Does race mixing increase physical attractiveness?

Posted by J Richards on Saturday, 28 May 2005 10:11.

Does race mixing increase the likelihood of physical attractiveness?  Armand Marie Leroi, a developmental biologist at Imperial College, London, seems to think so, and as proof he offers the example of the “world’s most beautiful woman”: Saira Mohan, whose mother is French/Irish and father is Hindoo.

Saira Mohan on the cover of Newsweek, Nov. 10, 2003.
Figure 1: Saira Mohan on the cover of Newsweek, Nov. 10, 2003 (article here).

What logic does Leroi use to arrive at his curious assertion?  Leroi asserts, correctly, that fewer deleterious mutations—that are associated with gene expression—should correspond to greater physical attractiveness.  Leroi also notes, correctly, that deleterious mutations are typically recessive, i.e., will manifest in structure/function if one gets the same copy from both parents but not if one has only one copy.  Leroi then argues that since recessive deleterious mutations vary by race, race-mixing should decrease the likelihood of obtaining identical copies of deleterious mutations from both parents, which should correspond to greater physical attractiveness in the mixed-race offspring.

Great logic, isn’t it?  One hardly need mention that such logic is well-received by the likes of Razib of GNXP.  Let us address this logic.

To start with, a gorilla with no deleterious mutations would be roughly as ugly—to the typical human—as a gorilla with dozens of deleterious mutations, i.e., there is obviously much more to beauty than the prevalence of deleterious mutations.  Clearly, various physical traits have to be within certain bounds to be considered attractive.  Indeed, it has been shown that beautiful faces—within a race—tend to have multiple anatomical traits close to the center of the trait distributions in their race. [1-3]  As a side note, the most beautiful faces tend to somewhat deviate from the center of some trait distributions, but this does not concern us at present.

Is there any significance to having multiple average anatomical traits?  Yes, there is.  Compared to individuals with multiple outlier anatomical traits, individuals with multiple average anatomical traits appear better equipped to canalize development well—i.e., channel development along the right developmental pathways—and to buffer against developmental perturbations. [4, 5]  This should be intuitive: there is a correlation structure to genetic information—that varies by species and race—and there is bound to be a restricted range of the genetic-correlation-structure matrix that corresponds to optimal functioning.

The centers of the trait distributions of facial features—as well as several other anatomical traits—vary by race.  If two individuals of different races—both having multiple average traits within their respective races—were to breed, the offspring would not have multiple average traits of either parental race.  How well-functioning will this individual be with respect to canalization of development and developmental stability compared to his parents?  This question in best answered at a statistical level since some offspring resulting from same-race matings manifest poor canalization of development and evidence of not having effectively dealt with developmental perturbations, whereas many mixed-race individuals are healthy.  As I will address in detail in a future post, the overall health of major mixed-race populations such as South Asians, South American Latinos, and African-Americans is worse than that of major populations with little other-population admixture such as Northwestern Europeans and Northeastern Asians.

On the other hand, since recessive deleterious mutations are typically rare, the potential adverse health consequences of notably altering race-specific genetic correlation structures outweigh the possible race-mixing benefits related to decreasing the likelihood of obtaining identical copies of recessive deleterious mutations from parents belonging to different races.

Leroi and Razib need to understand that in so far as physical attractiveness related to a genetic constitution associated with better canalization of development and developmental stability is concerned, mixed-race individuals are expected to be, on average, worse off than individuals with little other-race genetic admixture.  Razib may mention hybrid vigor (offspring better than parents, overall, on average) and ignore the possibility of what appears to be more likely—which I will elaborate on in the future: outbreeding depression (offspring worse than parents, overall, on average).

The attractiveness of mixed-race individuals should be compared with that of their parents using non-arbitrary standards.  This is very difficult in several cases.  For instance, if the parental races are very different looking, and the mixed-race offspring look in between, then the exacting beauty standards that apply to the race of one parent could not be applied to the race of the other parent, and both exacting beauty standards could not be applied to the offspring.  On the other hand, in cases of race mixing where one parent is white and the other a black African or Chinese, the offspring overwhelmingly look like the non-white parent, and their beauty is best compared to that of their non-white parent.

It is commonly observed that African-Americans generally hold the looks of notably “whitified” persons such as Halle Berry or Vanessa Williams in higher regard than the looks of the black Africans from West Africa from whom they are descended.  Similarly, some Asians undergo corrective surgery to straighten their eyelids (blepharoplasty), reduce the size of their cheekbones (malarplasty), make their nose more projecting (rhinoplasty), etc.  On the other hand, whites who undergo cosmetic facial surgery never try to acquire the facial features of black Africans or flat-faced Asians; rather, they attempt to acquire classic Northern European facial traits.  Therefore, from the perspective of whites—and undoubtedly some non-whites, too—white/non-white mixtures are less attractive than the white parent, on average, but more attractive than the non-white parent, on average.

Armand Marie Leroi uses an example of a white/Hindoo mix, where the Hindoo comes from Northwestern India, a region known to harbor many people with the major facial features of Europeans (Figure 2).

The parents of Saira Mohan: French/Irish mother and Hindoo father.
Figure 2: The parents of Saira Mohan: French/Irish mother and Hindoo father.

As can be seen in Figure 3, if one ignores skin color, Saira Mohan’s facial features are well-within the variation seen in Europe.  Therefore, given that Leroi calls Mohan the “world’s most beautiful woman,” her facial features should be judged by European [high] standards.

In the images shown below, please ignore pigmentation.  Firstly, it is clear that Saira Mohan is not very feminine looking (Figure 3): note masculine glabellar (forehead) projection, low-set eyebrows, projecting [beyond feminine norm] nose, and general overall masculinization.

The face of supermodel Saira Mohan, a woman that is not very feminine looking.
Figure 3: The face of supermodel Saira Mohan, a woman that is not very feminine looking.

Saira Mohan’s nostrils (Figure 4) clearly deviate from the classic European type (Figure 5).

Saira Mohan's nostrils are more typical of non-Europeans.
Figure 4: Saira Mohan’s nostrils are more typical of non-Europeans.

The aesthetic range of nostril shapes in white women.
Figure 5: The aesthetic range of nostril shapes in white women.

Note that Saira Mohan’s cheekbones are more robust than that of beautiful white women, on average (see Figures 4 and 5).  A beautiful white woman would be expected to have fine nasal bones that are flattened on the sides, which Saira Mohan does not possess (Figure 6).

Compare the robust nasal bone structure of Saira Mohan with the fine nose typically seen in beautiful white women. 
Figure 6: Compare the robust nasal bone structure of Saira Mohan with the fine nose typically seen in beautiful white women.

Finally, compare Saira Mohan to the beautiful white women shown below (Figure 7).

Some beautiful white women.
Figure 7: Some beautiful white women.

In summary, since European beauty standards—with respect to facial anatomy but not pigmentation—can be applied to the facial features of Saira Mohan, it is very clear that there are many white women far more beautiful than her.  Armand Marie Leroi is talking patent nonsense by calling her a great beauty.  Leroi is not taking the specifics of anatomy into account, something that is central to beauty.  Indeed, who in his rational mind would believe that the beauty of white women—such as depicted in Figure 7—could be increased via the absorption of non-whites among whites?  It would be difficult to obtain a fine-featured Caucasoid if any of the white women shown in Figures 5 and 7 bred with a Hindoo.  On the other hand, the aesthetic consequences of breeding with flat-faced Asians or black Africans requires no comment. 

Literature Cited:

1. Langlois JH, Roggman LA: Attractive faces are only average. Psychological Science, 1990, 1:115-121.
2. Langlois JH, Roggman LA, Musselman L: What is average and what is not average about attractive faces. Psychological Science, 1994, 5:214-220.
3. Rhodes G, Yoshikawa S, Clark A, Lee K, McKay R, Akamatsu S: Attractiveness of facial averageness and symmetry in non-Western cultures: in search of biologically based standards of beauty. Perception, 2001, 30:611-625.
4. Livshits G, Kobyliansky E: Dermatoglyphic traits as possible markers of developmental processes in humans. American Journal of Medical Genetics, 1987, 26:111-122.
5. Rhodes G, Zebrowitz LA, Clark A, Kalick SM, Hightower A, McKay R: Do facial averageness and symmetry signal health? Evolution and Human Behavior, 2001, 22:31-46.



Comments:


1

Posted by john fitzgerald on Sat, 28 May 2005 11:00 | #

Wow, that’s quite a posting. Look foreward to the follow up.


2

Posted by edgar on Sat, 28 May 2005 13:08 | #

You undermine your argument by posting photos of distinctly unimpressive white women.


3

Posted by GayLikeAFox on Sat, 28 May 2005 13:14 | #

I’m surprised you didn’t mention the obvious: the phenotypic expression of some recessive genes (such as the ones that code for non-brown eyes or blonde hair) can be quite attractive.  A world of mixed-race individuals would lose that beauty forever.


4

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Sat, 28 May 2005 14:13 | #

That was a good log entry for many reasons and a well-deserved slap right back in the face of brazen radical-left-wing rag Newsweek for its unprovoked attack on the white race in publishing that piece of crap cover story.

That was a very interesting analysis of white women’s beauty (incidentally, I didn’t know there were those nostril differences).  It’s about time people began responding to the race-replacers and their constant bombardment of anti-white propaganda and its genocidal message, both implicit and explicit, that white women should be race-replaced with non-white women and white people in general should be race-replaced.  We’re all sick and tired of it.  You’ve rendered a valuable service to us all in posting that log entry.


5

Posted by Sybach on Sat, 28 May 2005 14:16 | #

As Edgar’s comment proves, I’m not the only who thinks those white women you show us aren’t really very “beautiful.” Why you didn’t find some pictures of, say, Julia Roberts or Monica Bellucci is beyond me.

Secondly, Ms. Mohan is a New York supermodel. Whether she adheres to European standards of “beauty” (or maybe just your personal tastes) or not, apparently a few people must find her feminine if they’re willing to pay her good money to be a model.

P.S: What’s with “Hindoo?” ‘Hindu’ is a good letter smaller, but you have a thing for the letter ‘o,’ I guess.


6

Posted by ben tillman on Sat, 28 May 2005 15:24 | #

Indeed, it has been shown that beautiful faces—within a race—tend to have multiple anatomical traits close to the center of the trait distributions in their race.

This is not due solely to the “canalizing of development” you mention.  It is also due to the fact that the central appearance of these people marks them as socially central; i.e., they are the people whom strangers will be most likely to infer kinship with.


7

Posted by ben tillman on Sat, 28 May 2005 15:41 | #

Why you didn’t find some pictures of, say, Julia Roberts or Monica Bellucci is beyond me.

De gustibus non disputandum est.  I would have selected other models, but Julia Roberts (a/k/a “Horsemouth”) would not have been among them.


