.S. is turning into a mix of all the major races within the country: Caucasian chin and jaw, Caucasian nose but not too big, Negroid lips, Mongoloid cheekbones and eyebrows in addition to slight upward angle (this describes current beauty standards for women, not sure about the men, though). So perhaps beauty does have more to do with cultural norms. What was considered beautiful in the U.S. just 50 years ago is a world of difference from what is considered the pinnacle of beauty today. The blonde, blue-eyed all-Americans are being replaced by a more mixed look with features hailing from many ethnic groups. So the standard of beauty definitely changes over time within each country according to social norms, whether static or fluid, in addition to other evolutionary factors, I’m sure.
Oh, btw, I forgot to mention Beyonce and Tyra Banks...two more ladies who have a blend from all different races. Maybe this means that we are truly (albeit slowly) becoming a melting pot
Posted by Ally on June 06, 2009, 03:25 AM | #
Oh, I should also note that the Nordic woman posted in the pic in the article is a far cry from current American beauty standards. She’s too plain. You wouldn’t find girls like her on the covers of magazines nowadays. Maybe a few decades ago, but as I mentioned in my last post, “exotic” and “multi-cultural” are defining themes in American beauty standards nowadays.
Posted by John on July 02, 2009, 11:13 AM | #
You arguments are well stuctured and accurate.I have a SE Asian wife because I’m not attractive enough to get a European woman.That just about sums it up,dosen’t it…
Posted by Alura on July 11, 2009, 08:32 AM | #
First of all, I’d like to say that I disagree that people with those proportions are beautiful. Beauty is all a matter of opinion not fact. I watched the video hosted by John Cleese on the human face and the girl choosen for modeling (I thought) was ugly because she has two bucked teeth making her appear like a rabbit… her smile showed her gums which was also unappealing… and her upper lip was sooo big, it looked like it was gonna explode- seriously, and that’s supposedly beautiful? I feel more attractive than her, but I don’t fit those proportions.
Not to mention, WGWAG mentioned that half white and half asian children are the most beautiful. I grew up thinking I was one of the few… maybe like 1% in the entire world back in the late 80s and early 90s. As I got older, my thoughts were dropped and nowadays they’re a bit more common. The reason why white men are typically attracted to asian women is because they’re exotic looking- different. Also, Asians think that whites are more attractive and purposely try to make their skin look whiter. I know this as a fact when directly speaking to Taiwanese people a few years ago and also while watching their commercials. Truthfully, few cultures are told to look beautiful just the way they are- there’s always a need for change… too fat, too ugly… too dark… too white, etc. Some cultures wanna look more asian, some more western. Some people think curly hair is beautiful- some think straight. Again, all a matter of opinion. But if you ask me, I think the reason why anyone might think that a different culture is more beautiful is because it is unique… something they’re not used to seeing.
I’d also like to point out that I’m half white and half asian and have taken glamour shots in Taiwan within the last 2 years. A friend of mine’s parents felt I should get into modeling because they were so beautiful. Others have also said I’m beautiful and they and doctors both felt I looks fairly well proportioned, yet I don’t fit these mathematical proportions as mentioned in this article. Why not claiming that they’re “perfectly proportioned” rather than ‘beautiful’ because again- beauty is only a matter of opinion- not a fact.
If you’re interested in discussing this further with me, find me on myspace under Alura (Northern Illinois University is also shown)- my link is apparently inactive, but you can still contact me there.
Posted by Jacky on August 20, 2009, 08:46 PM | #
Actually, now that I come to think about it, the standard for beauty in the U.S. is turning into a mix of all the major races within the country: Caucasian chin and jaw, Caucasian nose but not too big, Negroid lips, Mongoloid cheekbones and eyebrows in addition to slight upward angle (this describes current beauty standards for women, not sure about the men, though). So perhaps beauty does have more to do with cultural norms. What was considered beautiful in the U.S. just 50 years ago is a world of difference from what is considered the pinnacle of beauty today. The blonde, blue-eyed all-Americans are being replaced by a more mixed look with features hailing from many ethnic groups. So the standard of beauty definitely changes over time within each country according to social norms, whether static or fluid, in addition to other evolutionary factors, I’m sure.
Oh, btw, I forgot to mention Beyonce and Tyra Banks...two more ladies who have a blend from all different races. Maybe this means that we are truly (albeit slowly) becoming a melting pot
Absolutely true. I have nothing to add to this. I’m mixed race (black, white, native american). What I find attractive in women is an oval face,big eyes, a small cute nose (that doesn’t mean a pointy ‘white’ nose, but more of a baby-like nose) and full lips. Check out Andrea’s Choice on youtube. She is half Swedish and half Afric. American. Gorgeous girl.
Posted by DavidR on September 01, 2009, 09:42 PM | #
I don’t wish to sound rude, but none of the three women near the top of this page are REMOTELY ‘beautiful’, not even attractive!
Marquardt’s ‘beauty mask’ is obviously WRONG.
I have never seen it applied to women who MOST men find beautiful…
Try this woman for a start:
http://images.sportsbybrooks.com/girls/7/7/7737d594a64a45978afe540bba42a309_MP2216.jpg
And Fred Scrooby is right on the ball - Hollywood is telling us ‘evil’ whites that we are ‘evil’ if we merely want to a) have white children and b) separate from other races.
Oh the humanity! How ‘evil’ we whites must be, to simply want to live in all white countries. You know, the way white countries have been since the dawn of mankind…
Seriously - this Marquardt Beauty Mask is a joke. I remember seeing it over twenty years ago, in a newspaper magazine, and knew then it was rubbish, because the supposedly ‘beautiful’ face that it fit wasn’t particularly beautiful!
Look at Gail Porter (ten years ago), or any number of models who appear in ‘Lad’s mags’, if you want to see what actually IS beautiful.
I also have to laugh when I see idiotic ‘experts’ saying that ‘the ideal of beauty has changed throughout the ages, look at Ruben’s paintings’, what bullshit. That is simply what RUBEN found attractive, or maybe he could only find larger women who were willing to pose for him, or lived in his area, etc.etc.
And simply put, in certain parts of the world, due to a lack of genetic diversity, most people were hideously UGLY hundreds of years ago. There simply didn’t exist even ONE attractive woman in the entire U.K. prior to the early 1900s. Seriously, I am not kidding, just look at hundreds of photographs from that era - women were hideously unattractive.
If you want to see the most attractive women on Earth, look at http://www.sportsbybrooks.com - there are four or five large breasted women on there who are also facially incredibly beautiful, and are literally the most beautiful women on EARTH right now.
