|
|
|
Physiognomy and Liking: My Experience by Happy Cracker Why is it that the glimpse of a related physiognomy opens so innocently the floodgates of affection? Why is so much of our ‘liking’ dependent on the face of the person we interact with? I had a chance to ponder this last month, as I filled a temporary position working for a catering company, and interacting with several thousand party guests - each of whom I had to greet, make small talk with, answer their questions and hand them off to be seated. I myself was determined - regardless of the type of person I was interacting with - to be a non-stop fountain of charm. I did my best to smile as wide, and think as warmly of the other person as possible. This is a technique I’ve learned to convey the most positive image to the other person: think about them as warmly as possible. And although I am committed to the 14 words and the existence of my people, I don’t think giving lukewarm receptions to wogs is going to advance the white cause. So I did everything possible to beam charm at everything that came before my eyes. I looked into thousands of faces, always the same eye contact, and performed the same motions thousands of times. What I discovered is that physiognomy reigns over us - pre-determining the trajectory of our interactions far more than we would like. There are secret stores of human affection whose access is restricted based on physiognomy - and these secret stores don’t represent gifts which one is conscious of, and thus eager to distribute fairly, but primordial feelings of liking, which spring up innocently from within us and are beyond conscious control. They are thus hard to quantify - it is even hard for people to recognize the subtle influence these feelings have on their dealings with others, in the case of people with limited introspection. No doubt, the liberalist doctrine of equality would like to legislate equal outcomes for people regardless of this fact. And I do not doubt that those who are invested in these thought schemes would be able to put on a show of ‘liking’ blacks, attempting to prove that my stomach-feelings are locked up not because of their nature but because of the workings of my head: and yet I know the reverse to be true. My stomach-feelings can’t properly be impacted by my head, merely crudely suppressed: they spring from a well deeper and more immediate than that of the neocortex, and thus do not belong to the reasoned opinions which I can ponder over and evaluate. They are far more immediate than the web of thinking that liberalism is sprung from. Theoreticians of the mating game have said: “attraction isn’t a choice.” And as true as that is, I find the same to be true for liking. The sort of liking that I am talking about also isn’t a choice. No doubt everyone is aware of the cruel starkness of attraction - how women who “just do not cut it” really are better off staying away, as they can’t get anything worthwhile from us. That, too, feels more like a law of nature than a decision. That’s how I experience it. What’s funny is to experiment with the sort of non-visceral ‘liking’ which one reasons oneself into feeling as a deracinated individualist, evaluating people on the basis of that great aracial touchstone, “character” and/or “shared interests”. I participate in this thought experiment by completing placing all my ‘racialist’ thinking to one side - and judging people by character alone, not reasoning at all from categories or past judgments (insofar as this is possible for someone of racialist persuasion). Imagine how many slags are right now disavowing the existence of racial feeling by alleging that an appreciation for character can be the basis for human community. This is the hypothesis which I thus would test. The result was similar. I would form temporary “friendships” with people of various origins who found me amazing or amusing, and we would joke, make each other laugh, and act like we were friends. Yet the inner stores of affection never being opened, nothing of the nature of a bond could said to have been formed: and we had indeed many “reasons” to like one another, to admire characteristics of one another - but here again, the liberalist “neocortex-isizing” of life took away the deeper resonance and dimension. The hollowness of these ‘ties’ was their most characteristic aspect. After the workday was over I would have nothing to do with any of them. Appreciation for character is an abstract reasoning process, based on viewing someone’s past actions and mindset; its no doubt important for friendship, but it isn’t bond-forming. In fact, someone relying on this would most likely find themselves at the same impass as I did during my thought experiment above: with all the reasons in the world to like someone, and with no genuine feeling for them whatsoever.