8

Posted by Svigor on Sat, 28 May 2005 15:54 | #

Yeah I’ve never understood the Julia Roberts phenomenon.

Re Newsweek cover: lemme get this straight, racemixing produces beauty, but for its example the mag chooses a mix of two relatively closely related groups?  Selection bias aside (I’ve seen more than a few butt-ugly mulattos), this isn’t a convincing example.

The last image on the left, presumably of some practically unknown white woman, shows me a more attractive image than any non-white I’ve ever seen.  She isn’t a poster child for race-replacement though, so she doesn’t get the cover of Newsweek.

Secondly, Ms. Mohan is a New York supermodel. Whether she adheres to European standards of “beauty” (or maybe just your personal tastes) or not, apparently a few people must find her feminine if they’re willing to pay her good money to be a model.

Homosexuals pay her good money to be a model, that doesn’t make her particularly feminine or representitive of feminine beauty.


9

Posted by Svigor on Sat, 28 May 2005 15:58 | #

I should add that I, like most men around the world, find fairer-skinned women more attractive.  Steve Sailer has written a bit about this as manifested in film.  I think Steve ignores the fact that Hollywood promotes race-war and its own fantasies with its pairing of fair women and darker men (see the scads of romantic comedies targetting our youth for details), but he still has a point.


10

Posted by TDA on Sat, 28 May 2005 16:18 | #

Julia Roberts is Jewish. Does that explain the overpromotion?


11

Posted by Svigor on Sat, 28 May 2005 16:26 | #

Do you have a source TDA?  I doubt her Jewishness has much to do with it, but it’s within the realm of possibility for sure.


12

Posted by Tournament of Champions on Sat, 28 May 2005 16:28 | #

From what I can tell, GNXP seems to have gone down the crapper recently. Some combination of the disappearance of godless and the departure of any whites with a semblance of honor. Right now whats left of the commentators is strictly the B-team.


13

Posted by chris w on Sat, 28 May 2005 16:30 | #

I believe that your evolutionary “argument” is no more than a rationalization for your aesthetic preferences.  If it is your dream to live in a nation full of blonde-haired, blue-eyed women, why don’t you just come out and say it?  I don’t think that your primary motivation is science—you are merely using it as a tool in an attempt to make your own aesthetic preferences more compelling to others (and not very successfully, I might add).

As for myself, I’m a dark-haired caucasian person of English and Portuguese extraction (many English and Welsh people are dark-haired, due to Iberian migrations prior to the Celts), and I find dark-haired Caucasian and Eurasian women to be the most attractive—far more so than the washed-out looking Nordic women that you posted.  If we had more Eurasians and fewer blondes, I would have no problem with that.

However, you might be surprised to know that I also favor severe restrictions upon immigration, in spite of my rejection of white nationalism.  My ideal immigration policy would limit the level of immigration such that it would be equivalent to the previous year’s level of emmigration.  Also, one would have to be fluent in the English language to enter, in addition to having either a college education or a useful skill to offer.  However, I do not favor the anti-miscegenation laws that you propose.  If the current white population intermarried with the current population of Asian-Americans (which isn’t very high, percentage-wise) and Latinos, blonde hair and red hair would likely become much more rare, but we would still be a light-skinned, albeit dark-haired, caucasoid people.  (Perhaps many of us will have the “Slavic look,” due to intermarriage with Asians.) I suppose you find the disappearance of red and blonde hair to be quite horrifying—that’s fine, I can respect that.  However, most blondes—men and women alike—don’t seem to share your horror at this prospect, as is seen by their willingness to mate with people who are not likely even carriers for blondness.

The prospect of us becoming a dark-haired caucasian people doesn’t horrify me either, especially when I look at these pictures of Lebanese women, half of whom are very very hot:

http://www.michaeltotten.com/archives/000813.html

And can you explain to me why I, as a dark-haired caucasian, should necessarily feel a greater “loyalty” or affinity for Nordics than for people with a phenotype commonly found in the Caucasus or the Middle East (leaving aside the fact that those are Muslim territories)?  Do the latter really possess more genetic commonalities with me than the former? 

With respect to your concerns regarding “race replacement”, I think that would only concern people if we were to be replaced by a phenotype that we don’t regard as aesthetically pleasing.  Most whites do not find blacks to be aesthically pleasing, but America is not likely to witness the rise of a black majority ever.  (Black American fertility rates are currently far below replacement level.)

I acknowledge that people prefer their “own kind” and do not wish to be dominated by peoples they consider alien to them.  The inevitability of tribal behavior is a very good reason to place severe limits upon immigration.  The number of newcomers that we accept should not be in excess of the number that we can successfully absorb and assimilate The formation of demographic groups who regard us as the Other is not desirable.  White Americans may very well become increasingly alarmed by the Balkanization of the country, but I don’t think they will ever share your alarm regarding the Mediterranean-ization or Eurasian-ization of the predominant national phenotype.  Nobody cares about that.  There are plenty of reasons to oppose our current levels of immigration—urban sprawl, overcrowding, cultural balkanization, identity politics, high home and utility prices, traffic jams, overburdened schools and hospitals, crime, etc—all of which are far more compelling than any concerns regarding racial “purity” (a non-existent quality).

I am a tribalist, not a racialist.


14

Posted by Sybach on Sat, 28 May 2005 16:42 | #

Not big Julia Roberts fans, are we? Doesn’t change my point—ol’ Richards had far better paragons of White beauty to choose from other than his mostly sub-par selections. Monica Bellucci, Jenna Jameson, Angelica Bridges…the list goes on.

Homosexuals pay her good money to be a model, that doesn’t make her particularly feminine or representitive of feminine beauty.

Leaving aside the question of how you’re so absolutely sure Ms. Mohan’s employers are gay, the fact remains that even if they are, homosexuals care about making money, same as everyone else. Profitable models are appealing and feminine, so if her homosexual employers hired her because they thought she was butch, they’re probably pretty stupid for gay people.


15

Posted by chris w on Sat, 28 May 2005 17:22 | #

Sybach:

Good point.  The people who post on this board don’t seem to be particularly aware of the preferences of the general population.  In the course of my discussions with numerous white people of a wide variety of political persuasions, most of them agree that caucasian/asian hybrids are attractive, and are not at all disturbed by the prospect of today’s predominant Nordic phenotype being “replaced” by a Eurasian one.  I recognize that most majorityrights.com posters find the idea disturbing—however, their preferences are not representative of that of the general population.


16

Posted by Kubilai on Sat, 28 May 2005 17:35 | #

Who cares what pictures of White women JR posted?  Though for the record, figure 7, bottom left, is my cup of tea. smile Regardless what I think is the most attractive, the bottom line is that White women are THE most attractive women on the planet.  I’m sure many, many, many others think the same way as well.  Otherwise, why would so many men of different races always look to hook up with our women?  Even the “picture of beauty” on the Newsweek cover is a mix between a White woman and a Hindu.  I find the arguments against White beauty quite wanting and bordering on sour grapes.  These pictures of normal average White women compared to normal average women of other ethnicities are far more desirable and THAT is how they should be judged.  Not against the “supermodel” of the multi-cults, though they all do a great job holding their own against her.


17

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Sat, 28 May 2005 17:35 | #

“White Americans may very well become increasingly alarmed by the Balkanization of the country, but I don’t think they will ever share your alarm regarding the Mediterranean-ization or Eurasian-ization of the predominant national phenotype.”  (—chris w)

Good.  How about we let them vote on race-replacement “immigration” in a binding referendum then, Chris?  Incidentally, if you wish to change the northern-European percentage of the U.S.‘s race you should get the hell out of this country or be kicked the hell out, and into some country which has a percentage of non-northern types you feel more comfortable with.  Stop trying to change countries’ races or ethnicities please, you ill-bred narcissist.  People like you are definitely not needed here—or in any country for that matter.  I am racially more like you: not northern-European, with black hair, dark-brown eyes, darkish skin that used to get so tan even in the anemic Belgian summers that the Arabs in Brussels used to assume I was an Arab from my looks and would just come up to me on the street or in trains and start talking to me in Arabic.  But I have something you lack, you espèce de malcontent:  I have something called respect:  respect for myself and respect for others.  Go figure out what respect is, and try to get some, and lose the self-pity while you’re at it.  You make yourself seem pathetic, like a beaten, cringing dog.  Learn to be a man for a change.  And learn something about fair play.  You want nordic types to start replacing the darker white-Euros in the places you like better?  What would you say if that process were undertaken?  Can you stand a taste of your own race-replacement medicine, you whining weakling?   

“There are plenty of reasons to oppose our current levels of immigration—urban sprawl, overcrowding, cultural balkanization, identity politics, high home and utility prices, traffic jams, overburdened schools and hospitals, crime, etc”

Oh?  How come we never, ever see you attack the population-transfer “immigration” that’s going on all over the West nowadays, if you see so many reasons to oppose it?  I can answer that for you—it’s because you’re so insecure about your dark hair and complexion, and feel so inferior and defensive about them, that you won’t utter a word in defense of more nothern-looking folk whom you in your weakness have always seen as “persecuting” you, “tormenting” you with their “greater whiteness,” so to speak.  You’ll be DAMNED if you’re going to post a single word anywhere that might help your lifelong “tormentors.”

”—all of which are far more compelling than any concerns regarding racial ‘purity’ (a non-existent quality).”

A non-existent quality, yes, which no one here claims to deal in but which is a straw man trotted out all the time by know-nothings like yourself.  Here everyone deals with race, not pure race.  Race all by itself amply serves our purposes, thank you very much.  Now go find another straw man please.  “Pure races” is all worn out and the only place we hear that nowadays is from leftists and dark-white malcontents.

“I am a tribalist, not a racialist.”

Tribalist is actually a better thing to be than a “racialist” though I would decline to describe myself as either, considering myself nothing other than normal.  It’s normal to oppose genocide against your race.  You needn’t find some special name for yourself like “Tribalist” or “Racialist” to oppose others mounting a genocidal attack on your community and nation-state.


18

Posted by onetwothree on Sat, 28 May 2005 17:41 | #

most of them agree that caucasian/asian hybrids are attractive, and are not at all disturbed by the prospect of today’s predominant Nordic phenotype being “replaced”...

“Most of them”, by which we could say 95 percent or more, wouldn’t even know what you are talking about.  “Replaced”?  “Huh”? 

Few people have the intestinal strength to pretend *that this is somehow a good paring*.  But that sort of thing is the goal, even if mild white/asian mixes are the public face.