But the Jews in Hollywood and the media won’t allow them to become famous, because their other Jewish friends in the porn industry want to force all big breasted women into pornography, and they won’t go down that path if they can make a hundred times as much by starring in Hollywood movies…
To reiterate what Fred Scrooby said - who runs 99% of your entire media? Who runs the entire publishing industry, who decides what books get printed, and what magazines get printer? Who decides what you read in ALL the newspapers, and see on ALL the TV programmes? Who runs your government, and tells Congress what to do? Who starts wars with its neighbours and then gets YOUR children to fight and die in those bloody wars?
THE JEW.
Posted by DavidR on September 01, 2009, 09:57 PM | #
Furthermore, ugly people are MUTANTS.
The more mutated a person is, from the human normal, the more ugly they are.
So somebody with their eyes an inch higher up their face than they should be, would be more ugly than other people.
Human beings are the ugliest animals on Earth. Just look at other animals, in nature. (Not domesticated animals, whose breeding has been made unnatural by humans.) Look at wild deer, cats, the wolf, the snow leopard, the deer, etc. All animals within one species look beautiful and perfect.
But human beings look, 99% of the time, ugly - meaning mutated.
How does this occur?
It occurs because human beings are the only animals on Earth who can IMAGINE things while having sex. 99% of human beings are having sex with ugly, mutated human beings, and thus producing more ugly human beings. Those sick fuckers, for want of a better term, fantasise about whoever it is that they DO find attractive, while having sex with their wives. For example, a paedophile will fantasise about raping a child, while physically having sex with his (no doubt butt ugly) wife. Human beings sexual perversions are endless, and due to childhood traumatic events.
This woman is about as incredibly attractive as a woman can get:
http://images.sportsbybrooks.com/girls/b/a/ba752502114262b24527fab2c3478ef6_MP2993.jpg
And what man wouldn’t almost faint if he suddenly saw this incredibly beautiful woman:
http://images.sportsbybrooks.com/girls/9/2/92a139429b84ca1c72bcda875f1bd749_MP2786a.jpg
But they will never be allowed in these studies, they will never be allowed to be film starts, precisely because they are so beautiful, and SEXUALLY attractive to boot.
And with regard to Africans and their endemic ugliness - just LOOK at them.
The most beautiful women in the world are NOT 100% African. Any ‘African’ women which are regarded as even remotely attractive are ALWAYS part white.
And this comment above is ABSOLUTELY true, and everybody knows it:
“Subsaharan Africans are very ugly but the ugliest race is that of Aboriginal Australians and Papuans. They have apelike facial features and even their body movements are apelike. So the hierarchy is angel-like Nordics on top and apelike-Aboriginal Australians/Papuans/ Melanesians at the bottom. “
I mean - who on Earth has ever looked at an Aboriginal Australian, or a Papuan, and found them anything other than ugly?
Posted by lol on September 01, 2009, 11:38 PM | #
I mean - who on Earth has ever looked at an Aboriginal Australian, or a Papuan, and found them anything other than ugly?
Blond Australian girls.
Posted by Lurker on September 02, 2009, 01:44 AM | #
I mean - who on Earth has ever looked at an Aboriginal Australian, or a Papuan, and found them anything other than ugly?
Blond Australian girls.
Lol - for your theory to hold true you would have to supply some kind of evidence that blond Australian girls actually preffered these men to any other. Of course you can’t do that…
Posted by Med on September 06, 2009, 12:13 PM | #
“ The Nordic people are more beautifull than the Mediteranians” ?????
TAKE A LOOK AT MONICA BELLUCCI. SHE IS FAR BETTER THAN ANYONE OF THE NORDIC RACE WILL EVER BE!!!! And there are thousands other examples like this for every race.
And yes. All you people with inferiority complexes and can bost about your looks. Besides, you don’t have anything else valiable on you.
Unforturatelly these are times that “looks” are more important and the entire world is full of low intelligence “beautifull” wannabes and of shallow men.
I also enjoy beauty. But I want at least to have around me people that maintain some brain standards. And not induldge to such racistic texts.
There are other things that matter.
I am sorry to see some people that support this kind of discrimination. It is just a big shame....
Posted by Desmond Jones on September 06, 2009, 06:43 PM | #
I am sorry to see some people that support this kind of discrimination.
It’s called freedom.
Posted by Euro on September 06, 2009, 07:01 PM | #
“It’s called freedom. ”
Yes,but freedom can sometimes be coterminous with;stupid,wrong,or vile.
Posted by Euro on September 06, 2009, 07:24 PM | #
From J. J. Winckelmann, The History of Ancient Art.
The well-known fact of the earlier maturity and puberty of youth in warm countries shows how much more powerful in them is the influence of nature over the complete development of our race; and the brilliancy of the brighter color of the eyes, which are more frequently brown or black than is the case in cold climates, may offer -to those who are unable to pursue the inquiry themselves- additional probability in favor of the superiority of conformation to be found in warm climates. This differences shows itself even in the hair of the head and of the beard, and both, in warm climates, have a more beautiful growth even from childhood, so that the greater number of children in Italy are born with fine curling hair, which loses none of its beauty with increasing years. All the beards, also, are curly, ample, and finely shaped; whereas, those of the pilgrims who come to Rome from the other side of the Alps are, generally, like the hair of their heads, stiff, bristly, straight, and pointed; so that it would be difficult, in the countries of these privileged idlers, to grow a beard like those which we see on the heads of the ancient Greek philosophers. In accordance with this observation, the ancient artists figured the Gauls and Celts with straight hair, as we may see on several monuments, but especially on two seated figures of captive warriors of these races which are in the villa of the Cardinal Alexander Albani. In connection with these remarks upon the hair, I will observe that fair hair is not of so frequent occurrence in warm as in cold climates; but still it is common, and beautiful persons with hair of this languishing color are seen in the former as well as in the latter, - with this difference, however, that the color of it never becomes entirely whitish, the usual effect of which is to give to a person an air of coldness and insipidity.
Precisely the same reflection may be made in reference to the modern Greeks. For -not to mention that their blood during several centuries has been mingled with that of the descendants of so many nations who have settled among them- it is easy to conceive that their present political condition, bringing up, instruction, and mode of thought may have an influence even on their conformation. Notwithstanding all these unfavorable conditions, the Greek race of the present day is still celebrated for its beauty; on this point all observant travellers agree; and the nearer we draw to the climate of Greece, the more beautiful, lofty, and vigorous is the conformation of man.