Liking, empathy and understanding for kith and kin? How about Swedish high jumper Gunhild Larking after her elimination at the 1956 Olympic Games in Melbourne? (She finished 6th, btw.) And how refreshing, and how strange, the converse experience is: when one sees a person demonstrably kith and kin - about whom it reasonably can be guessed that our forebears spent the last few millenia together, rather than apart - and voila, the warmth proceeds unforced. It is almost embarrassing the extent to which one person can like another one simply as a result of the first impression - one feels oneself made vulnerable by such an outpouring of good feeling towards a stranger. Just as I experienced again and again the inability of my inner ‘spark-plug’ to ignite any warm feeling for wogs, I never cease to experience how people obviously related to me approach me and in a moment, we’ve reached an understanding - as if there was some kind of inside joke that we all knew about. That to me, is what it means to have ‘racial feeling’. And its the closing of this distance that makes ‘the delicious pleasures of racism’. Because what your hobbies are, or what manners you were raised with, or your view of life - are all important things. But we either spent the last one and a half millenia together on the heath in England, or we didn’t - and if we didn’t, the fact that we both like kite-flying is wonderful, but like most facets of “identity”, is subject to change. What similarity can you name that is so salient, and so unchanging, and can form the basis for so much shared experience that it can be used to build a friendship on? I admit that my racialism may have corrupted my heart. But the wogs seem to be ill at ease around me too - there is some element of distrust, guardedness, and perfunctoriness which I never seem to be able to shed with blacks and even the southern europeans. I know that they feel the dissonant clang of our conflicting histories - a man with sharp nordic features makes them feel not quite right, like they are on stage, they never let their guard down. I also experience the affection that I mentioned feeling for kin - being returned to me amply. So racial feeling appears to have some real-world basis beyond that of my own crime-think. I know of the supporting scientific evidence but wanted to keep it anecdotal here. At any rate, I have not been successful at forcing open the secret stores of affection through any mental trick - and as it would have allowed me to do my job better, I in fact tried quite hard. Comments:3
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Tue, 21 Apr 2009 18:21 | # Jobling’s running an unnecessarily tight ship:
( http://whiteamerica.us/forum/showpost.php?p=2448&postcount=2 ) (The post he’s replying to is the first one in this thread, by “Philip Sterling”: http://whiteamerica.us/forum/showthread.php?t=1805 ) “Negro” is perfectly polite, Ian. Wake up. You’re going to start replacing “husband” and “wife” now with “partner” because the same crowd insists on it? Uhhhh ..... count me out please ........... 5
Posted by Dasein on Tue, 21 Apr 2009 19:08 | # That fine photo notwithstanding, my primary feeling for co-ethnics is not necessarily one of affection. My experience is perhaps more in line with Putnam’s research; namely, I feel comfortable around co-ethnics. When I see a Negro it makes me uneasy. Fred, I think Jobling wants to stick to colours because it keeps Jews included. Later in the thread someone suggested using Europid and Negrid or Negroid. Europid is a term Jobling will fight to discredit, even if it makes him look as foolish as his post on GST. 6
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Tue, 21 Apr 2009 19:34 | #
Wikipedia says 4th — http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Athletics_at_the_1956_Summer_Olympics_-_Women’s_high_jump The gold medalist was, I believe, a Negro (Mildred McDaniel), making Miss Larking the white world’s high-jump bronze medalist for that olympics. 7
Posted by GR on Tue, 21 Apr 2009 20:09 | # Well, fine, as I said, you can use “Negroid” in circumstances where “black” won’t do. And nobody thinks that guy’s a kike? how many WNs have been labeled “crypto-Jews” for sooo much less? Sheesh. Priorities. 8
Posted by Wandrin on Tue, 21 Apr 2009 22:03 | # I think what you describe is true for maybe 95%+ of any human group but I’ve also met some people whose “natural” liking seemed to work in reverse. There may be environmental reasons for this or maybe some evolutionary type reason. Apart from the above oddity, I also think there’s a related thing with white liberals where they have the same reaction as normal people but they feel guilty about it so they try and compensate. The more they have a natural kin-feeling for a group the more they attack that group as if they’re attacking that part of themselves they feel guilty about and the more different and hostile a group is to them the more they force themselves to to be favourable to that group. So I think they have the same internal reaction as you describe but force their external reaction to be the opposite out of a sense of guilt. You can see it working with white liberals in how they treat different ethnic groups - they are more positive to the ethnic groups that are furthest from White and less positive towards those that are closest to White. This works culturally as well as racially - if you took black twins into a social situation where one acts civilized and one acts like a black power activist, then the normal White people would prefer the civilized one while the white liberals would prefer the other. Only white liberals (and youngsters brainwashed by TV and school) take this to extremes but most White people are infected with this disease to a degree and because natural kin-feeling is natural, it happens many times a day and makes people feel guilty many times a day (in proportion to how infected they are). The holocult - White ethno-centricity as the ultimate sin - fueled by the global power of Hollywood, with the ability to make White people feel guilty for a natural reaction, and for that guilt to make them act against their own ethnic self-interest even in the remotest corners of Scotland, Ireland, Sweden where jews have never stepped foot. 9
Posted by Thunder on Tue, 21 Apr 2009 23:05 | # Excellent article thank you. And thank you especially for helping me to understanding myself better. Whoever you are keep writing. 10
Posted by Rand on Wed, 22 Apr 2009 00:21 | # Dasein said:
For me it’s much more than simply feeling comfortable around co-ethnics and uncomfortable around non-whites. I feel a strong kinship around my fellow white Americans that problably stems from “ethnic nepotism.” By the way, a good book on this subject is Frank Salter’s On Genetic Interests. 11
Posted by Guessedworker on Wed, 22 Apr 2009 01:00 | # Rand: a good book on this subject is Frank Salter’s On Genetic Interests. Check the first two items under “Important Issues” just below The Birth of Venus. 12
Posted by Armor on Wed, 22 Apr 2009 01:55 | #
I think it is much better to keep distant from third-world immigrants.
The reasoning is that Blacks are not responsible for being ugly. So, we should ignore their looks and like them for their soul. But human character/personality is actually determined by human genes just as mercilessly as human looks. So, we should feel just as guilty liking people for their personality as for their looks. (In fact, we should not feel guilty at all !). In my case, I think my stomach-feelings depend a lot on the workings of my head. If there was no massive race-replacement underway, I would be much more likely to be friendly with non-whites.
Dislike and repulsion aren’t a choice either. I have always thought that the “love thy enemy” precept was sick and absurd.