Yes, the pictures presented above are pretty bad.  *Here is my alternative.*


19

Posted by Kubilai on Sat, 28 May 2005 17:44 | #

The people who post on this board don’t seem to be particularly aware of the preferences of the general population.  In the course of my discussions with numerous white people of a wide variety of political persuasions, most of them agree that caucasian/asian hybrids are attractive, and are not at all disturbed by the prospect of today’s predominant Nordic phenotype being “replaced” by a Eurasian one.

Gee, you think just maybe you have selection bias going for your cohort there which is NOT representative of widespread, blinded, randomly selected study?  Also, did you notice that one of the two people in this new “breed” happened to be White?  Chris, I do believe you are a GNXPer and this infatuation with breeding Whites out of existence, especially with Asians, is not only disturbing but also quite puerile.  Once done, it CANNOT be undone.  Stop treating the White race as your next high school science project.  That goes for the rest of the “I think a White and ‘blank’ would make pretty babies” crowd.


20

Posted by ben tillman on Sat, 28 May 2005 17:44 | #

I believe that your evolutionary “argument” is no more than a rationalization for your aesthetic preferences.

You seem to be projecting:

With respect to your concerns regarding “race replacement”, I think that would only concern people if we were to be replaced by a phenotype that we don’t regard as aesthetically pleasing.


21

Posted by ben tillman on Sat, 28 May 2005 17:47 | #

White Americans may very well become increasingly alarmed by the Balkanization of the country, but I don’t think they will ever share your alarm regarding the Mediterranean-ization or Eurasian-ization of the predominant national phenotype.  Nobody cares about that.

Where are your data?  What is your sample?  Certainly some care, and it’s a safe bet that it’s an overwhelming majority.


22

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Sat, 28 May 2005 17:54 | #

“Though for the record, figure 7, bottom left, is my cup of tea.”  (—Kub)

That girl’s a delight to look at, Kub, and so are all the rest of them, including the mixed Hindu-white one on the Newsweek cover.  (I find Punjabi women among the world’s most gorgeous, incidentally.  Ditto Lebanese women, a race of women someone mentioned in this thread, I forget who.)  But that’s beside the point, which is, there’s no excuse for promoting race-replacement of whites as Chris w and Newsweek do, out of jealousy, revenge for imagined scorn (Chris w’s reason), general dislike/fear of white Christianity (many Jews’ motivation—were any of the editors or string-pullers at Newsweek who approved that article Jewish anti-Christians?), or other reason on earth.  No excuse for it.  Period.  Full stop.  End of story.  It’s as legitimate as any other genocide, all comments to the contrary by whining babies such as chris w notwithstanding.


23

Posted by Sybach on Sat, 28 May 2005 17:55 | #

Care to provide a sample of your own, tillman? It’s easy enough to attack someone else’s assertion; the more intellectually rigorous part is continuing on to defend yours.


24

Posted by Kubilai on Sat, 28 May 2005 18:03 | #

Care to provide a sample of your own, tillman? It’s easy enough to attack someone else’s assertion; the more intellectually rigorous part is continuing on to defend yours. - Sybach

He need not to, though I do not want to speak for Ben.  Your assertion goes AGAINST the norm, as we currently know it.  The onus is upon you to prove what you say has merit.  We can rest on what is currently the standard if we so wish.  Your argument is akin to stating Americans don’t care if we all start eating Chinese food instead of McDonalds.  Well, PROVE IT.


25

Posted by ben tillman on Sat, 28 May 2005 18:04 | #

...all of which are far more compelling than any concerns regarding racial ‘purity’....

Racial purity is not a concern.  The concern is racial self-determnination.  If our race is to change, we shall change it ourselves.


26

Posted by jonjayray on Sat, 28 May 2005 18:05 | #

I prefer blondes, myself.  I had an Indian girlfriend once, though.  An “interesting” experience it was too.


27

Posted by Kubilai on Sat, 28 May 2005 18:10 | #

I find Punjabi women among the world’s most gorgeous, incidentally.  Ditto Lebanese women, a race of women someone mentioned in this thread, I forget who - Fred

Fred, as I stated in the log entry that Phil had about the Miss Universe ladies.  I have no problem with any of them and as a man that has been led by his “secondary brain” more times than I care to admit, I have data to back it up. tongue wink However, as you rightfully state, that is not the issue, namely selfish, animalistic desires of the flesh.  We need not promote the extinction of an entire race in hand-holding fashion just because some Asian chick is “hot”.  We need to be more cognizant of the fact that there is an all out war against us and act accordingly.


28

Posted by Sybach on Sat, 28 May 2005 18:12 | #

Your assertion goes AGAINST the norm, as we currently know it.  The onus is upon you to prove what you say has merit.  We can rest on what is currently the standard if we so wish.  Your argument is akin to stating Americans don’t care if we all start eating Chinese food instead of McDonalds.  Well, PROVE IT.

I wasn’t requesting anything particularly difficult—if the attitudes most MR readers hold really are the norm, it oughta be child’s play for tillman to find a sample to back up his assertion, isn’t? He may not need to, but if he so chooses, it’s not exactly hard.


29

Posted by ben tillman on Sat, 28 May 2005 18:21 | #

I wasn’t requesting anything particularly difficult—if the attitudes most MR readers hold really are the norm, it oughta be child’s play for tillman to find a sample to back up his assertion….

I don’t really follow you here.  It is easy to find such a sample—the problem is describing the sample and proving that it is representative.


30

Posted by Svigor on Sat, 28 May 2005 18:31 | #

The Nord vs. Med argument raises its ugly head.  I am a Nord, and I confess that I prefer the looks of Nords.  I assume that most Meds prefer the looks of Meds.  I’m for pan-white solidarity on one hand, and preservation of intra-white groups on the other:

http://theoccidentalquarterly.com/vol3no1/mxr-genetic.html

Using appeals to authority regarding which human group is most attractive is problematic in part because we’ve had a group waging hostile race war in control of our social nervous system for the better part of a century now.

Another problem is that males have an instinct towards one-way gene flow; we all instinctively love the idea of mating with exotics because that instinct is under certain circumstances adaptive (as is the instinct to prevent exotic males from mating with our females).  KMac makes a great deal of sense on this issue (vis a vis Jewry).


31

Posted by Svigor on Sat, 28 May 2005 18:37 | #

Sorry, appeals to popularity not “appeals to authority.”


32

Posted by Svigor on Sat, 28 May 2005 18:59 | #

Leaving aside the question of how you’re so absolutely sure Ms. Mohan’s employers are gay, the fact remains that even if they are, homosexuals care about making money, same as everyone else. Profitable models are appealing and feminine, so if her homosexual employers hired her because they thought she was butch, they’re probably pretty stupid for gay people.

Beat that strawman well while you’re about it, eh?  The high fashion industry is dominated by homosexuals.  The idea that subverting a population’s aesthetic tastes towards one’s own conflicts with profit-making is absurd.  All of Hollywood and Madison Avenue stand in contradiction of the idea.


33

Posted by Phil Peterson on Sat, 28 May 2005 19:00 | #

I prefer blondes, myself.  I had an Indian girlfriend once, though.  An “interesting” experience it was too.

I personally like Brunettes but its not set in stone. It all depends on the woman.

Armand Marie Leroi, a developmental biologist at Imperial College, London, seems to think so, and as proof he offers the example of the “world’s most beautiful woman”

Its funny that a question which will always be a purely subjective question is now masquarading as basis for “science”. While one can agree that broad definitions of beauty can be judged fairly objectively, it is absurd to argue that the question of deciding who is the world’s “most beautiful woman” can ever be judged objectively. Its not like measuring height with an inch tape. 


Saira Mohan is the most beautiful woman in the world? Ummm, I don’t think so. Is she better than Monica?



Case closed.

Incidentally this is what Leroi looks like. Any comments guys? LOL


34

Posted by JW Holliday on Sat, 28 May 2005 19:35 | #

Considering JR vs. Chris – while I believe JR to be fundamentally correct, Chris’ comments underscore a problem with the post itself.

While JR does of course talk about genes, the post – similar to the previous one about the beauty contestants – ultimately revolves around a gallery of blonde Nordic women and a proximate concern with NW European phenotypes.  Now, since a love for phenotype can motivate people to act adaptively with respect to their genetic interests, this is not per se a problem, if this blog was exclusively focused on peoples of NW European descent.  My understanding, however,  is that it is interested in “the West” in general, that is “European Christendom”, or, more secularly, in all European-derived whites and their civilization.  A narrower focus fails to be a compelling argument to this larger group.

More to the point, ultimate interests – genetic interests – should be emphasized, and, instead of various speculations of the outcome of different mixes with respect to physical appearance, the genetic interests of all involved can be considered.

Once you base a post on pictures and Sailerian analyses of what people think other people look like, you open the door to guys like Chris saying that Eurasian mixes will look like Slavs and other such anecdotal, subjective comments.  It’s 2005 guys, not 1905 or 1935.  Give me a choice between Salter and Coon and I pick Salter.  If others prefer Coon, so be it.  Do they think that Michael Jackson is “whiter” now than he was when he was in the Jackson Five?

Chris’ arguments themselves are irrelevant.  It is the same as with JJR – confusing what is popular, or what they think is popular, with what is correct.  Whether or not degenerate whites prefer Eurasian mixes to Nordics (which I doubt) is not relevant to whether such admixture is in the interests of the population.  It is not in the interest of a diabetic with high cholesterol to eat a stack of pancakes smothered with butter and syrup.  However, I know people who do so.  So what?  They are self-destructive and stupid.  As are miscegenationists.

Another thing.  Besides the fact that this LeRoi-ian implication of benefits of admixture is inconsistent with the last paragraph of his NY Times article, which suggests that genetic preservation is important (or is it, only Negritoes and not whites should be thus preserved?), it is also irrelevant.  Any group’s interest in its own continuity is independent of whatever anyone – LeRoi, JR, Razib, Chris, or JW – thinks of their phenotype (or genotype!).  Beautiful or ugly, every group has an interest in its own genetic survival. 

Now, if physical beauty led to increased reproduction, then the genes coding for this phenotype can be an adaptive genetic interest.  However, we live in a world in which grotesque, obese welfare mamas reproduce far more than do supermodels and, even more to the point, what evidence is there that multiracial people are more attractive?  I agree with JR’s points here. LeRoi can talk all he wishes about mutations and beauty, but the fact is that there is no evidence that people – independent of media brainwashing – will prefer a heterozygous mongrel to a more homozygous purebred.  Besides which, most fairly large ethnies have sufficient genetic diversity that recessive mutations are not so much an issue.  I thought there was “more genetic variation within groups compared to between groups.”  Of course, the relevance of this variation is questionable (as I’ve posted about), but if folks wish to make this argument then they need to follow through on its implications.  So much diversity within groups – means that admixture is not needed in most cases to produce LeRoi’s heterozygotic beauty.