For this reason, we seldom find in the fairest portions of Italy the features of the face unfinished, vague, and inexpressive, as it is frequently the case on the other side of the Alps; but they have partly an air of nobleness, partly of acuteness and intelligence; and the form of the face is generally large and full, and the parts of it in harmony with each other. The superiority of conformation is so manifest, that the head of the humblest man among the people might be introduced in the most dignified historical painting, especially one in which aged men are to be represented. And among the women of this class, even in places of the least importance, it would not be difficult to find a Juno. The lower portion of Italy, which enjoys a softer climate than any other part of it, brings forth men of superb and vigorously defined forms, which appear to have been made, as it were, for the purposes of sculpture. The large stature of the inhabitants of this section must be apparent to everyone; and the fine development and robustness of their frames may be most easily seen in the half-naked sailors, fishermen, and others whose occupation is by the sea; and precisely from that circumstance might seem to have originated the fable of the mighty Titans contending with the Gods in the Phlegraean Fields, -which were near Pozzuoli, in the vicinity of Naples. It is asserted that, in Sicily, the handsomest women of the island are found, even at the present day, in ancient Eryx, where the celebreated temple of Venus was situated
Consequently, that noble beauty which consists not merely in a soft skin, a brilliant complexion, wanton or languishing eyes, but in the shape and form, is found more frequently in countries which enjoy a uniform mildness of climate. If, therefore, the Italians alone know how to paint and figure beauty, as an English author says, the beautiful conformation of the people themselves is a measure, the ground of their capability, which the daily view and study of beauty can produce more readily here than elsewhere. Beauty. however, was not a general quality, even among the Greeks, and Cotta in Cicero says that, among the great numbers of young persons at Athens, there were only a few possessing true beauty.
The most beautiful race among the Greeks, especially in regard to complexion, must have been been beneath the skies of Ionia, in Asia Minor, according to the testimony of Hippocrates and Lucian; and another writer, in order to express manly beauty with one word, terms it Ionic. This province is also productive, even at the present day, in beautiful conformations, as appears from the statement of an observant traveller of the sixteenth century, who finds himself unable to extol sufficiently the beauty of the women there, their soft and milk-white skin, and fresh and healthful color. For in this land, on account of its situation, and in the islands of the Archipelago, the sky is much clearer, and the temperature -which is intermediate between warm and cold- more constant and uniform, than it is even in Greece, especially in those parts of it lying on the sea, which are very much exposed to the sultry wind from Africa, like all the southern coast of Italy, and other lands, which lie opposite to the the hot tract in Africa…
Posted by just for this one comment on December 19, 2009, 02:16 AM | #
Is it possilbe edit a pic on here? If somebody knows how, they should put a little something to cover the Igbo woman’s chest.
Posted by Dylan on December 24, 2009, 04:50 AM | #
I couldn’t agree more with this.
Absolutely valid.
Posted by c on December 28, 2009, 01:14 AM | #
May we please leave politics out of it. Name calling and acting like children doesn’t resolve anything. There is no such thing as beauty as it is a matter of personal preference and opinion. Everyone has an aspect of themselves that is considered “beautiful”. It is probably due to genetics possibly due to environment but who really cares. People are people. We are all of the same species so racism is just hating yourself and what you are. Everyone is probably related somewhere way back on their family tree. I could write an entire article on this and it would be completely opinion just like this comment is and the comments preceding it and the article it is based off of and the articles and books from which everyone has gathered their informations.
Posted by dumbass on January 02, 2010, 07:20 PM | #
your application of the golden mean is inapplicable. as a designer, i know how it applies and to what degree. this is just flat out a dumb ass test. its douche bags like this that one that thinks he knows his shit. get a fookin life. what do u know about what looks good?
Posted by Eon on February 01, 2010, 05:28 AM | #
An enraged Swede speaks. I am speechless at the amount of non-sense on this page. As a Swede I am insulted that people would even dare to propose that my Nordic race is better than another. And it is not because I am not proud of my background but because it is rather non-sense.
First, race is a social construct, there is no statistically significant genetic difference between one race an another. This is a scientific fact, that the author of this non-sense should have cared to reasearch before spitting garbage up their…
Two, there is no scientific evidence that race mixing causes any health issues, given that biologically we are all the same. So another unsupported remark the author makes.
Also anyone familiar with the theory of evolution would have shut the mouth of this blatantly ignorant author right away. Homo sapiens originated from Africa (ooooh our accestors where dark-skinned at some point, if it hurts you deal with it). Migration patters allowed for physical differenciation given that such new traits would have enable survival. The reason us Nordics look the way we look is because given the place we live it enabled us to survive. Our skin does not need as much melanin as someone who would be living in hotter areas, our eyes do not need to be as light resistant as someone living in dryer areas (note that blue eyes are the most sensitive eyes to light among all other shades). The way we look enable us to also blend with our evironment (long white winters) providing us protection from predators. Are blacks much more apt to live in very hot areas and withstand longer periods of dryness and limited food supply? You bet they are because their traits enables them to live in the environment in which they are (dry, hot land not too apt for agriculture).
With that said even for those who proclaim themselves Christian would be suprised to know that their beloved savior Jesus would have been copper skinned man and not the caucasian man he is despicted in most work of art.
So again, what are we whites judging beauty by? Our own standards, wow, that seems very objective! The Golden ratio mask was intended to measure symmetry of the face not race. That the author have taken such and try to use it as justification for their own racist agenda only show how ignorant this person is.
I am just surprised at the amount of people who seem to be supporting this absurd idea, mainly because it is scientifically false let alone biased. Here in Europe, men for the most part do like dark-skinned women and date them and marry them all the time. As for me, I prefer a racially mixed woman, mainly Brazilians and yes I am a blond haired, blue eyed Swede.
I am sure the author and Hitler would have been best beer buddies but again that is why Hitler was a mentally illed man diagnosed with Borderline Personality Disorder.
So let’s take out the meds and the straight-jacket.
Posted by Guessedworker on February 01, 2010, 09:16 AM | #
Eon,
You are a vicim of the psychological, philosophical and political milieu in which we all live. You do not know Truth. You have never heard it. You will hear it here.
As a Swede I am insulted that people would even dare to propose that my Nordic race is better than another.
This writer of this article challenged an earlier “outraged liberal” as follows:
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.
The article critiques the claims made for Marquardt’s mask, on the statistical basis that no ideal facial proportions apply across races. His has no position with regard “better”, incidentally, but, again statistically, demonstrates elsewhere that the Nordic female has a “finer” bone structure with elements that are, in the technical sense, less “primitive”.
So your judgement of “better/worse” is crude and a strawman.
First, race is a social construct, there is no statistically significant genetic difference between one race an another.
The utterly discredited Lewontin Fallacy and all like Jewish-Marxist deceptions are put forward solely to encourage you to hate your own people, and to prevent you from defending them. Jewish academic race denial, such as flowed from the Sociobiology Study Group, is ethnic warfare ... hate speech.