Sexual attraction, and our preference for people who are similar to ourselves are two examples that show we have little control over our instincts/tastes. But mentioning both in the same essay may be a source of confusion, as sexual attraction can also occur between whites and non-whites. For example, a black man may like the looks of Gunhild Larking even if he doesn’t read in her face that she is a kindred spirit.
Obeying to one’s instinctive preference is not the same as “judging”. It is natural to be friends with people whom we like and who like us. It would be arrogant to say that only moral elites are entitled to be friends with us. In fact, if I do not enjoy the company of Blacks, it probably means that Blacks do not enjoy my company either. Anyway, in order to please our Jewish and leftist nannies, the best solution is to stay clear of worldly love. We should tolerate only disembodied, ethereal, Jewish-approved, abstract, citizenist, race-blind love. If the white race becomes extinct in the process, it will all be for the better. The problem is that physical love leaves too much room for our racist, lookist instincts. Another problem is that “the devil often effects a change in those that love ; they begin with virtuous love, with which, if not attended to with the utmost discretion, fond love will begin to mingle itself, then sensual love, and afterwards carnal love ; yea, there is even danger in spiritual love, if we are not extremely upon our guard ; though in this it is more difficult to be imposed upon, because its purity and whiteness make the spots and stains which Satan seeks to mingle with it more apparent, and therefore when he takes this in hand he does it more subtilely, and endeavors to introduce impurities by almost insensible degrees. 13
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Wed, 22 Apr 2009 04:29 | # If you’re white, and Negro physiognomy isn’t your cup of tea (it certainly isn’t mine), you nevertheless have to have sex with Negroes: U.S. universities are now forbidding white female students to refuse to furnish all the sex Negroes males could possibly want, on pain of being condemned as “racists.” (Bear in mind on reading the entry at the link that the expression “to date someone” is in today’s world a euphemism for “to have a sexual relationship with” the person. In today’s world, “She’s dating him” or “They’re dating” mean they’re sleeping together.) Lawrence Auster correctly predicts that what’s coming next is a university requirement that all students have homosexual sex. No, don’t dare laugh: there is absolutely no question whatsoever but that that WILL happen. http://www.amnation.com/vfr/archives/013034.html Question: Which organized group will attack most ferociously of all organized groups if a move is made on the part of the sane to overturn this insanity; if a move is made on the part of the crime-victims to force a halt to this crime? (Hint: it’s an ethnoracial group.) (You’ll never get this. But if you think you have it, just type it here, in the space provided: (fill in the blank) _______ .) 14
Posted by Thunder on Wed, 22 Apr 2009 05:10 | # I can do this. I know this answer. Let’s see, is it JEWS ? 15
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Wed, 22 Apr 2009 06:07 | # Bear in mind that, as is now crystal-clear with hindsight, this is what World War II was fought for: it was fought in order to guarantee that we’d be living like this in the year 2009. Any of you have forebears who died in that war or came back maimed? Now you know what that relative died for or came back horribly maimed for: to guarantee we’d be living like this in the year 2009, with the United States government forcing his, that WW-II soldier’s, white great-granddaughters to devote themselves above all else to personally supplying the sexual needs of Negroes. How many Americans was it, 250,000 who died? 350,000? I forget. That’s what 350,000 American men died for in that war: to make the world safe for governments forcing white girls to provide for the sexual desires of Negroes. I’ll add a prediction: 1) what’s coming is government officially declaring it to be a racist act and therefore a punishable “hate” crime for a white woman to bear a white baby. 2) This will apply only to Euro women. Jewish women will be exempt. 16
Posted by Wandrin on Wed, 22 Apr 2009 07:31 | # Black kids using accusations of racism as a tactic for getting sex was pretty common at my school.
I definitely think white female characters in Hollywood films who are presented in a positive light will increasingly have half-black kids or black boyfriends while the more negative female charcters will have white. This will be added to blonde hair and English / German surnames as coded clues for being evil. The subliminal Hollywood war will always precede any legislative war.