35

Posted by jonjayray on Sat, 28 May 2005 19:37 | #

Leroi obviously likes women who look rather like him.  He is entitled to that view but he is not a real “Roi” so can be disregarded.

Good point about the mulatto girl looking masculine but I saw no mention of her chin.  A recessive chin is feminine but hers is fairly “strong”


36

Posted by Svigor on Sat, 28 May 2005 20:01 | #

I thought there was “more genetic variation within groups compared to between groups.” Of course, the relevance of this variation is questionable (as I’ve posted about), but if folks wish to make this argument then they need to follow through on its implications.  So much diversity within groups – means that admixture is not needed in most cases to produce LeRoi’s heterozygotic beauty.

Ahahahaha!  Why didn’t I think of that?  Damn that’s a good one JW!


37

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Sat, 28 May 2005 20:20 | #

I agree, Svigor—that’s an excellent point to throw back in the faces of the race-replacers, who are simply green with envy at the beauty of white women.  You know, I used to wonder if each race found its women the most beautiful in the world.  Now I know the answer:  each race doesn’t find its own women the most beautiful in the world, but finds white women the most beautiful in the world, the proof being that, were it otherwise, all the jealous people of other races out there wouldn’t be driven so hysterically to try to destroy the white race—which they’re clearly doing out of purest jealousy.  Knowing that, there’s no more need to ask “Who are the fairest women in the eyes of non-white races?”—the intensity of their jealousy gives us the answer to that ...


38

Posted by chris w on Sat, 28 May 2005 20:25 | #

Fred Scrooby:
“Good.  How about we let them vote on race-replacement “immigration” in a binding referendum then, Chris?”

Sure—as I said, I’m in favor of restricting immigration.

“Incidentally, if you wish to change the northern-European percentage of the U.S.’s race you should get the hell out of this country or be kicked the hell out, and into some country which has a percentage of non-northern types you feel more comfortable with.”

I didn’t say that it was my *goal* to change the predominant phenotype from an Nordic one to a Mediterranean or Eurasian one.  I said that I wouldn’t have a problem if things happened to evolve that way, and that it has been my observation that most other people would not have a problem with it.

“Stop trying to change countries’ races or ethnicities please, you ill-bred narcissist.”

What activities do you think I’m engaging in in order to “try[...] to change countries’ races or ethnicities”?  I’m not *trying* to change anything.  However, it does appear that the Nordic phenotype *will* become less dominant as time goes on, and that most people are not particularly bent out of shape about it.

<>

“Oh?  How come we never, ever see you attack the population-transfer “immigration” that’s going on all over the West nowadays, if you see so many reasons to oppose it?”

Never ever?  This is only the second blog entry I’ve commented on, and I have voiced my opposition to unchecked immigration.

“I can answer that for you—it’s because you’re so insecure about your dark hair and complexion, and feel so inferior and defensive about them, that you won’t utter a word in defense of more nothern-looking folk whom you in your weakness have always seen as “persecuting” you, “tormenting” you with their “greater whiteness,” so to speak.  You’ll be DAMNED if you’re going to post a single word anywhere that might help your lifelong “tormentors.”

lol.  This has to be one of the most paranoid hallucinatory comments I’ve ever read. 

I certainly don’t feel oppressed by Nordics—I’m not sure what gave you that idea.  At any rate, if blonde-haired blue-eyed Nordics are sufficiently concerned about reproducing themselves, then they should mate with those who are at least carriers for blondeness.  If they aren’t concerned, they won’t.  It seems to me that a few are concerned about reproducing the Nordic phenotype, but that most aren’t.  Let those who are concerned choose their partners as they will.


39

Posted by chris w on Sat, 28 May 2005 20:32 | #

Kubilai:
Chris, I do believe you are a GNXPer and this infatuation with breeding Whites out of existence, especially with Asians, is not only disturbing but also quite puerile.  Once done, it CANNOT be undone.  Stop treating the White race as your next high school science project.

lol.  You seem to have the impression that I’m advocating a Eugenic program to force reproduction between Nordics and Asians. Yup, first I’m going to establish a Eurasian Nationalist Bolshevik Vanguard Party, and we’re going to enact a putsch against the Russian government.  Once we secure our control of Russia, we’ll conquer all of Eurasia—from Shanghai to Gibraltar—for a new Eurasian superstate.  Then we’ll force Norwegians to live in Beijing, and Chinese to live in Stockholm, so that gradually, a new Eurasian master race shall arise!  Muahahahahahahaha!

No, seriously, I’m not advocating any such thing.  As I said earlier, I’m in favor of a fairly restrictive immigration policy, and I’m not in favor of forcing any group to intermingle with any other group.  So if you’re concerned about preserving your Nordic phenotype, go out and and father lots of Nordic children with a Nordic women.  You have my assurances that I won’t organize a plot to stop you grin


40

Posted by chris w on Sat, 28 May 2005 20:43 | #

I wrote:
White Americans may very well become increasingly alarmed by the Balkanization of the country, but I don’t think they will ever share your alarm regarding the Mediterranean-ization or Eurasian-ization of the predominant national phenotype.  Nobody cares about that.

Ben Tillman responded:
Where are your data?  What is your sample?  Certainly some care, and it’s a safe bet that it’s an overwhelming majority.

It is true that my observations haven’t been scientifically rigorous.  However, there is an easy way to determine the importance that people place upon replicating their phenotype: Let people choose the marriage partner they find appropriate (of whatever ethnicity they find appropriate), and have as many children that they find appropriate.  Those are are concerned about replicating their phenotype will mate with those who are least a carrier of those phenotypic traits, whereas those who are not concerned won’t.


41

Posted by Svigor on Sat, 28 May 2005 20:52 | #

Chris, is there not a difference between an informed opinion and an uninformed one?  Is there not a difference between a white population subjected to 50+ years of hostile race-indoctrination and one not?  Is there not a difference between a population made aware of Salter’s theories and a population prevented from being aware of them?

Is there not a difference between a person who “chooses” to put a gun to his head believing it shoots joy bullet and a person who knows precisely what a gun does?


42

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Sat, 28 May 2005 20:55 | #

It’s clear this guy chris w is a complete zero.


43

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Sat, 28 May 2005 20:58 | #

He’s getting his fifteen minutes of fame here.


44

Posted by GayLikeAFox on Sat, 28 May 2005 21:07 | #

Just a few loose ends worth tying up…

For one, the African-American birth rate is not “far below replacement” as Chris W. asserted.  Blacks are actually the only ethnic group in the U.S. that we can be certain is replacing itself—the Afro-American tfr is 2.2, whereas the tfr for whites and Asians is around 1.8.  (Though the black birth rate is falling whereas the birth rates for whites and Asians have stabilized.)  Hispanics have a higher tfr than blacks, but they aren’t really an ethnic group and so many of them are illegal immigrants, not Americans, that it’s difficult to talk confidently of Hispanic-American fertility.

As for homosexuals dominating the fashion industry, this is pretty obvious and it may account for some of the disconnection between what the modelling industry and the majority find ideal.  (If you want to see what most heterosexual men are lusting after, look at the pin-up girls on the walls in college dorms.  High-end fashion models, in comparison, are an acquired taste.) 

On the other hand, such quasi-attractive supermodels may be successful because the appreciation of uncommon aesthetics serves to seperate the elite from the hoi-polloi.  In other words, maybe the unusual-looking model is just a walking, breathing equivalent of all sorts of avant-garde art movements in that the upper classes teach themselves to appreciate her appearance so they can define themselves as seperate from/superior to the blue-collar guys down the street drooling over the big-boobed blonde girl-next-door type.

Finally, I’m a dark-haired, dark-eyed Med and while I personally find Nordics and Meds equally attractive (in general) and wouldn’t personally care if one type replaced the other in the U.S., I sympathize with people who want to preserve the Nordic component in this country.  If this were any country but the U.S. and the group in question were any race except white, the idea that massive immigration should be allowed to dissolve a distinct people would be unthinkable.  Besides, the people who want to usher in this brave new raceless world aren’t going to stop at Nords.  They seem to want to mix all the races into one giant pot, which would just be a disaster.  (Humankind, like any species, benefits immensely from biodiversity.)  So even if you prefer Lebanese or Chinese or black women to Nords, you might as well stand up for the preservation of the latter just for the sake of principle.  Otherwise, your own people (or the type you prefer) may be the next to fall to the “one world, one people” juggernaut.


45

Posted by chris on Sat, 28 May 2005 21:09 | #

JW Holiday:
Chris’ arguments themselves are irrelevant.  It is the same as with JJR – confusing what is popular, or what they think is popular, with what is correct.  Whether or not degenerate whites prefer Eurasian mixes to Nordics (which I doubt) is not relevant to whether such admixture is in the interests of the population.  It is not in the interest of a diabetic with high cholesterol to eat a stack of pancakes smothered with butter and syrup.  However, I know people who do so.  So what?  They are self-destructive and stupid.  As are miscegenationists.

I thought you guys were attacking multiculturalism on the grounds that it is an imposition that interferes with people’s natural tendency to associate with their own kind.  If people are naturally inclinded to associate with a person of the same racial phenotype, that would indicate that the number of “degenerates” who partake in miscegenation would remain small enough to become negligible.  If the number of “degenerates” who race-mix becomes sufficiently large to cause a particular phenotype to disappear, perhaps that is an indication that people have no “natural” inclinatation to preserve their phenotype at all.


46

Posted by chris w on Sat, 28 May 2005 21:13 | #

gaylikeafox:
For one, the African-American birth rate is not “far below replacement” as Chris W. asserted.  Blacks are actually the only ethnic group in the U.S. that we can be certain is replacing itself—the Afro-American tfr is 2.2, whereas the tfr for whites and Asians is around 1.8

My mistake—nonetheless, it is down from 2.5 in 1990:

http://www.prcdc.org/summaries/blacks/blacks.html


47

Posted by Sybach on Sat, 28 May 2005 21:17 | #

Beat that strawman well while you’re about it, eh?  The high fashion industry is dominated by homosexuals.  The idea that subverting a population’s aesthetic tastes towards one’s own conflicts with profit-making is absurd.  All of Hollywood and Madison Avenue stand in contradiction of the idea.

I don’t see your point. Hollywood makes money by pandering to the aesthetic tastes of the general populace. If whites really found non-whites like Ms. Mohan so masculine, or, in the context of Hollywood, glorification of inter-racial relationships in movies, TV shows, etc. so disgusting, all we’d have to do is boycott their products. Regardless of what the fruticakes in Hollywood and the fashion world think of feminine beauty, if whites simply stopped consuming any and all media revolving around non-whites, these gays would scramble to hire white models, actresses, etc. The fact that whites have yet to do so is an indication that most of us don’t find other races as horridly unpalatable as you do.