Of course, there is vast scientific evidence for the fact of race and ethnicity. Often, though, in these dangerous times, it goes under other names. Academics and researchers in human genetics have to guard their funding and their reputations. Anti-racism is, like any religious puritanism, extremely dangerous and unprincipled.
Anyhow, google “gene mape Europe” and ask yourself why, if there is no such thing as race, Rwanda doesn’t appear right next door to Sweden - or, indeed, why there is any corelation at all between geography and genes (it’s very close)
The Social Construct is a piece of very ordinary psychology inflated beyond its importance so that the anti-racist lie can be justified to you. It is based on the fact that the thinking mind functions by constructing models of reality out of associative data. The thinking mind is one of three system Homo sapiens has evolved for sensing “the thing that is”. The other two are emotion, which operates by value ascription, and the motor centre, which operates through the senses. These three systems appeared at different times in our evolutonary history, speak in different languages and function via different areas of the brain.
The lie that the Social Constructors tell is that, because your thinking mind constructs a model, you do not ever quite contact with reality. This is not true, since the other two much older and faster systems do an excellent and very direct job in that respect. But even thought, as an evolved system, represents reality well enough for it - thought - to exist. That’s the point. It would not have evolved otherwise. What it tells us about race is not suddenly untrue because of the nature of its operation, and that goes for the conclusion labelled “prejudice” by the anti-racist left. What it tells us is perfectly true, but not the absolute reality. It in is the difference between these things that the Social Constructors spin their web of deceit.
The question is, why would you believe that your mind cannot tell you truth about races? And the answer to that is that you are a weak and suggestible fool, of which there are many. Snap out of it.
Two, there is no scientific evidence that race mixing causes any health issues, given that biologically we are all the same.
Wrong. We are not biologically all the same. We are evolved to live in our respective EEAs, and the process includes brain evolution. Sweden: average IQ 100. Rwanda: average IQ 68.
http://majorityrights.com/index.php/weblog/comments/alon_ziv_on_race_mixing/
Also anyone familiar with the theory of evolution would have shut the mouth of this blatantly ignorant author right away.
I note the violence and anger in your words. That is typical of the Marxist puritan. It is a dishonourable attitude. Do not express here, where free thought is encouraged.
Are blacks much more apt to live in very hot areas and withstand longer periods of dryness and limited food supply? You bet they are because their traits enables them to live in the environment in which they are (dry, hot land not too apt for agriculture).
The evidence contradicts you. Africans don’t have the intelligence to turn Africa into a food factory. That’s what the European farmer did wherever he was living - and still does, where he is allowed.
With that said even for those who proclaim themselves Christian would be suprised to know that their beloved savior Jesus would have been copper skinned man and not the caucasian man he is despicted in most work of art.
So a Christian as well as an evolutionist and a Marxist. No wonder you are so confused.
Here in Europe, men for the most part do like dark-skinned women and date them and marry them all the time.
Actually no - is that what you did? European men show no desire at all for African womanhood. Further, in all dark-skinned peoples, the lighter skin tones are sought after in a mate, and are associated with beauty and intelligence.
As for me, I prefer a racially mixed woman, mainly Brazilians and yes I am a blond haired, blue eyed Swede.
I am not surprised. Your mind is screwed over by postmodernity. You are not a serious man. Your kind is all too common, though, that’s for sure.
Posted by Fred Scrooby on February 01, 2010, 02:04 PM | #
”you are a weak and suggestible fool, of which there are many. Snap out of it.” (—Guessedworker, addressing “Eon” from Sweden)
Eon, here are a few items to help you “snap out of it” as GW suggests you do. I chose these at random: there’s tons and tons and tons of this sort of stuff out there, all excellent, all scientifically incontrovertible.
Here’s a listing of papers by Professor Rushton, an Englishman working in Canada. Browse them at your leisure, especially any co-authored by “Rushton & Jensen”:
http://psychology.uwo.ca/faculty/rushton_pubs.htm .
This next is a good web-site on race which you might learn a great deal from:
http://racehist.blogspot.com/ .
Here are the latest couple of entries from Peter Frost’s site (an academic working in Canada) which just happen to touch on the subject of race-denial:
http://evoandproud.blogspot.com/2010/01/cavalli-sforza-price-of-collaboration.html ;
http://evoandproud.blogspot.com/2010/01/richard-dawkins-price-of-collaboration.html .
In one of the above Peter Frost recommends the following paper by Neven Sesardic on the subject of race-denial, published a month ago:
You have to purchase the article but here’s the abstract:
Biol Philos
DOI 10.1007/s10539-009-9193-7
Race: a Social Destruction of a Biological Concept
Neven Sesardic
Lingnan University, Tuen Mun, Hong Kong
Received: 11 August 2009 / Accepted: 22 December 2009
_ Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2010
Abstract: It is nowadays a dominant opinion in a number of disciplines (anthropology, genetics, psychology, philosophy of science) that the taxonomy of human races does not make much biological sense. My aim is to challenge the arguments that are usually thought to invalidate the biological concept of race. I will try to show that the way ‘‘race’’ was defined by biologists several decades ago (by Dobzhansky and others) is in no way discredited by conceptual criticisms that are now fashionable and widely regarded as cogent. These criticisms often arbitrarily burden the biological category of race with some implausible connotations, which then opens the path for a quick eliminative move. However, when properly understood, the biological notion of race proves remarkably resistant to these deconstructive attempts. Moreover, by analyzing statements of some leading contemporary scholars who support social constructivism about race, I hope to demonstrate that their eliminativist views are actually in conflict with what the best contemporary science tells us about human genetic variation.
“Those who subscribe to the opinion that there are no human races are
obviously ignorant of modern biology.” —Ernst Mayr, 2002
Once you’ve made a little progress you can tackle this next one, an entire free on-line book and the pièce de résistance — but don’t try to start with it or it’ll burn out your brain cells (you’ve got to toughen up your brain first with the other stuff):
Posted by Fred Scrooby on February 01, 2010, 02:24 PM | #
Actually, Eon, the best place for you to start “snapping out of it” is probably right here at this blog: on this blog’s home page, under the masthead at the upper left (just underneath the little Botticelli painting) you’ll see “Existential Issues,” and underneath that, “Race FAQ.” Click where it says “Race FAQ.” Read the material that comes up. Study it. It’s excellent and scientifically incontrovertible. Don’t be afraid. Just do it. You see, right now you’re an asshole. But it’s not hopeless because this material has the potential to change that. It has the potential to make a new man of you.
It’s not often in life that an asshole gets a second chance. Grab hold of it!