That’s the problem for jews though. Their success in destroying White nations from within is built on being able to pass for white and being percieved as white so they’ll always end up cutting their own throats. It’s like Israel, for decades jews built up the holocult with white ethno-nationalsim as the root of all evil and brainwashed millions of white left-liberals to believe in it. Then, because those left-liberals see Israelis as white they attack Israeli ethno-nationalism causing a great wailing and gnashing of teeth among the jews. According to the video the program mentioned was closed down. Normally any resistance to a PC “anti-racist” initiative is attacked by the MSM. This may not have happened in this case because jewish girls were being affected also. 17
Posted by the Narrator... on Wed, 22 Apr 2009 09:39 | # One place where the whole world can see some of what Happy Cracker is describing is, of all places, in movies. Even the most liberal of Hollywood actors look like they find doing scenes with blacks distracting. It’s in the eye contact. Eye contact between two White actors doing a scene (when they are actually making direct eye contact) will usually have an in depth -probing- back and forth attribute to it. And on the occasions that they do make a semi-sustained direct eye contact with blacks, it looks overtly forced and uncomfortable. The reason is (and perhaps this is the case in real life interactions between blacks and Whites), is that about 99% of blacks are not introspective. 18
Posted by Josef Vicelwitz on Wed, 22 Apr 2009 15:06 | # I’m not so sure about this though, as an Alpine I like Mediterranean chicks ALOT so wouldn’t that off-set your findings Actually this is a very good article and good blog too! I have noticed the whole ‘mean White liberal’ thing myself. Uh being a liberal pent up with (un-necessary) guilt must be horrible! Oh and about Jobling, one should just call him jew-bling!! 19
Posted by Censorship on Majority Rights? on Wed, 22 Apr 2009 20:37 | # What happened to that post here about Jewish physiognomy? Did someone delete it? 20
Posted by Guessedworker on Thu, 23 Apr 2009 08:13 | # Majority Rights, Yes, sorry. You overstepped the mark. I live in Europe, and whilst I try to be as respectful of free speech as I can, there are, nonetheless, limits. In your case, it was not the substance of the comment but its style. If you bear that in mind for the future I’d be very grateful. 21
Posted by Censorship on Majority Rights? on Thu, 23 Apr 2009 22:58 | # Well, that’s a real shame - I didn’t think Majority Rights was in to censorship like the Jew-controlled mass media and other websites (AmRen, etc) which censor all discussion and comentary related to Jews. And since when does free speech have “limits” as you say? That’s absurd - if you put “limits” on speech, it is no longer free speech. 22
Posted by weston on Thu, 23 Apr 2009 23:33 | #
Since when is absolute free speech helpful or desirable? 23
Posted by Guessedworker on Thu, 23 Apr 2009 23:37 | # Majority Rights, It’s not my choice. Right now there are two guys banged up in California because the British government is trying to extend its legal jurisdiction to American-hosted websites. Anyway, it’s no loss to have to post more thoughtfully. These “style problems” add nothing, and usually take something away. 24
Posted by Svigor on Sat, 25 Apr 2009 02:09 | #
Daddy issues. Daddy touched/spanked/neglected/whatever her and she runs to his opposite. Seen it several times, to the point that I assume it when I see a viable white female with a black/arab/mestizo/mystery meat. Both sexes can have issues with either parent, obviously, but this one is really big in my experience. 25
Posted by Josef Vicelwitz on Sat, 25 Apr 2009 02:32 | #
Yes this is a big part of why miscegenation occurs. One recent example observed was a race-traitor coal burner-ess who one has heard only fornicates with black males. A few weeks later she missed work because her Father was in a Mental Hospital Unit for a suicide attempt and apparently the Father is a real mental basket case (who has tried suicide several times - attempt to get attention). Clearly this Female has these types of ‘daddy issues’ and one has heard the one child she bore is a mestizo (could be a mulatto though, only seen one picture of ‘it’ and it is wasting its life trying to become a…. Rap Music Producer!!!! Western Culture not being carried on in this case! 26
Posted by John on Sat, 25 Apr 2009 10:27 | #
Rules of decorum here are not “limits on free speech”. In not one of GW’s post/threads have I read anything that advocates limiting what “majority rights” (that handle choice, it would appear, is deliberately provacative) or anyone else can write on his own blog. 27
Posted by Armor on Sat, 25 Apr 2009 10:48 | #
I like to see faces of people like this girl from Pakistan (Kalash tribe). 28
Posted by Josef Vicelwitz on Sun, 26 Apr 2009 08:54 | #
Remember that Pakistan is a relatively recent State that was ‘cut off’ from India due to Muslim Aggression. The Aryan Caste System ruled over this Land Mass Zone for centuries and more then likely you are attracted to vestigial remnants of Ancient Aryan Beauty maintained by strict Laws of Manu Caste System. The British Soldier assertion is a lot less likely in my opinion. 29
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Wed, 29 Apr 2009 05:55 | # Two examples of a kind of physiognomy that I definitely don’t like: The winner and the runner up of the Miss York (England) Beauty Pageant. Here they are: http://www.thepress.co.uk/news/4305054.Miss_York_in_racism_row/ (Hat tip: http://www.nonkonformist.net/?p=2350 ) 30
Posted by physiognomy in action on Wed, 29 Apr 2009 08:43 | # some facial or physiognomical features are warm and reassuring and familiar and attractive…others might only mildly repel you…meanwhile some may seem definitely ugly to you…however, and this is important to understand in a physiognomical sense, others suggest an undeniably repulsive evil that so often leaves us disturbed, rattled, shaken, and even scared in our very core; (examples of various famous Ashkenazics removed by editor.) 31
Posted by Guessedworker on Wed, 29 Apr 2009 10:40 | # You never give up, do you? How about we agree that you have made your point, and can leave it there. ‘Cos I’m going to remove overt hate-posts wherever I find them. 32
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Wed, 29 Apr 2009 12:31 | # The two women in question also are not correctly viewed as true Yorkshirewomen or true Englishwomen, because Yorkshire and England are not made up of people of their race. They’re resident alien women. Were the British Isles not currently undergoing forced massive race-replacement there might be grounds for doing the mental contorsion needed to mentally declare them “Yorkshirewomen” as a sort of agreed-upon convention for decency’s sake in the knowledge their genetic type would, over generations, melt into the surrounding genetics without changing anything or leaving a trace as they found Yorkshire men to marry and their brothers Yorkshire women. However, given the forced race-replacement now in progress, that’s impossible: they are to be considered what they are, racial aliens who don’t belong here, and anyone who terms them Yorkshirewomen or Englishwomen is an accessory to a crime. Furthermore, there’s clearly no valid reason on Earth why they came out ahead of the Yorkshirewomen who were in the contest (I don’t say “the white Yorkshirewomen who were in the contest” because that would be redundant, like saying “the white polar bear” or “the black blackbird”: Yorkshirewomen come in only one color, white), something one can say without having seen the other participants: Negroid-type racial beauty always necessarily loses to Euro-type racial beauty, something only a person with skewed taste in beauty or a person who lies could dispute. This Negroid pair came out ahead of the Yorkshirewomen in that pageant purely for political purposes. These are NOT the beauty queens of the City of York. None was chosen. 33
Posted by Guessedworker on Wed, 29 Apr 2009 13:34 | # Here you go, Fred. Past winners of the Miss York crown:-
http://www.sdamy.com/miss-england-2006/68/Miss-York/Catrina-Lakin.html And back in 2009, here’s an auburn haired entry that the black girl beat:-
34
Posted by kalash people on Wed, 29 Apr 2009 13:36 | # Posted by Armor on April 25, 2009, 09:48 AM | # I like to see faces of people like this girl from Pakistan (Kalash tribe).