Personally, I can’t say that mixed-race people are as utterly abhorrent as you guys say they are. Having a few white genes is better than none, in my view.

Tillman: I still don’t believe I’m asking anything very difficult, but perhaps you’ve misunderstood me. What studies have you consulted that actively disprove chris_w’s assertion and show that whites would be very concerned regarding the Mediterranean-ization or Eurasian-ization of the predominant national phenotype? I’m actually curious; if somebody’s done a study on this, it would make fascinating reading.


48

Posted by James Bowery on Sat, 28 May 2005 21:22 | #

This is actually pretty hilarious.  Newsweek’s circulation is flagging and what they’re doing to try and ramp it up is make more noise than the next rag.  They’re also trying to appeal to the “new Americans” since they don’t know how to appeal to anyone else and its easier to appeal to new Americans with race baiting crap like this since the new Americans are a lot more racist than the original Americans—and their hypocrisy is without any comparison at all.

Indeed a lot of the media bias toward this sort of racial destruction of their homeland is probably so they can have a larger and easier market base to sell to.


49

Posted by chris w on Sat, 28 May 2005 21:25 | #

Svigor:
Chris, is there not a difference between an informed opinion and an uninformed one?  Is there not a difference between a white population subjected to 50+ years of hostile race-indoctrination and one not?  Is there not a difference between a population made aware of Salter’s theories and a population prevented from being aware of them?

Ah, but I thought it was people’s natural inclination to breed with their own racial type.  If that’s the case, then they shouldn’t have to be versed in a specific evolutionary theory before doing so.  Remember, scientific theory isn’t normative, but descriptive.

Your argument that pro-miscegenation media propaganda is responsible for current race-mixing isn’t convincing, because it ignores the fact that race-mixing also occured when white supremacy was the dominant paradigm.  From the beginning of the early colonial period, numerous American Indians detribalized themselves, joined white settlements, and intermarried with white settlers.  After General Sheridan defeated the Minnesota Sioux, the Dawes Act was passed, which allowed scores of thousands of American Indians to acquire plots of private land for farming and to become American citizens.  They also intermarried with the white settlers of the upper midwest.  If people were naturally inclined to mate with their racial types prior to the dissemination of pro-miscegenation propaganda, why did individual states feel the need to draft anti-miscegenation laws, if not to stop people who miscegenated in spite of white supremacist paradigm that society at large accepted?


50

Posted by Svigor on Sat, 28 May 2005 21:42 | #

Chris:
If the number of “degenerates” who race-mix becomes sufficiently large to cause a particular phenotype to disappear, perhaps that is an indication that people have no “natural” inclinatation to preserve their phenotype at all.

All said while neatly avoiding my questions, which go right to the heart of the matter.

I don’t see your point. Hollywood makes money by pandering to the aesthetic tastes of the general populace.

Hollywood makes money by perpetrating race/culture-war while seeing how far from the tastes of the general populace it can diverge.  Despite losers like Alexander, they continue to pump out their propaganda.  They refused to bankroll or distribute The Passion of the Christ, despite how gloriously obvious it is that America is starving for honest Christian entertainment (rather than race-culture warfare like The Last Temptation of Christ).  We see how much money Hollywood made pandering to popular tastes with that one (what, 600 million in box office sales alone into Mel’s pocket?).

Want another?  How about The Chronicles of Riddick starring outlier poster-boy Vin Diesel, which never made its money back at the box office either?

If whites really found non-whites like Ms. Mohan so masculine,

She’s relatively masculine, she isn’t absolutely masculine.  She’s an attractive woman, and that is the context of the discussion - attractive women.

or, in the context of Hollywood, glorification of inter-racial relationships in movies, TV shows, etc. so disgusting, all we’d have to do is boycott their products.

That’s nice.  Spoken like someone who’s given no thought to the issue.  Btw, if Alexander’s “success” isn’t in effect a boycott, what is?

The fact that whites have yet to do so is an indication that most of us don’t find other races as horridly unpalatable as you do.

I don’t find other races horridly unpalatable, nor do I think your opinions (or popular opinions) of them were formed in a vacuum.

GayLikeAFox:
I sympathize with people who want to preserve the <blank> component in this country.

That’s all anyone can reasonably demand. (I edited your quote only to make it non-specific).


51

Posted by Svigor on Sat, 28 May 2005 21:48 | #

Ah, but I thought it was people’s natural inclination to breed with their own racial type.

Again you treat a complex issue as if it was a simple one.  Yes, that is the natural inclination, just as most people are naturally inclined against suicide.  However, groups depend on interaction to erect barriers against the inflow of alien genes, and this group interaction is massively propagandized against.

For example, it is a group’s natural instinct to round up a posse and lynch aliens for sleeping with or chasing their women, but this is both illegal and, more importantly socially taboo because of the media.  Similarly, group opprobrium against miscegenation is vital in protecting group genetic interests, but propaganda has led people to erect and obey taboos against that opprobrium.

I’m not a genetic determinist, and I don’t know how to satisfy you if that’s who you’re looking to argue with because I don’t know any.


52

Posted by Sybach on Sat, 28 May 2005 22:01 | #

Svigor, you would have a point if the failure of “Alexander” and “The Chronicles of Riddick” were representative of all movies starring non-whites. Unfortunately, it seems you haven’t really done much research. For instance, “Are we there yet?” a film starring a Negro, has made quite a bit of money—82,301,521 dollars, so far. “Guess Who’s Coming to Dinner,” a movie revolving entirely around an inter-racial relationship, has grossed a total of 67,962,333 dollars. Quite good. If whites in general share your racial views, why have these two movies done so well?


53

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Sat, 28 May 2005 22:05 | #

For the record, btw, I find all types of white women equally attractive, without any preference whatsoever for or against blonde or red hair, blue eyes, or fair skin.  I’ve always found dark Mediterranean women equal to fair Scandinavian women in physical attractiveness, no more and no less (and every variety of white women in between).  What I will say is I’ve always found white women in general, be they fair or dark, the most attractive physically of the world’s races and it’s not even close.  I’ll add that for me, that doesn’t depend at all on the color of their skin, hair, or eyes.  A white woman I find attractive could have jet-black skin and I’d find her—all other things about her being equal—exactly as attractive as with white skin.


54

Posted by Lurker on Sat, 28 May 2005 22:16 | #

Julia Roberts - its great to hear that Im not the only bloke never to have found old horse face attractive!


55

Posted by Sybach on Sat, 28 May 2005 22:17 | #

Similarly, group opprobrium against miscegenation is vital in protecting group genetic interests, but propaganda has led people to erect and obey taboos against that opprobrium.

I’ll notice you don’t really address chris_w’s example, Svigor. During the days of the Dawes Act, there was no Hollywood pumping out “anti-white” propaganda. There was nothing coercing whites to intermarry with Native Americans. So then why did whites marry these non-whites if the media wasn’t encouraging them to?


56

Posted by Svigor on Sat, 28 May 2005 22:22 | #

Sybach, my point is that Hollywood accepts the risks involved because it has more interests than just money, and that movies that consist of warfare against the majority succeed in spite of this not because of it.

Look at how many movies have been made about THE Holocaust; are you suggesting that profit is the only motive here?  If so, why don’t we have any flicks about the Holodomor, or the Soviet gulags?

I think it’s you who hasn’t thought this through properly.

Have you ever considered why Jews flock to Hollywood as if obeying some biological imperative, like lemmings over a cliff?  If profit is their only motive, why are they not more evenly distributed in other industries?

They want to control what we think, that’s why; that’s EGI at work right there, right under your nose.  The short-term profits of moviemaking are one thing, long-term profits of group safety granted by controlling how others see you (among other things) is a whole other ball game.


57

Posted by Svigor on Sat, 28 May 2005 22:27 | #

Sorry, I must’ve missed the example in question because I don’t know what you’re referring to.

I don’t know anything about the time in question so how can I answer?  My guess is that the numbers were minimal and occurred at the fringes.  Humans are notorious sluts ( smile ), and I don’t pretend that a tendency is a hard rule as your strawman does.


58

Posted by Sybach on Sat, 28 May 2005 22:38 | #

Look at how many movies have been made about THE Holocaust; are you suggesting that profit is the only motive here?  If so, why don’t we have any flicks about the Holodomor, or the Soviet gulags?

An astute question, but one I have a answer for. Americans just don’t care about Stalin’s gulags. Remember, in WWII, the USSR was our ally and Nazi Germany our enemy. (Now, whether the U.S was engineered into that war or not is something I don’t want to get into here…there are a few other threads in MR which deal with that smile )Thus, films exaggerating Nazi crimes, such as the Holocaust, will make more money because Americans want to be reassured that the power they fought in WWII was the bad guy.

Have you ever considered why Jews flock to Hollywood as if obeying some biological imperative, like lemmings over a cliff?  If profit is their only motive, why are they not more evenly distributed in other industries?

Simple—for the same reasons blacks flock to the NFL and Indians to hotel management. Jews are attracted to media because they have skills which they can profit off most of in that field. They’re not active in other professions (such as professional sports) because they’re just not good at them. Jews have very high verbal IQs, so it makes sense for them to flock to fields where they can capitalize on that trait.

As for chris_w’s example, since you overlooked it, here it is:
From the beginning of the early colonial period, numerous American Indians detribalized themselves, joined white settlements, and intermarried with white settlers.  After General Sheridan defeated the Minnesota Sioux, the Dawes Act was passed, which allowed scores of thousands of American Indians to acquire plots of private land for farming and to become American citizens.  They also intermarried with the white settlers of the upper midwest.

chris_w’s question (and mine) still stands—if it’s Hollywood propaganda that’s encouraging miscegenation among whites, why were we marrying Indians years before Hollywood rose to power?


59

Posted by Svigor on Sat, 28 May 2005 22:59 | #

Your question is flawed.  If I gave the impression that the mass media is the only cause of intermarriage, then I was wrong to do so.  That said, your question falls flat.

An astute question, but one I have a answer for. Americans just don’t care about Stalin’s gulags.

I’m starting to doubt your sincerity.  I know that’s not intellectually rigorous, but really, what am I to think?  Americans only care about the Third Reich’s camps and not about the Soviet (they weren’t just Stalin’s) camps because Jews only make movies about the former, and have a taboo on the latter.  Tell me about this grass-roots interest in THE Holocaust that predated the Jewish onlsaught, I’m interested now.

Remember, in WWII, the USSR was our ally and Nazi Germany our enemy.

Translation: remember the Soviets were our erstwhile ally during WWII, and please forget the Cold War.

With regard to GWCTD, just speculating here, but shock value does sell sometimes, and this might’ve been especially so back then when we were all still much less aware of how the left operates.

Regarding AWTY, I think white America is far less averse to paying to see negro antics when miscegenation isn’t involved (Vanessa’s whiteness notwithstanding). 