Posted by Dasein on February 01, 2010, 03:17 PM | #
The Sesardic paper is available here:
Posted by Gudmund on February 01, 2010, 03:55 PM | #
Eon’s comment is so ridiculous that I wonder if it isn’t an over-the-top troll job.
Posted by Gudmund on February 01, 2010, 05:20 PM | #
Posted by John on February 01, 2010, 05:38 PM | #
there is no statistically significant genetic difference between one race an another.
Du borde berätta det för dem forensiksa vetenskapsmännen, som antagligen är svårt vilseledad. Nästan alla de där (självklart rasistiska) narrarna egentligen tror att de kan bestämma vilken ras ett offer tillhör, bara från genetiskt undersökning av benfragment.
Håller du på att det trots finns phenotypisksa, beteende- oder intellektuella skillnader mellan människoraserna? Mellan Grand Danois och Pekingese även?
Posted by John on February 01, 2010, 05:59 PM | #
Sorry, “oder” above should be “eller”. I tend to mix up my German and Swedish prepositions/conjunctions.
Posted by Fred Scrooby on February 01, 2010, 06:49 PM | #
Thanks, John — maybe what you said will get through to him. Nothing else seems to.
Posted by John on February 01, 2010, 07:50 PM | #
Thanks, John — maybe what you said will get through to him. Nothing else seems to.
I just told him he should tell forensic scientists to give up their pathetic, rasist and obviously doomed-to-failure attempts to determine the race of murder victims absent skin or hair samples.
Posted by Mika on February 01, 2010, 09:38 PM | #
omg… all he is saying is that typical european faces are more proportional, and yes, it has been proven that most, not all people, but MOST people find more proportional and symmetric shapes, including faces and bodies, more beautiful, no matter the colour. it just happens to be so that the whites in general have more proportional faces.
so… a european face is in most cases more mathematically “correct”. this is science, and the writer is trying to find some kind of formula for what makes up beauty, what images does the brain appreciate?
this author is obviously not arguing that people are more attracted to white people, finding something beautiful and being attracted to someone are two completely different things. you might not be attracted to everything that you like to rest your eyes upon.
get over it and get a nose job if you cant live with your face after having read this… but seriously, just because youre face doesnt fit in with some golden ratio lines doesnt mean its not attractive, and no one has claimed that that is the case. so if you still feel bad after re-reading and re-thinking you must have serious issues with your self esteem, but thats not the guys fault. everyones beautiful in their own way.
Posted by Johann. on February 03, 2010, 01:16 PM | #
People can be ugly no matter what race they come from. As can they be beautiful no matter what race they come from. (When I say “beautiful” here I mean that they fit this “mask”.)
This was quite interesting but very biased. You post one example of a beautiful white woman but none of a white woman that does not fit the facial proportions. Very unbalanced. A good article if it was not clouded by your own personal opinion.
Posted by premier on March 22, 2010, 07:42 PM | #
I’ll have to disagree with the comment about Nordic people having finer features
I know a bunch of Swedish people, German and Dutch… and I could tell you by far that Indians, Ethiopians, some middle easterns have smaller finer noses and smaller faces that are closer to the Mark discussed above! I’ve met a lot of Germans and Swedes with receding jaws, bigger noses and big faces! Just like the Egyptian model above of Nefertiti, I think the semethic race is probably the closest to that dude’s mask.
Posted by Tony on March 23, 2010, 08:57 AM | #
WOW! humans are THE most fucked up beings in existence. Reading all these racist comments makes me so sick and the people responsible are sick just for even thinking it. You think it matters what color your skin is when your dead? All that matters is the person you’ve become and the things you’ve done to create a better future for the next generation so we may ultimately sustain life as we know (no matter how broken it may be.) You’re all missing the big picture here. Is beauty this important for us to be acting in such a manner? Or is racism the real underlying concern here. Humans will never change. God help us all. Well, I guess there is room in Hell for all of us. I appreciate everyone who has tried talking some sense into these bigots, unfortunately it is of no use. Ignorance is bliss and stupid is fucking stupid. How’s that for freedom of speech.
Posted by Lurker on March 23, 2010, 11:14 AM | #
WOW! humans are THE most fucked up beings in existence.
WOW! You have direct experience of aliens then. You would have to done or else the value judgement in your statement would be ridiculous. Care to tell us more?
the things you’ve done to create a better future for the next generation so we may ultimately sustain life as we know (no matter how broken it may be.)
Oooh goody, you are going to address racial IQ and the ability to build certain types of society. Can’t wait!
Posted by bernie on March 29, 2010, 08:27 AM | #
hell!!! there is more to beauty than a supposedly mathematic mask...beauty is like art, like music, it is not measurable...is a computer capable of composing deep moving music or poetry?...i like women of all races and the mask stuff is stupid since there are handsome manly faces and pretty womanly faces…
Posted by Sara on March 31, 2010, 07:44 PM | #
I’m a white woman, and I consider all races beautiful. I also consider those of mixed race to be beautiful.
That said, my ideal man would be tall, caucasian, lean, and brunette almost to the point of having black hair (but not quite). That doesn’t mean I can’t appreciate other races.
Posted by Peace&love; on April 08, 2010, 12:19 AM | #
Loving the examples of the black/asian faces in figure 7, seems he went out of his way to find the ugliest ones possible. pseudo-science at its best.
Posted by Lurker on April 08, 2010, 04:19 AM | #
the black/asian faces in figure 7, seems he went out of his way to find the ugliest ones possible.
Not to worry plenty of commentators have posted pics of asian girls who look almost white and mixed race (black/white) girls to represent blacks. Of course that only undermines their own argument, but there you go…
Posted by Arianna on April 09, 2010, 01:16 AM | #
I believe that what the author is trying to say is that the “Golden Proportions” as touched on by the Greeks is now better defined with symmetry in the facial features of humans being more considered more attractive. I doubt that this was meant to be racist- the author’s point was that caucasians generally have closer facial features to those as outlined by the “mask,” simply because of the way their genes are encoded. That is not to say that africans or asians are any less attractive. Merely that the physical proportions in the width of the nose in most pure africans to the rest of the face does not fit the mask. The same could be said with most pure asians. Yet, there are many beautiful people that come from those races. And indeed not all caucasians are attractive- the deciding factor, for general human perception of attractiveness, is merely facial proportion. And in my opinion, when it comes to mixed races, it seems rare to find a person of mixed race that is NOT attractive. When cultures mix, the combined features create a beauty so unique and lovely that even attractive people of pure race don’t quite compare, because they lack a certain diversity. Back to the original point. It is not, however, fair to judge people based on a “mask.” Beauty is something that is subjective and one individual’s perceptions will differ from another’s. On that note, it is generally true that people find their own races initially attractive. Not truly based on any racist tendencies- just perhaps an instinctive quality. Another contributing factor would be the environment and family an individual grows up in. One who lives in a very diverse community and is raised by an open-minded family would probably have no particular preferences in mates. On the other hand, someone raised in a majority race community with an indifferent family would not necessarily be committed to choosing mates from a particular race, but might simply feel naturally attracted to others of their race. Then on an extreme level, people of a one-race community with a selective family would most likely (unless they had more open minds themselves) not only prefer mates of their race, but discriminate against any notion of attraction for those of another. Lastly, when one views someone else as physically attractive, on a subconcious level they are perceiving them as a healthy mate that would provide the best, most well equipped offspring. I believe all this to be true and have tried my best to look at this from a psychological and scientific aspect. On a final note, I believe that physical attractiveness is not the most important thing in a mate whatsoever. Initially it was what causes attraction but there is so much more that makes up a person and their beauty.
