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.
Trackbacks (0) | Comments (121) | Tell-a-Friend
The trackback URL for this entry is: http://majorityrights.com/index.php/trackback/927/mKo4LCAi/
Trackbacks:
Comments:
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 Fred Scrooby on Thursday, December 13, 2007 at 11:48 PM | #
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 Get real on Sunday, January 6, 2008 at 01:32 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 Mark on Tuesday, April 29, 2008 at 03:38 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 Isaiah on Thursday, June 26, 2008 at 10:40 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 vairocana on Friday, July 4, 2008 at 02:42 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 Mai on Wednesday, July 9, 2008 at 06:08 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 Shifter on Wednesday, August 13, 2008 at 09:48 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 stephanie on Monday, August 18, 2008 at 08:25 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 Guessedworker on Monday, August 18, 2008 at 11:27 AM | #
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 elizabeth Perkins on Monday, September 1, 2008 at 11:47 PM | #
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 silver on Tuesday, September 2, 2008 at 06:39 AM | #
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 ltti on Monday, September 8, 2008 at 10:48 PM | #
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.
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 Monday, October 13, 2008 at 02:52 AM | #
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 Jefferey Lin on Friday, October 24, 2008 at 05:23 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 Abby on Tuesday, November 4, 2008 at 02:39 PM | #
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 mary stewart on Sunday, November 16, 2008 at 07:53 AM | #
“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 Sunday, November 16, 2008 at 04:34 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 Fred Scrooby on Sunday, November 16, 2008 at 04:55 PM | #
Next entry: An Ethnic-Hawaiian government could only be good for the mainland majority
Previous entry: Defining Leftism
Posted by Tommy G on Thursday, December 13, 2007 at 10:21 PM | #