35
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Wed, 29 Apr 2009 14:26 | # That’s more like it, GW. Thanks for bringing us back to reality! Every one of them’s a beauty, by the way, while neither of the mulatto girls is. 36
Posted by Lurker on Wed, 29 Apr 2009 17:53 | # Its not even as if those two girls are pretty by any standard. Never mind mixed race, I know black girls who are prettier than either them. Proves the competition is a set up I suppose. 38
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Wed, 29 Apr 2009 18:48 | # Lurker, both those girls are downright unpleasant to look at. They’re not neutral, but rather on the ugly side, to put it plainly. As for black girls sometimes being nice-looking, be careful you’re not talking about very dark-skinned Subcon girls who can indeed be quite attractive and can be mistaken for mulattoes because of their dark skin, in some cases very dark. Attractive Negroid looks are rare in the extreme and that’s even mildly to moderately attractive, not something that deserves to win a beauty contest against white girls or deserves even to be allowed to enter a white beauty contest as a participant. White girls’ looks are in a completely different class from Negroid looks, needless to say. 40
Posted by weston on Wed, 29 Apr 2009 20:09 | # So you have trouble liking non-Nordics yet you find these negros “pretty”? That makes sense. I’m with Fred. And frankly, that whole “racism row” sounds made up to me. My fake hate-crime radar is beeping. 41
Posted by Dasein on Wed, 29 Apr 2009 20:47 | # One of the most pernicious myths that the Jew-powered race-replacement propoganda matrix has tried to create is that mixed race children are attractive, perhaps even more attractive than monoracial White children. It’s an engineered stereotype, like all Whites opposed to race-replacement being racist knuckle draggers. I’ve heard this one about beautiful mongrels so many times from friends, but they don’t have good examples to back it up, especially when they have to go with real life examples and ignore any extreme outliers from Holywood. And how could they be more attractive? If you cross a more primitive type with a Euro, how could it look better? A priori you would have to say that alchemists have a better chance of succeeding than this being true. The girl on the right looks somewhat malformed. Take away the dimple from the one of the left and I don’t even think a jury made up of leftards and genocidal Jews could have forced this choice on the people. 42
Posted by Happy Cracker on Wed, 29 Apr 2009 21:14 | # weston, I was referring to the beautiful yorkshire women Guessedworker posted about. I didnt know there is some discussion about wogs going on, my mind phases that sort of thing out sometimes without me even being aware of it. 43
Posted by weston on Wed, 29 Apr 2009 21:23 | # Thanks for clarifying. Yes, the women Guessedworker posted are very pretty.