Posted by professinal arrtist on April 14, 2010, 10:04 AM | #
This is some way overrated stuff for people who cannot understand the world without dominant logical-mathematical intelligence. People who are obsessed with these kinds of things are not in a very natural state (holistic balance of all the intelligences).
Posted by James on April 30, 2010, 04:35 PM | #
Don’t you think you are bordering on obsessiveness? This preoccupation with race and features and breeding seems a lot like the Nazis.
Just move on. We’re made by two human beings that bring together a long history of humanity. We’re born, we live, and we die. Blogging about racial differences (under the guise of a beauty and proportion discussion) does not seem healthy.
Posted by Fred Scrooby on April 30, 2010, 05:09 PM | #
“Just move on.” (—James)
Just drop dead, James.
Posted by TA on May 13, 2010, 03:48 PM | #
“Just drop dead, James. “ - Fred Scrooby
You’re being quite aggressive over this whole thing even when James hasn’t said anything to offend you personally. I thought this website was all about “freedom of speech”?
Also, I doubt those who are fighting so strongly to defend this article are the epitome of beauty themselves.
Posted by Fred Scrooby on May 13, 2010, 04:42 PM | #
You can drop dead too, TA.
Posted by Abel on May 22, 2010, 04:17 PM | #
I am truly disgusted by this whole ethnic and racial classifications of people and association with beauty , to put people in certain categories or attach certain tags to people is totally wrong.
What happened to the beauty in different people we should learn to love one another everybody has a taste and as they say “ beauty lies in the eyes of the beholder” . my facial structure is in proportion to that of the golden ratio I am not white or Aryan I am a man who is from east Africa. I denounce that I have any white in me, and to say that me and my people “look less typically Negroid “ is an insult.. I have supposedly Aryan features in terms of face structure nose shape hair texture however i am black therefore these features are not specific to any racial groups. who is to say that these feature belong to them. almost all east African people have those features. Africa is the root of all humans in particular (east Africa)we have the features to produce every race.
“ beauty lies in the eyes of the beholder”!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Posted by Julia Stringer on June 05, 2010, 11:21 PM | #
Hi there.
I came across this article when researching for my art project.
I do think that there is some kind of average of optimal biological proportions, just as there is everywhere in nature. I think that some proportions indicate physical health and fertility, and that we are subconsciously drawn to them.
However, my personal opinion and belief is that there is no overrepresentation of “beautiful” people within any “ethnicity”. First of all, a person’s ethnicity is extremely hard to define, as it will only be “pure” if the person in question comes from a completely “isolated” society/population, or alternatively has extremely little mix of ethnicity. A completely “pure” ethnicity is actually impossible, since we all came from Africa in the beginning and after that spread over the world.
Most people are mixes of different ethnicities. Even though some people might seem to be 100% Caucasian(or whatever) they might be far from it. Many are what we call “biracial”, but in fact most people are complete mixes of “races”, even though it might go very far back in time. We are all the result of an almost endless crossing of different DNA’s.
I simply believe that different ethnicities have different overrepresentations of different features that are considered more optimal, or beautiful. Some “races” might have a more pleasingly proportined forehead, while others a more pleasingly proportioned nose. The human face and body are way to complex to “map”, so every attempt of this is going to be extremely generalizing.
One thing that i have noticed though, which I find extremely interesting, is that most people that are considered very attractive have a mixed ethnicity. Halle Berry, for example, is a mix between “black” and “white”, and probably many more “races” if you go further back. Angelina Jolie is considered the world’s most beautiful woman by many, especially for her luscious lips - and are they typically Caucasian? I didn’t think so.
I believe that if we would mix all so called races and ethnicities we would get the highest percentage of “beautiful” people. Imagine how extremely beautiful people we could get if we mixed and matched all of these different beautiful features found in all different ethnicities
Last but not least you have to remember that the beholder plays an equally large part in this. To give a ridicously simple example: If one has an extremely thin nose, one would have to mate with someone with a broad nose to get the “optimal” nose.
Remember, the most genetically benefitial is to maximize the mixing of DNA, both to avoid recessive genetic illnessess but also to create greater variety which benefits the natural selection.
Also, not only biology is influential when it comes to choosing your partner. Previous experiences and memories will be connected with everything you see, many times on a purely subconscious level. Some things are going to make you feel safe just because you have certain experiences with that feature or characteristic. For example, every girl is said to be looking for someone who resembles her dad, purely because it subconsciously makes her feel safe and protected. This is one of the theories of Sigmund Freud - and now, we’ve entered the subject of psychology.. see - it’s not all on the outside.
Peace
Julia Stringer
Posted by Guest Lurker on June 06, 2010, 03:35 AM | #
One thing that i have noticed though, which I find extremely interesting, is that most people that are considered very attractive have a mixed ethnicity.
Do you have empirical evidence to back up your assertion that “most” people that are considered attractive (by whom?) are mixed?
Halle Berry, for example, is a mix between “black” and “white”, and probably many more “races” if you go further back. Angelina Jolie is considered the world’s most beautiful woman by many, especially for her luscious lips - and are they typically Caucasian? I didn’t think so.
I don’t find Halle Berry beautiful, nor do any of my other white male friends. She’s passably ok, for a mulatto, and I think that’s most white people’s take on her. She’s a token passably attractive “black” actress. As for Ms. Jolie, again, until you wrote the above, I’ve never heard anybody claim she is the world’s most beautiful woman. She has a skanky sort of exotic look that appeals to some.
Are you sure you haven’t fallen for media conditioning that promotes the opinions reflected in your post?
Posted by Dasein on June 06, 2010, 01:10 PM | #
Remember, the most genetically benefitial is to maximize the mixing of DNA, both to avoid recessive genetic illnessess but also to create greater variety which benefits the natural selection.