Still, even you must acknowledge that Hollywood faces limits to its efforts at social engineering; Will Smith admits publically that Hollywood doesn’t put non-white males with white females because it pisses off white ticket-buyers.

Simple—for the same reasons blacks flock to the NFL and Indians to hotel management.

Indians flock to hotel management because of government handouts (sorry can’t remember my source). 

Jews are attracted to media because they have skills which they can profit off most of in that field. They’re not active in other professions (such as professional sports) because they’re just not good at them. Jews have very high verbal IQs, so it makes sense for them to flock to fields where they can capitalize on that trait.

You can’t explain Hollywood’s overwhelming ethnic character away without nepotism, and simple talent isn’t good enough.  60% Jewish in a 2-3% Jewish nation?  Sorry, their verbal IQs aren’t that friggin’ high - run the numbers, there are millions more high IQ white non-Jews in this country than high IQ Jews.

Your football vs. Hollywood bit doesn’t explain why Jews don’t flock to areas where they can’t influence public opinion or seek tribal advantage.


60

Posted by Sybach on Sat, 28 May 2005 23:16 | #

Translation: remember the Soviets were our erstwhile ally during WWII, and please forget the Cold War.

Actually, there were quite a few anti-Soviet movies during the Cold War—Red Dawn deals with the prospect of Soviet invasion, for instance.

Tell me about this grass-roots interest in THE Holocaust that predated the Jewish onlsaught, I’m interested now.

One more thing to remember is that American soldiers actually *saw* Hitler’s concentration camps. American soldiers marching through Germany gave many candid accounts of Hitler’s concentration camps and their inmates. The same cannot be said of the USSR’s gulags, since American soldiers didn’t set foot in them Thus, many whites watch Holocaust movies could say, “hey! That’s what my grandpappy saw!” but they won’t have the same visceral reaction to Stalin’s gulags.

You can’t explain Hollywood’s overwhelming ethnic character away without nepotism, and simple talent isn’t good enough.  60% Jewish in a 2-3% Jewish nation?  Sorry, their verbal IQs aren’t that friggin’ high - run the numbers, there are millions more high IQ white non-Jews in this country than high IQ Jews.

If I implied that ethnic nepotism played absolutely no part in the Jewish dominance of the media, I was wrong to do so, and I apologize. However, I should add that Jews are over-represented in other fields beyond the media. They are disproportionately represented in medecine, for instance. I don’t have the exact citation with me (Give me some time to dig through my books, I should be able to find it within a couple of days) but as I recall, FAR more than 2-3% of Jews were doctors.


61

Posted by gaylikeafox on Sat, 28 May 2005 23:26 | #

In regards to interracial mating, it has existed since the dawn of time and will exist forever.  Nonetheless, the desire to associate with one’s own kind is still very real.  I was in college a mere five years ago and High School ten years ago, and despite all the talk about diversity and inclusion, the social groups pretty much divided up along racial lines in both instances—sure, there were a few blacks in the “white” groups and more whites in the “black” groups, and the other minority individuals kind of fell wherever, but the human tendency to segregate was nevertheless in evidence.  What impresses me in retrospect is how accepted this was, and how no one really saw it as a problem until some ideologues at my college tried to make it one.  So I don’t think that a history of interracial dating really disproves the idea that people USUALLY act on shared genetic (i.e. tribal) intersts.  The question is, if not for the massive propaganda machine that is the mass media and Hollywood, would interracial couples become the norm?  There’s really no way of testing that question, but my suspicion, just from what I’ve seen in my own life, is “No”.


62

Posted by Svigor on Sat, 28 May 2005 23:43 | #

Actually, there were quite a few anti-Soviet movies during the Cold War—Red Dawn deals with the prospect of Soviet invasion, for instance.

Exceptions that prove the rule.  That’s a dodge though, I’m talking about the total lack of any Gulag or Holodomor flicks and the total hyperbolic oversaturation of Holocaust flicks.

One more thing to remember is that American soldiers actually *saw* Hitler’s concentration camps. American soldiers marching through Germany gave many candid accounts of Hitler’s concentration camps and their inmates.

The same cannot be said of the USSR’s gulags, since American soldiers didn’t set foot in them Thus, many whites watch Holocaust movies could say, “hey! That’s what my grandpappy saw!” but they won’t have the same visceral reaction to Stalin’s gulags.

This is a bit of a stretch, since the promotion of THE Holocaust industry didn’t even start until the late sixties.  Have you noticed how Hollywood’s handling of the Third Reich has trended steadily towards demonization and away from relative amity as time passes?

I’m not saying it’s an invalid point, just that it doesn’t begin to wash as an explanation.  Further, G.I.s passed on memories of the liberation of the camps, and nothing more.  Films about THE Holocaust are much broader in scope than this.


63

Posted by Svigor on Sat, 28 May 2005 23:54 | #

I should add that I confused Are We There Yet? with another movie, the black road-trip flick with Cedric and Vanessa Williams.


64

Posted by J Richards on Sat, 28 May 2005 23:57 | #

Response to comments on my post:

Edgar and Sybach: Figure 5 focuses on nostril shapes and Figure 6 focuses on the nasal bone; the white women in these figures do not have to be highly attractive, and I have used a mix of attractive and not very attractive white women.  Figure 7 shows beautiful white women, not the most beautiful white women, all of whom are clearly more attractive with respect to facial anatomy compared to Saira Mohan, which neither of you seems to dispute.  The fact that even more attractive white women exist underscores the absurdity of Armand Marie Leroi calling Saira Mohan a great beauty.  Besides, since Saira Mohan is somewhat masculinized, I decided to include pictures of white women with some slightly masculinized traits to show that the white women are still more attractive.  Thus, only the top-left woman in Figure 7 is overwhelmingly feminine; the top-right woman displays slight masculinization in the form of facial narrowing and a squared jaw; and the two women at the bottom manifest somewhat less feminine glabellar (forehead) projection.   

GayLikeAFox: My post does not focus on pigmentation but skeletal/soft tissue traits instead.  Therefore, I did not address some of the recessive genetics associated with pigmentation, which is well-known anyway.  There are also some recessive genes associated with skeletal/soft tissue traits and these recessive genes are more prevalent among whites, accounting for why white/non-white admixtures often overwhelmingly possess the facial features of the non-white parent.  The last statement requires extensive documentation and I will be posting it—in parts—in the future.

Sybach: Using pictures of the likes of Julia Roberts is not necessary since they are well known.  Julia Roberts, Monica Bellucci (just see her without make-up), and Angelica Bridges are less attractive than the women in Figure 7; Jenna Jameson has low-class looks; more refined looks and I could have used her.  Saira Mohan is not paid good money because some people find her feminine, but because gay men call the shots in the high fashion industry and naturally prefer women with facial masculinization; see here (a page from where I got two of the pictures in my post) and here.  Speaking of ?Hindoo,? Hindoo is a variant of Hindu, and you have already figured out which variant I prefer.   

Ben Tillman: You are correct in that familiarity is somewhat related to perceived physical attractiveness.  However, my focus is on the biological correlates of multiple average traits.  You may be interested in knowing that even infants aged 14-151 hours prefer faces with multiple average traits, clearly at an age where socialization cannot be responsible for the preference [see: Infant Behav Dev 1998;21:345?54].


65

Posted by Svigor on Sat, 28 May 2005 23:59 | #

The argument can of course be made (flying in the face of any sort of objective assessment of Jewry) that the Allied liberation of the camps allowed for an “in,” a “hook” so to speak, but that begs the question, weren’t millions of schoolkids cowering under their desks and the other popular manifestations of the Red Scare just as exploitable an “in” for Gulag or Holodomor flicks?


66

Posted by J Richards on Sat, 28 May 2005 23:59 | #

Response to comments on my post:

Chris W: My post has almost nothing to do with evolution; I didn?t even mention evolution.  And, what is this talk about blonde women?  I have clearly asked the reader to ignore pigmentation because the focus is on skeletal and some soft tissue traits.  Besides, some of the blonde women shown are peroxide blonde, not natural blonde.  You would have obviously noted the dark-haired, dark-eyed, and dark-skinned white woman at the bottom right in Figure 7; she is from central Europe.  Nowhere in my post do I ask dark-haired white people to feel affinity for Nordics.  My post is not about Nordics.  It just happens to be the case that fine-featured people are more prevalent in Northern Europe, and if I am to display some fine-featured whites, a large proportion of them will be Northern European and hence several will also have light hair.  This doesn?t mean that I am promoting light-haired individuals; light hair is simply accompanying the facial features that I am selecting people for.  The link that you provide to some pictures of Lebanese women do an excellent job of proving my point: these women are either white or close, yet not one of them has the fine facial features that you would see in attractive Northern Europeans.  Therefore, if I select fine-featured Europeans, you know that light hair would get selected for indirectly since most such Europeans would be coming from Northern Europe.  You have to be under some major delusion if you believe that most blondes do not have a problem breeding with other races.  Besides, what is primarily at stake in race mixing is not loss of blonde hair, but the fine facial features that will be lost to the ancestral traits much more extensively retained among non-Europeans.  Most curiously, you accuse me of proposing anti-miscegenation laws!  Where did I make this proposal?  Nowhere!  The purpose of my post is to inform clueless whites, not to propose legislation. Further, what is this talk of racial ?purity??  I didn?t mention any such thing, and I don?t know what this concept is supposed to mean.  Perhaps you can explain.  Besides, it is interesting that you accuse Fred Scrooby of false representation of your motives.  How about your own representation of my motives? 

Onetwothree: If you believe that the alternative pictures that you link to are more attractive, on average, than the white women that I have shown, you likely like masculinized women because the pictures that you have linked to are those of fashion models, who typically have somewhat masculinized facial features.

JW Holliday: Read my reply to Chris W above concerning the fact that my focus is on fine-featured whites, which are most extensively found among Northern Europeans; the high prevalence of light hair is an unselected correlate that disproportionately accompanies people with the facial features that I was looking for.  You are right that genetic interests should be emphasized, and I will be translating the genetic interests to practical concerns such as aesthetics, health, IQ, etc., or else the likes of David B of GNXP will keep insisting that the notion of genetic interests is mystical.  Posting pictures is of excellent value in clarifying several issues, and when combined with the latest research in physical anthropology—which now uses lasers to measure complex structures, describing them using geometric morphometrics—provides a sophisticated understanding of physical variation that cannot be attributed to subjective perceptions; just wait for me to start posting on some of the cool recent analyses in physical anthropology.