Perhaps what they really mean is that mongrels are more attractive than unmixed non-whites. That’s a widely held view, though most people won’t come right out and say it. 44
Posted by Dasein on Wed, 29 Apr 2009 21:47 | #
With that condition applied the myth could be internalized with a minimum of cognitize dissonance. When I’ve heard people say ‘mixed race children are beautiful’ I’ve always had the impression that they mean it’s an improvement on any mono-racial state (whether they’ve thought it through or actually believe it is a different matter). Maybe I’ve moved in exceptionally leftist circles, but it’s something I’ve heard often enough to make me think that it’s a stereotype that is being pushed agressively. 45
Posted by Captainchaos on Wed, 29 Apr 2009 22:21 | # The very idea that mixed-race individuals are as or more attractive than Whites plays upon the hedonistic tendencies of individualism, the implication being that if the individual finds mixed-race individuals aesthetically pleasing then he will relinquish any resistance to miscegenation because he is given to believe his individual satisfaction is all. His individual satisfaction is not more important than the loss of kinship he, his off-spring and his co-ethnics will experience as a result of his self-seeking miscegenation. Luckily, due to the fitness gain of preference for genetic similarity, miscegenation is relatively rare. 46
Posted by Dasein on Wed, 29 Apr 2009 22:42 | # Psychological modules make miscegenation repellent under normal conditions. The race-replacers thus try to play modules off against each other in order to achieve the desired end (Negrified European Man). One tactic is to appeal to sense of duty and sacrifice. Miscegenation as the key to social harmony. With enough brainwashing some will fall for such a ruse. 47
Posted by Gudmund on Wed, 29 Apr 2009 23:56 | # The women GW posted illustrate why Nordic women define femininity and beauty. There is not a mixed race individual in existence that could match that standard. 48
Posted by AD on Thu, 30 Apr 2009 05:05 | # The very idea that mixed-race individuals are as or more attractive than Whites plays upon the hedonistic tendencies of individualism, the implication being that if the individual finds mixed-race individuals aesthetically pleasing then he will relinquish any resistance to miscegenation because he is given to believe his individual satisfaction is all. However much it plays on those tendencies, I don’t think it’s the reason those lines of thought are propagated. I think it’s much simpler than that. Mixing is achievable; ‘de-mixing’ isn’t. Liberals allow themselves to believe that miscegenation is beneficial because it’s an ‘improvement’ that’s available to everybody. In other words, liberals, as they have done with so much else, have determined the path of least resistance and proclaimed it the best of all possible paths. Gudmund, I’m not convinced that’s a particularly fruitful view to push. It’s certainly capable of inspiring unmarried or unattached young men, but “arguments from beauty” seem to foster maximal resistance to racialism, much more so than arguments from IQ. The argument from physiognomy, on the other hand, while related, has much broader appeal. Essentially, it’s the reason why, all else being equal, monoracialism is vastly superior—you enjoy the positive feeling that comes from peering into one of your own kind in the vast majority of your daily interactions, interactions you don’t need to go out of your way to experience. This is true regardless of how ‘technically’ beautiful one’s race is considered. Multiracialism and the attendant and unavoidable miscegenation that occurs spoils this effect for everyone. 49
Posted by beautifull faces on Thu, 30 Apr 2009 10:41 | # The question are mixed race people more beautifull is meaningless. An unattractive white mixed with an unattractive non white is not going to produce an attractive individual because they happen to be mixed race just as an unattractive white mixed with an unattractive white is not going to produce an attractive individual because they happen to be white. One is not beautifull because they are mixed race or white one is beautifull because they are beautifull. 50
Posted by weston on Fri, 01 May 2009 02:44 | # ‘Barack’s Beauties’ make People list
Michelle Obama? Chick looks like RuPaul, only more masculine. Has there ever been a more furious attempt by the media to propagandize the public into believing a person is beautiful? Michelle is a lock to go down in history as the least jerked-off to “beautiful” celebrity ever.*
*By heterosexual men 51
Posted by Male baldness and racial origin? on Fri, 01 May 2009 03:53 | # While we are talking physiognomy…I’ve wondered for a while if male pattern baldness has any racial correlations? From general observation it seems to be more common among Caucasoid peoples (Whites and Arabs, etc) and least common among Negroid peoples. Mongoloids seem to be in between the other groups. Any ideas? Observations? Studies? Statistics? 52
Posted by Wandrin on Fri, 01 May 2009 04:38 | #
As mentioned above I think the original Aryans split, some moving west to Europe, some south and east to India - so maybe there is a link a long way back. Also I recall reading about a remnant of Alexander’s armies having a relic kingdom in that part of the world for a while and I’m assuming Greeks were lighter back then with more fair hair. That might be a second possibility. 53
Posted by Armor on Fri, 01 May 2009 11:03 | #
I can find a ship or a horse beautiful, although I would not marry them… So, why not an African woman? (Although I would find African women more beautiful if they stayed in Africa). 54
Posted by n/a on Fri, 01 May 2009 18:13 | # “While we are talking physiognomy…I?ve wondered for a while if male pattern baldness has any racial correlations?” Yes. For example:
Also see here. 55
Posted by Carlos on Fri, 08 May 2009 00:36 | # Wow, I just read everywhere on this site that Black or Negroid woman are inferior in looks to white. To be honest, I find it quite the opposite. Has no one here ever seen a true Nubian or Ethiopian woman? Here are a couple of examples.