If you could mate with an ape, your children would be even more genetically diverse. You must think that would be a good idea too.
Sigmund Freud was a jew.
Posted by Fred Scrooby on June 06, 2010, 01:35 PM | #
Excellent rejoinders by Guest Lurker above. (Dasein too.)
Posted by Fred Scrooby on June 06, 2010, 01:40 PM | #
Just be clear, for Julia Stringer: “most people that are considered very attractive” are unmixed Euro-race individuals. By far and away. By a margin so huge you’re getting into multiple orders of magnitude. It’s ridiculous, the margins are so huge. It’s a joke.
Posted by Fred Scrooby on June 06, 2010, 06:45 PM | #
“Just be clear, for Julia Stringer:”
Just to be clear, for Julia Stringer:
Posted by someknowledgeforyou on June 22, 2010, 12:10 PM | #
All races have attractive individuals. Some people have certain preference for certain physical features. Beauty is in th eye of the beholder.
BTW, Hispanic/Latino is not a race and individuals can fit every racial category. It is a “cultural” classification. I know Latinos that have virtually no Indigenous or Black traits, purely White; some hints of African and/or Indigenous; a somewhat equal mix of White/African/Indigenous; little White and/or mostly Black/Indigenous; and finally virtually Black and/or Indigenous. I am sure I missed a mix or two (I even forgot Asian) but Latino’s Hispanics can be of any race. Depending on the country certain mixes are more common than others. For example in Mexico and most central American nations most individuals are of a White/Indigenous mixture, that does not mean there are not purely White, Indigenous Asian, or Black people of that national origin. In the Dominican Republic there are many of a Indigenous/Black/White mixture. This is due to proximity to Haiti which is mostly Black. Brazil is a large nation with a highly mixed society. In nations like Argentina and Puerto Rico (current USA territory formally Spanish) most people are either purely White or have a limited mixture with Indigenous people or Africans. In Puerto Rico’s case this is due to the fact the indigenous population was wiped out by disease and genocide early on. Limited racial mixing with African slaves who later came to the island and European immigration mostly from southern Europe. Latino/Hispanic is NOT a race.
Posted by Biasisnone on June 24, 2010, 09:00 AM | #
Well, it is true that in any culture (non-white). I mean ANY culture those that are often hired as actors in their country of origin on TV and regarded as “beautiful” often possess some white facial characteristics.
It seems like an unfair truth, but that’s the truth. I’m Asian and in my country people who are often regarded as attractive are the ones with lighter skin tone and with European features.
However, if they look TOO white then we just label them as white and not attractive. There is a borderline.
I believe it is similar in white culture. In the US, the place I moved to, it seems like white people find exotic features in other white people as attractive. Which is the reason tans are popular, full lips etc. But just like in my countries case, if they begin to completely diverge from the aesthetic category of being non-white then white people would not see them as attractive, but rather label them as Non-white.
It also depends on the condition of the person who is doing the scrutinizing of beauty (beauty in the eye of the beholder crap). People who are not used to seeing or admiring those outside their raise will not be attracted to other races. However, in modern society people are much more conditioned to be open in terms of attraction to other races, but it still often is widely influenced by their immediate social circle.
If an individuals social circle is what he or she will be attracted to.
Posted by Guessedworker on June 24, 2010, 09:57 AM | #
Biasisnone,
As is widely known, the real standard of beauty for each group is the median for that group. That is, it is based on the averageness of features. The biasing towards Western standards is simply the hyping of fashion. You mention the attractiveness of tans among Europeans. But in the 19th century a tan was associated with low-class people who laboured outdoors, and the standard of beauty was pearly white. In the 20th century tans became associated in the public mind with travel and the leisure of the upper classes.
All in all, we would, as a species, be better off if we expressed our natures rather than took our cues from commercial and social sources.
Posted by E on June 24, 2010, 05:29 PM | #
I’m writing this while listening to Mariah Carey: We belong together
I took an art class a number of years back and I am convinced that though beauty is in the eye of the beholder. Each persons eye find certain proportional figurines most focusable. Kind of like how certain causes a calming effect and florcents liven up a room.
NO NEED FOR US TO ARGUE over race, nationality etc. I believe that’s why God made different type people (shape, form and color) for us to better enjoy! Can you imagine a world where everything was alike? God can’t after all:
There is day. There is night.
There is black. There is white.
There is male. There is female.
I thank God for creating all the beautiful females around the world. Have a blessed day.
Isn’t God good!
Posted by >_< on August 06, 2010, 06:49 PM | #
I don’t like this article because it has caused so much anger and frustration… >_>
Posted by Aditi on August 20, 2010, 09:37 AM | #
Amazing Piece of work !!!!!!!
I simply feel that how complicated it is to read every angle of a human face.
Posted by Marie on August 24, 2010, 07:08 AM | #
This sort of article is what leads genetic females and males to seek out cosmetic facial feminisation surgeries-- the same ones that make foolish men who espouse to these beliefs go to transsexuals only to be surprised that the “feminine” woman he chose was actually formally a male. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Facial_feminization_surgery
All of these evolutionary flaws of genetics that cause women to become oh-so-atrociously “primitive” when compared to the “ideal” European woman can be corrected with a few thousand dollars and ARE by transsexuals seeking men who desire these lovely, sexy, European female traits… the ones the chasers claimed “tricked” them when they find that they have actually paired up with an intersex/transsexual partner. Dudes, you fall for the fantasy, don’t cry when you get it. Plenty of men and women are going out to buy what you so desire according to a geometric design. That lovely Natalie Portman looking babe you just picked up just might be a guy with a good surgeon. If you are the type to judge a woman’s beauty by the bony structure of her face, you are also likely NOT the guy to handle that situation well.
You’re gonna play this game? Be ready to put your money where your mouth is… Enjoy!
Posted by Lily Tekseng on August 28, 2010, 08:50 PM | #
JR,
Your Post delved into the science of beauty, which was interestingly and convincingly put. You mentioned that intermixing leads to degeneration of genes. However, it is amusing as to how you seemingly refer to the degeneration in just the nordic people in case of intermixing. I have grown up in a country which has peoples from the Aryan and Dravidian racial stock, as also Mongoloid(to which I belong), and as seen, intermixing has usually produced beautiful and bright kids. I think part of the flaw in your conceptualisation of beauty lies in the Euro-centric view of looking at everything, which automatically makes the Caucasians the ideal physical species of human.