67

Posted by Ephraim on Sun, 29 May 2005 00:13 | #

“It is commonly observed that African-Americans generally hold the looks of notably “whitified” persons such as Halle Berry or Vanessa Williams in higher regard than the looks of the black Africans from West Africa from whom they are descended.  Similarly, some Asians undergo corrective surgery to straighten their eyelids (blepharoplasty), reduce the size of their cheekbones (malarplasty), make their nose more projecting (rhinoplasty), etc.  On the other hand, whites who undergo cosmetic facial surgery never try to acquire the facial features of black Africans or flat-faced Asians; rather, they attempt to acquire classic Northern European facial traits.”

Quick question, Mr. Richards—I notice that you’ve referenced most of your other assertions, but failed to provide a note for this one. Which studies are you citing here?


68

Posted by Guessedworker on Sun, 29 May 2005 04:35 | #

JR,

Thanks for an excellent post giving rise to a very invigorating debate.  Your point re: Nordics is well taken.

Sybach,

Fashion models, both catwalk and photographic, are generally not selected for male delectation but to serve as “fashion foils” for other females.  Their purpose is to show off the clothes they wear, not their own sexual attractiveness which would detract from their commercial value

Accordingly, there are very few if any conclusions to be drawn from them viz-a-vis the miscegenative desires, or otherwise, of white males.  However, when Newsweek presses the issue beyond clothes-horses and into miscegenation as an ideal a line has been crossed - and crossed very deliberately, no doubt.

As for the true desires of white males, maybe those are more accurately reflected in the range of phenotypes of soft porn models, as JR has said.

In approaching this issue generally, the normative view should clearly be that white populations have every right to cleave to their own natures, and not to be engineered for decades towards some infernal machine bearing the name, “Murray Rothstein”.  Since healthy (ie non-liberal) heterosexual whites don’t adequately control the images and messages produced by Hollywood and the advertising, music and, yes, fashion industries there is very little that can be construed from said images about whites themselves.

To hear our real collective voice now would require a lengthy moratorium on the output of these industries.  In the absence of that, I suggest the pro-miscegenists on the thread listen very carefully to the antis.


69

Posted by Arcane on Sun, 29 May 2005 05:27 | #

Saira Mohan is totally hot. You must be blind if you can’t see that.

Hmmm, speaking of beautiful “non-white” women, allow me to deface your website with some more beautiful “non-whites”:

Natalie Portman *drool*; Jewish; even better, she can speak five languages fluently!

Jessica Biel; part Choctaw

Paz Vega; Latino

Gwyneth Paltrow; Jewish

Eh, that’s enough for now…


70

Posted by Arcane on Sun, 29 May 2005 05:29 | #

In order:

Natalie Portman: Jewish
Jessica Biel: part Native American
Paz Vega: Latino
Gwyneth Paltrow: Jewish


71

Posted by Arcane on Sun, 29 May 2005 05:30 | #

Ugh, follow this link for the last one:

Stupid Google…


72

Posted by Arcane on Sun, 29 May 2005 05:31 | #

http://www.moviemaze.de/celebs/54/1.html


73

Posted by edgar on Sun, 29 May 2005 06:18 | #

However, groups depend on interaction to erect barriers against the inflow of alien genes…

Probably he most important comment in the thread. People make all sorts of decisions detrimental to group interests in the absence of enforcement. Group morality has to shape individuals unruly proximate desires. Whining about how some woman is ‘obviously’ more beautiful than another is irrelevant, tiresome and counter-productive. My aesthetic preference is for meds but my loyalty is to English women, even the most hideously ugly, because of ethnic solidarity, or, if you prefer, EGI’s.


74

Posted by Phil Peterson on Sun, 29 May 2005 06:27 | #

Arcane,

You’re hilarious. Arguing Jews are white one moment and then showing pictures of hot Jewish girls the next moment to prove non-white girls are hot.

Don’t you think you need to make up your mind? LOL

Saira Mohan is totally hot. You must be blind if you can’t see that.

She is good looking but she’s a bit too scrawny for my liking. Is she the world’s most beautiful woman? That’s debatable isn’t it? Or is this also modern theocracy that such questions cannot be debated because that would amount to “racism”? (chuckle)


75

Posted by Tournament of Champions on Sun, 29 May 2005 09:31 | #

Paltrow’s mom is wasp, and if u’ve ever seen pictures of her parents it’s clear her phenotype is from her anglo side, not her jewish looking dad. C’mon, blonde hair? That’s semitic? Look at her features, it’s all WASP.

Btw, is Leroi Jewish? I would say the odds are excellent.


76

Posted by Phil Peterson on Sun, 29 May 2005 09:48 | #

Btw, is Leroi Jewish? I would say the odds are excellent.

That’s what I thought too. He certainly doesn’t look ethnically Dutch in any way.


77

Posted by JW Holliday on Sun, 29 May 2005 10:11 | #

Chris:“I thought you guys were attacking multiculturalism on the grounds that it is an imposition that interferes with people’s natural tendency to associate with their own kind.”

No, Chris, I am against multiculturalism on the grounds that is destroys the genetic interests, as well as many of the proximate interests (sociopolitical/economic power, etc), of the majority ethny.  You are following the GNXP logical flaw of confusing “would” with “should.”  I don’t give a rat’s ass what people “would” do; I’m concerned with what people “should” do. 

Actually though, I do think if people were freed from media manipulation and were given the opportunity to make an informed choice, many (most?), but not all, of whites would choose to reject multiculturalism.  But, of course, they are not allowed to have this opportunity.  Why not?  If the pro-multis are so confident that they have “the people” with them, let’s open up the system, and see what happens.  No more forced integration, no more PC persecution of dissenting voices, no more media monopolization by pro-diversity forces.

We can also ask if miscegenation is so normal, and Asian immigration is so desirable, why don’t we see the reverse.  Instead, we have a situation in Korea of vicious persecution of the small population of mixed racers, where 40% (!) of such individuals there attempt suicide because of Asain xenophobic prejudice.  Of course, when Koreans immigrate to America, they demand their “rights” and will of course complain about “white racism.”  Of course.

As regards admixture with Indians in the past, so what?  I can imagine that a lot of horny westerners, often without avaliable white women, took advantage of the squaw’s desires to “breed up.”  But, even today, most people still breed within their race.  But as I said, I don’t care what the typical Oprah-loving fatass thinks or wants.  The question is - what is right.

As regards comments about “fine featured” people and all of that, everyone can post what they like.  My personal opinion is this emphasis on “fine featured Nordics”, if unbalanced by other considerations, is going to be problemmatical. If someone like David B is so silly as to to say “genes are mystical” they expose their own ignorance.  The problem with aesthetics is that they are subjective.  JR prefers fine featured Nordics.  Chris prefers Eurasians.  Fred has his own preferences.  So do I and everyone else. 

If someone is concerned with phenotype, then the argument should be framed that “these are our phenotypes, those of our parents, grandparents, and all our ancestors throughout the ages and they should be preserved.”  Saying that one set of phenotypes are “better” than another doesn’t cut it, and LeRoi falls into this trap as well.  His definition of beauty is not that of others.  And it is not relevant.  I think Negritoes are stone-ugly, and I suspect the average American dumbass would agree with me.  Does that mean Negritoes have no right to exist?  LeRoi would, probably, be offended by that argument.  Every group, regardless of phenotype, has an equal interest in its own existence as does any other group.


78

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Sun, 29 May 2005 11:05 | #

The problem with assholes like this LeRoi character and, more especially, the editors or string-pullers at Newsweek who published that article, is they’re constantly after whites to change into some other race.  We constantly hear “whites are bad, whites have to disappear, whites have to give what they have to others, whites are the cause of the problems in the Third World, whites have to genuflect before all nonwhites”—it never ends.  For some reason these people are anti-white to the point of wanting their extermination.  People who push that stuff aren’t just evil but are playing with fire that might end up burning them.  If it does they’ll have no one to blame but themselves.  Whites are getting sick of it—and of them.


79

Posted by Phil Peterson on Sun, 29 May 2005 11:57 | #

Fred,

Newsweek is now just a glossy rag with the credibility of “National Enquirer”. Stuff like this is a last ditch effort to scramble as much leadership in these dog days before the ship sinks.

The internet is hitting all major news media the hardest. And Americans have basically lost faith in the media as I had blogged earlier. That is a very healthy development.


80

Posted by Arcane on Sun, 29 May 2005 15:30 | #

Phil,
Don’t you think you need to make up your mind?

I see you still haven’t learned how to read yet… I put “non-white” in quotation marks, you silly fool, because according to you guys they aren’t white.


81

Posted by Phil Peterson on Sun, 29 May 2005 16:25 | #

I see you still haven’t learned how to read yet… I put “non-white” in quotation marks, you silly fool, because according to you guys they aren’t white.

You have been warned before for your foul mouthed behaviour. You can disagree with us and express your disagreement in a civil manner. Cross the lines of civility and you will be banned. We are not sitting here to listen to your insults and to your pontifications about your intellectual and moral superiority. You can express those virtues at GNXP, which is your natural home. 

I hope you can read that.

Ok, so the girls you showed were white according to you and therefore you put in the non-white in quotes. So how does this prove that race-mixing produces the best looking women? All the women you showed are phenotypically white and going by your thoery that Jews are white, Paltrow and Portman are fully white.

So before you shoot your mouth off like an errant teenage brat that hasn’t been taught courtesy and civility by his parents, think about these things a little.


82

Posted by Tournament of Champions on Sun, 29 May 2005 16:57 | #

Jews are caucasiod though of another ethny, and out to exterminate all the other ethnies in teh world, except maybe blacks and hispanics, whom are congenitally too dull to ever pose a threat to them. For that reason alone they are distinct.

Even if they were wholly English, they would still have to be treated as a gang of conmen and murderous free-riders.


83

Posted by ben tillman on Sun, 29 May 2005 17:17 | #

Tillman: I still don’t believe I’m asking anything very difficult, but perhaps you’ve misunderstood me. What studies have you consulted that actively disprove chris_w’s assertion and show that whites would be very concerned regarding the Mediterranean-ization or Eurasian-ization of the predominant national phenotype? I’m actually curious; if somebody’s done a study on this, it would make fascinating reading.

Sybach:

Unlike the other commenter, I do not think you have some burden of proof that I do not.  If I wish to convince you of something, my burden is to prove it to your satisfaction.  However, the point in contention is not sufficiently important to motivate me to expend much effort to that end.  I am not aware of studies of the sort you cite; rather, I am relying on my own observations and inferences, which I realize will not suffice to convince you of anything.

Ultimately, what people believe is interesting and important for other reasons, but cannot furnish much support for conclusions regarding “natural inclinations” under the present circumstances in which the apparatus of public opinion formation is controlled by a hostile ethny.