56
Posted by Darren on Fri, 08 May 2009 00:59 | # Beauty is however one wants to see it. With that said, you posted women who clearly have a non-trivial amount of caucasian admixture. 57
Posted by Carlos on Sat, 09 May 2009 00:29 | # The three bottom women come from West Africa. I am quite sure they don’t have any recent Caucasian mixes in their, but the first girl being Nubian, it could be possible somewhere along the line some Caucasian was mixed in, but she shows what to me, seem more feminine mediterranean features, not feminine Caucasian features. 58
Posted by Tobowey on Sat, 09 May 2009 08:02 | # Maybe this is because I was pretty much surrounded by multicultural people while I was growing up, but I do not get at all this thing about not being able to feel a bond between people of another race. I have never felt really hard for me to build any kind of bond with either Negroid, Caucasoid, Mongoloid, or people of other races. The times I usually judge people has less to do with their race, and more with the way that they present themselves. 59
Posted by buti on Thu, 03 Sep 2009 01:07 | # ‘‘Posted by Armor on April 25, 2009, 09:48 AM | # I like to see faces of people like this girl from Pakistan (Kalash tribe). ‘‘Posted by Josef Vicelwitz on April 26, 2009, 07:54 AM | # The Aryan Caste System ruled over this Land Mass Zone for centuries and more then likely you are attracted to vestigial remnants of Ancient Aryan Beauty maintained by strict Laws of Manu Caste System.’‘ There have been different European, Middle Eastern (some part-European) and European-like central Asian tribes that have passed through South Asia. Any number of these tribes could have left an impact on the Kalash people so it is mere speculation you are looking at a remnant of ancient Aryan beauty and not a theory based on fact/evidence. It is certainly possible the lighter pigment i.e hair/eyes colour in the above example of the Kalash girl is consistent with European input. However the Kalash people withstanding there light hair/eye colour display ethnic features that are not European in appearance (nose/overall facial structure) 60
Posted by Elizabeth on Tue, 22 Dec 2009 04:06 | # the bottom three girls are not from west africa they are ethiopian,as am I which is in east africa. It is belived that ethiopian and somalian people are a mixture of arab and african mix. I however belive that beauty is not from race but varies from person to person. You can find a beautiful Caucasian,Negroid, arab women and you can find one of the same regions that are not that beautyful. 61
Posted by Charles Robinson on Tue, 22 Dec 2009 17:58 | #
I don’t quite agree. Ethiopian women like yourself can be quite aesthetically pleasing - not least because the mean type in Ethipia lacks the stereotypically Negroid characteristics from the perspective of beauty (beauty is not subjective, it is an experience in itself) - as can Arabs and Caucasians. If you look, however, at Bantus (and I’m talking about pure Bantus, not mulattos, etc which are passed off as ‘black’) their phenotype is considered universally unattractive. They were not blessed with desirable physical appearances: The prognathism, the generally robust bones, the large noses, etc are simply not very desirable from the standpoint of sexual selection (though Bantu men in Africa had nothing else to choose from for aeons). 62
Posted by mace on Thu, 04 Mar 2010 09:21 | # you full of crap,most ethiopians and horn of african types are not mixed. and there are many bantus and othe rblacks that are unmixed that are really good looking,they are infact the best looking of all races.
African peoples are the most diverse in the world whether analyzed by DNA or skeletal or cranial methods. Attempts to deny this are rooted in racism and error. African people, particularly SUB-SAHARAN Africans, vary the most in how they look, more so than any other population in the world.
63
Posted by mace on Thu, 04 Mar 2010 09:23 | # there is no proof of any admixture i should say. go to egyptsearch.com 64
Posted by tkue on Fri, 26 Mar 2010 13:14 | # hi ,it is not the culture of ethiopia to be with out clothes in front of the , if you realy love ethiopia .therefore,do not be like this please since such & other things make the foreigners tohave BAD image for ethiopia.DO NOT BE FOLLOWERS OF EUROPEAN CULTURE.We,ETHIOPIAN. have distinict culture. 65
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Tue, 14 Sep 2010 05:11 | # Sorry, she was born in Ethiopia. From Wiki:
66
Posted by alex on Thu, 28 Aug 2014 15:24 | # its amazeing how stupid people can be white people have relly gotten to a point were they cant find black or other race women attractive. every one here know the first man and wemon were black and lived in africa even urwhite bible described animals native only to africa n im pretty sure they have melatonin in their skin( what makes people dark or light) or they would have been burned by the african heat n sun. when people started heading north they got lighter not much sun in europe foggy n some part. so there was no need for that much melatonin so people became lighter. u can even look up how snow rabbits became whit n how polar bears did the saye thing white man did. it proven fully on the animal level n we are animals n we do and did the same thing.i live in minneapolis n its winter 8 months out of the year min n i have fully black reletives comming out lighter n lighter im a 4th gen mn resident im bown but if i got to the south im light to them 67