Also, in the end, what does your essay imply? Assuming that Caucasians are the best of the species, they get better by procreating endogamously. Other races, as would be ideal in order to reach the pinnacle of physical beauty and genetic health, procreate endogamously too. Would the other races then reach the stage of genetic health that the Caucasians are presently at? AT what rate should the other races procreate in order to cover the genetic lapse? Where would you place the interaction of culture that is essential, in your scheme of things? What value would you give to the attraction that an individual feels for another non-ideal, non-caucasaic conforming individual?
Next entry: An Ethnic-Hawaiian government could only be good for the mainland majority
Previous entry: Defining Leftism
Existential Issues
Of note
Recent Comments
Guessedworker commented in entry 'The Ontology of Mind: The Gödelian Argument' on 09/02/10, 09:59 PM. (go) (view)
Desmond Jones commented in entry 'The Ontology of Mind: The Gödelian Argument' on 09/02/10, 09:06 PM. (go) (view)
Raymond Bradly commented in entry 'Jews: jewish hand-wringing at recent high' on 09/02/10, 09:02 PM. (go) (view)
James Bowery commented in entry 'The Ontology of Mind: The Gödelian Argument' on 09/02/10, 08:45 PM. (go) (view)
Guessedworker commented in entry 'The Ontology of Mind: The Gödelian Argument' on 09/02/10, 08:14 PM. (go) (view)
PF commented in entry 'Machete Ex Machina' on 09/02/10, 06:32 PM. (go) (view)
PF commented in entry 'The Ontology of Mind: The Gödelian Argument' on 09/02/10, 06:28 PM. (go) (view)
John commented in entry 'Machete Ex Machina' on 09/02/10, 03:30 PM. (go) (view)
Notus Wind commented in entry 'The Ontology of Mind: The Gödelian Argument' on 09/02/10, 02:42 PM. (go) (view)
Notus Wind commented in entry 'The Ontology of Mind: The Gödelian Argument' on 09/02/10, 02:31 PM. (go) (view)
Notus Wind commented in entry 'If at first you don't succeed' on 09/02/10, 02:22 PM. (go) (view)
Buzz Killer commented in entry 'Machete Ex Machina' on 09/02/10, 02:13 PM. (go) (view)
Leon Haller commented in entry 'The Ontology of Mind: The Gödelian Argument' on 09/02/10, 02:04 PM. (go) (view)
GoyAmongYou commented in entry 'I nose who you are' on 09/02/10, 02:01 PM. (go) (view)
Thorn commented in entry 'The Ontology of Mind: The Gödelian Argument' on 09/02/10, 01:56 PM. (go) (view)
Leon Haller commented in entry 'If at first you don't succeed' on 09/02/10, 01:52 PM. (go) (view)
Al Birah commented in entry 'Are Jews White?' on 09/02/10, 01:42 PM. (go) (view)
Leon Haller commented in entry 'If at first you don't succeed' on 09/02/10, 01:39 PM. (go) (view)
danielj commented in entry 'The Ontology of Mind: The Gödelian Argument' on 09/02/10, 12:48 PM. (go) (view)
danielj commented in entry 'The Ontology of Mind: The Gödelian Argument' on 09/02/10, 12:45 PM. (go) (view)
qwery commented in entry 'The Ontology of Mind: The Gödelian Argument' on 09/02/10, 12:43 PM. (go) (view)
Mark Dawson commented in entry 'Machete Ex Machina' on 09/02/10, 10:49 AM. (go) (view)
Leon Haller commented in entry 'None dare call it White genocide' on 09/02/10, 10:35 AM. (go) (view)
Leon Haller commented in entry 'None dare call it White genocide' on 09/02/10, 10:27 AM. (go) (view)
Leon Haller commented in entry 'None dare call it White genocide' on 09/02/10, 09:58 AM. (go) (view)
Leon Haller commented in entry 'Machete Ex Machina' on 09/02/10, 09:09 AM. (go) (view)
Guessedworker commented in entry 'The Ontology of Mind: The Gödelian Argument' on 09/02/10, 08:19 AM. (go) (view)
Grimoire commented in entry 'The Ontology of Mind: The Gödelian Argument' on 09/02/10, 08:02 AM. (go) (view)
Grimoire commented in entry 'The Ontology of Mind: The Gödelian Argument' on 09/02/10, 06:19 AM. (go) (view)
Randy Garver commented in entry 'If at first you don't succeed' on 09/02/10, 04:28 AM. (go) (view)
Notus Wind commented in entry 'The Ontology of Mind: The Gödelian Argument' on 09/02/10, 03:56 AM. (go) (view)
Thorn commented in entry 'The Ontology of Mind: The Gödelian Argument' on 09/02/10, 03:28 AM. (go) (view)
Thorn commented in entry 'The Ontology of Mind: The Gödelian Argument' on 09/02/10, 03:18 AM. (go) (view)
uh commented in entry 'The Ontology of Mind: The Gödelian Argument' on 09/02/10, 02:52 AM. (go) (view)
one commented in entry 'If at first you don't succeed' on 09/02/10, 02:38 AM. (go) (view)
Recent Posts
- Machete Ex Machina
- The Ontology of Mind: The Gödelian Argument
- White American Identity Politics
- The Diary of an Anti-Racist (Part 3)
- Radio Olduvai: Entropy Wins Another Round
- Declining marginal returns on investments in complexity: the thermodynamics of Olduvai
- None dare call it White genocide
- Sarrazin does it again
- Midweek Logic Brain Teaser
- Do-gooder Bill Gates tries to solve the education dilemma.
- From a WN dictionary yet to be written
- It Ain’t Half Racist Mum
- The BNP Reform Group
- Why I don’t like tradition or traditionalists
- Antisemitic LBK Undead Blitz Megalithic France
- Abstract
- Theatre of the Absurd: The Empty Palace in the Desert
- If at first you don’t succeed
- Morality Critique part 1
- “With all our souls”
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
- Age of Treason
- American Renaissance
- The Anti-White Media
- Balder
- Brussels Journal
- Civic platform
- CofCC
- Chronicles
- Crosstar
- Culture Wars
- Dissecting Leftism
- Face Right
- Fair and Delightsome
- Fallen Freedom
- Fred on everything
- Freedom Site
- From The Wilderness
- Frontierist News
- Gates of Vienna
- God help Britain
- Hogtown Front
- Hoosier Nation
- 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
- Salisbury Review
- Sam Francis Column
- Sarah, Maid of Albion
- Sean Bryson
- Scotchfiend
- Signals From The Brink
- Snouck Hurgronje
- Songlight for Dawn
- Spoils of War
- Stop ACLU
- Tomorrow in Vinland
- Turnabout
- UK Commentators
- Vanishing American
- Viking Observer
- Western Survival
- The West's Darkest Hour
- 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
- 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