Posted by bermudabobtriangle on Fri, 09 Jan 2015 04:04 | # l am a man of mixed race and could be defined as a brown skinned person of African/European/American-Indian/Carib-Indian heritage. I shamelessly love attractive woman in general. If she is a female, intelligent, has similar ethics/morals, a sense of humor, fine features, feminine womanly curves, generally healthy and in one piece… I don’t care what race, ethnic group, or geographic group she comes from. Also, based on those pics I love the whole Ethiopian/Somalian woman look. There tanned to brown skin with beautiful face and hair is just irresistible. I don’t believe that any race is the superior or inferior race over all. yes there are biological and genetic differences among groups of humans and varying levels of intelligence, but that doesn’t make an individual any less human or less of a person. I agree this whole total equality super liberal shit is stupid, we aren’t even equal with people within our own races… and i personally don’t like these simplistic labels and categories we put ourselves and others in. They don’t truly capture the diversity and the spectrum of variation that the modern hominid species, in which we all belong, displays. man and woman are equal but different, they have different roles in the natural order but are both fully relevant human beings that deserve choice and freedom. Same with race variations. Peoples around the world are adapted to different environments, diets, social, and cultural factors but, not different enough to warrant inferior treatment based solely on race or ethnic group. I’m all for the pleasures promoting genetic diversity… 68
Posted by bermudabobtriangle on Fri, 09 Jan 2015 04:56 | # ...and I agree personally that Caucasoid facial features and lighter eyes are very attractive, especially striking and beautiful on a brown face. but i would still date or marry an attractive member of any race. i also personally prefer color in the skin, voluptuous woman curves, and a lady with rhythmic coordination Post a comment:
Next entry: Snappy Refutations, Exercise 6
|
|
Existential IssuesDNA NationsCategoriesContributorsEach author's name links to a list of all articles posted by the writer. LinksEndorsement not implied. Immigration
Islamist Threat
Anti-white Media Networks Audio/Video
Crime
Economics
Education General
Historical Re-Evaluation Controlled Opposition
Nationalist Political Parties
Science Europeans in Africa
Of Note MR Central & News— CENTRAL— Ukraine, Israel, Taiwan … defend or desert by Guessedworker on Sunday, 14 April 2024 10:34. (View) Patriotic Alternative given the black spot by Guessedworker on Thursday, 14 March 2024 17:14. (View) On Spengler and the inevitable by Guessedworker on Wednesday, 21 February 2024 17:33. (View) Twilight for the gods of complacency? by Guessedworker on Tuesday, 02 January 2024 10:22. (View) — NEWS — Moscow’s Bataclan by Guessedworker on Friday, 22 March 2024 22:22. (View) Soren Renner Is Dead by James Bowery on Thursday, 21 March 2024 13:50. (View) Collett sets the record straight by Guessedworker on Thursday, 14 March 2024 17:41. (View) Commentsweremight commented in entry 'Soren Renner Is Dead' on Tue, 23 Apr 2024 04:24. (View) Thorn commented in entry 'Soren Renner Is Dead' on Mon, 22 Apr 2024 22:54. (View) James Marr commented in entry 'Soren Renner Is Dead' on Mon, 22 Apr 2024 16:12. (View) James Bowery commented in entry 'Soren Renner Is Dead' on Mon, 22 Apr 2024 14:44. (View) Thorn commented in entry 'Soren Renner Is Dead' on Mon, 22 Apr 2024 12:34. (View) weremight commented in entry 'Soren Renner Is Dead' on Mon, 22 Apr 2024 06:42. (View) James Marr commented in entry 'Soren Renner Is Dead' on Sun, 21 Apr 2024 23:27. (View) Thorn commented in entry 'Soren Renner Is Dead' on Sun, 21 Apr 2024 23:01. (View) James Marr commented in entry 'Soren Renner Is Dead' on Sun, 21 Apr 2024 22:52. (View) Thorn commented in entry 'Soren Renner Is Dead' on Sun, 21 Apr 2024 22:23. (View) Anon commented in entry 'Soren Renner Is Dead' on Sun, 21 Apr 2024 20:07. (View) Thorn commented in entry 'Soren Renner Is Dead' on Sun, 21 Apr 2024 19:39. (View) James Bowery commented in entry 'Soren Renner Is Dead' on Sun, 21 Apr 2024 17:38. (View) Thorn commented in entry 'Soren Renner Is Dead' on Sun, 21 Apr 2024 15:20. (View) James Bowery commented in entry 'Soren Renner Is Dead' on Sun, 21 Apr 2024 15:01. (View) Anon commented in entry 'Soren Renner Is Dead' on Sun, 21 Apr 2024 13:31. (View) Thorn commented in entry 'Soren Renner Is Dead' on Sun, 21 Apr 2024 12:52. (View) James Marr commented in entry 'Soren Renner Is Dead' on Sun, 21 Apr 2024 09:21. (View) Al Ross commented in entry 'Soren Renner Is Dead' on Sun, 21 Apr 2024 05:25. (View) Thorn commented in entry 'Soren Renner Is Dead' on Sat, 20 Apr 2024 23:49. (View) James Bowery commented in entry 'Soren Renner Is Dead' on Sat, 20 Apr 2024 23:37. (View) James Bowery commented in entry 'Soren Renner Is Dead' on Sat, 20 Apr 2024 23:24. (View) Anon commented in entry 'Soren Renner Is Dead' on Sat, 20 Apr 2024 21:38. (View) Thorn commented in entry 'Soren Renner Is Dead' on Sat, 20 Apr 2024 20:16. (View) James Bowery commented in entry 'Soren Renner Is Dead' on Sat, 20 Apr 2024 18:19. (View) Thorn commented in entry 'Soren Renner Is Dead' on Fri, 19 Apr 2024 20:43. (View) James Bowery commented in entry 'Soren Renner Is Dead' on Fri, 19 Apr 2024 19:16. (View) Thorn commented in entry 'Soren Renner Is Dead' on Fri, 19 Apr 2024 15:33. (View) James Bowery commented in entry 'Soren Renner Is Dead' on Fri, 19 Apr 2024 14:42. (View) James Bowery commented in entry 'Soren Renner Is Dead' on Fri, 19 Apr 2024 14:38. (View) |
, 
, 
?v=0 . Therefore it is possible the input could be from Central Asian tribes that had lighter features (European like hair/eye colour) but ethnic (facial) features different from Europeans. It is also possible the lighter features of the Kalash are due to a European input and the non European ethnic features (facial) of the Kalash are from a Central Asian input. Without Proper Investigation neither theory can be ruled out.
Posted by weston on Tue, 21 Apr 2009 09:52 | #
You are one prolific cracker. Almost JJR part duex.