84

Posted by J Richards on Sun, 29 May 2005 17:38 | #

Ephraim: The point about African-American preferences is obvious.  If you live in the U.S., you would have observed the range of African-American phenotypes, and would have noted that the women in hip-hop videos and models in miscellaneous magazines catering to African-Americans are, on average, less black African-looking than the population norm.  Black supermodel Alek Wek has traditional black African facial features, but women with her facial features are not held in high aesthetic regard in the African-American community.  Speaking of some Asians trying to look less Asian, the Newsweek article linked to at the beginning of this post mentions it.  There are plenty of other sources in this regard; see here and do an internet search for related information.

Arcane: I have not said that Saira Mohan is not hot-looking; I have said that there are many white women more attractive than her and that Armand Marie Leroi?s notion that race-mixing should increase the physical attractiveness of the mixed offspring in no way applies to the potential offspring of the most attractive white people.  Besides, you do not strike me as a person who would argue that part-Jewish ancestry in a white-looking person makes the person non-white.  All the pictures that you have posted of ‘beautiful “non-white” women’ are those of white-looking women who do not look anything like the majority of humans that are non-white.  Since my post focuses on looks, if you want to provide examples of beautiful non-white women, come up with pictures of women who do not look white.  Besides, my post is not concerned with the comparative attractiveness of different races.  There are attractive people in all races.  However, because of racial differences in facial features, which can be extensive, depending on the races compared, one cannot have the same precise standards applied to all humans to judge their physical attractiveness.  More importantly, the attractiveness of the most beautiful whites cannot be enhanced via non-white admixture and will be undermined instead, which is central to my post.  The non-white ancestry in the women that you have posted is either negligible, minor or at least negligible/minor with respect to the genetics of external physical appearance.  Ignoring skin color, whereas it is possible for some white people to produce a child with better Caucasoid facial features by breeding with select Caucasoid-featured non-whites, Caucasoid non-white/white breedings on a large scale will, on average, result in less Caucasoid features in the offspring because the Caucasoid non-whites are not as Caucasoid?featured as whites, on average.  In any case, the most beautiful white people cannot hope to enhance their physical attractiveness by breeding with non-whites and will undermine it instead, and if you can argue against this, then I will be impressed.


85

Posted by J Richards on Sun, 29 May 2005 17:43 | #

Response to comments on my post:

JW Holliday: Aesthetics are not entirely subjective; individuals and races vary in their own preferences, but then individuals and races also vary in their looks; however, one can come up with objective criteria to judge the attractiveness of people within a race. For instance, the facial features of Europeans differ from that of non-Europeans along certain lines such as shape, size, proportions, and gracility (the technical word that applies to how fine the facial features are), and it is very clear that along these lines, independent of my or anybody else?s personal preferences, that the most European-looking people (not just based on pigmentation) are disproportionately found among Northern Europeans.  The latter has been known for a quite a while.  For instance, an old classification of Europeans divided them into three major groups: Homo Mediterraneous (Southern Europeans), Homo Alpinus (Central Europeans), and a third group, which you may expect to have been classified as Homo Nordicus, but the term used was Homo Europeaus, clearly reflecting who is most European-looking.  Now, none of this is supposed to argue that Southern/Central/Eastern European people are somehow less European or that their genetic interests are in any way of less concern to that of Northern Europeans, but they are less European-looking than Northern Europeans with respect to a looks gradient between Europeans and non-Europeans, where the gradient distinguishes Europeans from non-Europeans with respect to both pigmentation and facial anatomy, and the Northern Europeans cluster at one end of this gradient.  Therefore, independent of my or anybody else?s personal preferences, most people referred to in an objective discussion of beautiful white people will invariably be Northern European.  This is not to argue that some European populations are more attractive than others.  Obviously, a very attractive European from any European nation would be more attractive than most Europeans in any other European nation, yet it cannot be objectively argued—with respect to the aforementioned gradient—that the most attractive Europeans will represent all European populations in the same proportions as the population size ratios; Northern Europeans will be disproportionately overrepresented.  I guess that I need to come up other posts on beauty to clarify these issues, and I will work on them.  I appreciate your point that population-typical looks, irrespective of the specifics of the looks, should be preserved with reference to genetic interests, but we all greatly appreciate beauty, and I believe that by focusing on white beauty and making it clear that white beauty cannot be enhanced and will be undermined via non-white admixture, some unconcerned people could possibly be made to reevaluate the merits of race mixing.

Phil Peterson: Arcane does resort to name-calling, but he is also an intelligent opponent, and in the spirit of free speech and also the desirability of decent critiques, which I hope he provides, just ignore his name-calling and please do not ban him.  We don?t want to end up like GNXP by banning those capable of providing decent critiques.  Let it be clear that our opponents can only resort to name-calling because they do not have a valid critique.


86

Posted by ben tillman on Sun, 29 May 2005 18:18 | #

The short-term profits of moviemaking are one thing, long-term profits of group safety granted by controlling how others see you (among other things) is a whole other ball game.

Correct.  And this underlies the actions of both Hollywood and Madison Avenue.  Case in point:  Mel Gibson’s The Passion of the Christ.  He offered a pot of gold to every Jew in Hollywood.  And every Jew declined the offer.


87

Posted by Svigor on Sun, 29 May 2005 20:32 | #

I see you still haven’t learned how to read yet… I put “non-white” in quotation marks, you silly fool, because according to you guys they aren’t white.

All the reading you’ve supposedly done on WNism, and you still can’t grok the simple stuff.  There’s more than one definition of white, you silly fool.  The white in White Nationalism is quited different from the white that means “Caucasoid.”  When you pare away the nitwits in WNism (of which we have more than our share it seems), you end up with people who draw not a racial line between Jews and Whites, but a tribal one.  They’re politically non-white, they have chosen to be so, and I respect that choice.


88

Posted by Svigor on Sun, 29 May 2005 21:01 | #

To those above who have pontificated as to the racial preferences of “vast majorities of whites,” let me just state that I rub elbows mostly with white working-class southerners.  I say to you, you know jack shit about what the “overwhelming majority” of them believes.  “Nigger” and “spic” are well-worn entries in their lexica.

Is that too anecdotal?  Try this on then:
http://politics.guardian.co.uk/polls/story/0,11030,1126197,00.html

If memory serves an American survey returned very similar results.

Try not to sample your own peer-group and apply it to everyone.

More on the joys of multiculturalism (and so much for “civility”):
http://www.vdare.com/sailer/honk_link.htm


89

Posted by Svigor on Sun, 29 May 2005 22:00 | #

Lost in all this is that the ultimate, unassailable, emotional drive I have for particularism is precisely what Mr. Richards is expounding in this thread.

IQ, civility, individualism, etc., are all debatable; my aesthetic preference for my race is not.


90

Posted by Ephraim on Sun, 29 May 2005 23:03 | #

Hmm. Interestin’ site you gave me, Richards. It mentioned how one possible explanation for Asians getting this surgery was to look more white, but it also offered up a few others. Here they are:

most common reasons for having the procedure are convenience, cutting down the time it takes to put on makeup, and ending the routine swelling and puffiness that constitute what is referred to among many Asian women as a “bad eye day.”

Funny…these seem like solid, pragmatic reasons for getting this surgery that have nothing to do with “looking more white.” Seems a lil’ odd that you neglected to mention these in your haste to support your assertions.


91

Posted by Random Lurker on Sun, 29 May 2005 23:40 | #

Well, hey. I have to admit, this is my first time commenting, but Phil Peterson’s accusation that Arcane was “name-calling” just had to bring me out of my shell…really now, Phil. If you want some REALLY great examples of ad hominem attacks, you don’t have to look any further than your own cronies. Ladies and Gentlemen—wait, make the Gentlemen, I haven’t seen any women around here—allow me to present to you, Fred Scrooby’s Greatest Hits!

This Lindsay character is such an asshole I don’t see how anyone can take him seriously.  I also replied to him, yes, but that was before I’d fully seen how degenerate and crazy he was.

Damn, a crazy, degenerate asshole, huh? Yep, Fred’s a real paragon of tact and consideration.

The guy’s just an absolute piece of excrement.

Gotta give Fred some credit—at least he didn’t outright drop the S-bomb, right?

this Mayflower-descended Lindsay piece of mental and moral disease.

A piece of mental and moral disease? Well, while we’re on the subject of name-calling, I guess I can give Fred some credit for creativity smile

It is gentiles like this excrement Lindsay—a Mayflower descendant, no less! what a turd!

I never knew turds could type. I think you were confusing Robert Lindsay with Mr. Hanky the Christmas Poo, Fred.

And all this is just from one thread! http://majorityrights.com/index.php/weblog/comments/http_majorityrightscom_indexphp_geoffs_135th_post/

‘course, the are plenty of other examples I can dig up, but quite frankly, ol’ Freddykins makes Arcane look like a gosh-darn saint. Remember what they said about glass houses and stones, Peterson. If you, along with the other bloggers at MR, want to castigate Arcane for his “name-calling,” you oughta say the same to all your little buddies like Fred.


92

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Mon, 30 May 2005 00:13 | #

I plead guilty, Random Lurker.  I’ll take the stern reprimand Phil gave Arcane as applying to me as well.  Maybe the fact I wasn’t banned over my treatment of Robert Lindsay shows that the bloggers here agreed with me that he was an especially egregious case—which, if true, would merit them a high compliment for excellent judgment.  But you’re right—I should’ve been reprimanded exactly as Arcane was tonight.  I apologise to the blog (not to Robert Lindsay, of course).


93

Posted by Arcane on Mon, 30 May 2005 03:19 | #

Phil,
I suggest you read what Random Lurker said, and then go back to all the threads where you verbally insulted people, including me, and start practicing what you preach. I only treat you the guys the way you treated me in the past, so before you go around banning people for offending you, perhaps you should consider banning some of your own first.

So how does this prove that race-mixing produces the best looking women?

I never said that race-mixing does produce the best looking women, on average. What I was pointing out was that there are many examples of mixed races producing quite beautiful people and that beauty is not limited to racial homogenity. And let me tell you what, I don’t know where you’ve been, but there are some absolutely dro-dead UGLY white women out there.

All the women you showed are phenotypically white and going by your thoery that Jews are white, Paltrow and Portman are fully white.

Absolutely correct.

The last girl a dated, a Jewish girl, was prettier than any of the pics of non-mixed white women that J. Richards posted, and more white, too!

J. Richards, you said:

I have not said that Saira Mohan is not hot-looking; I have said that there are many white women more attractive than her and that Armand Marie Leroi?s notion that race-mixing should increase the physical attractiveness of the mixed offspring in no way applies to the potential offspring of the most attractive white people.

I agree, but I simply have to say you need to find some better pictures of white women than those. Half of them look like they’re captures from adult films, and the other half look like adolescents. The one in the top-right corner of the larger grid is especially bad (but then, she’s really very Polish looking, and I was never a big fan of Polish women, so that’s just me).

If you want to post pics of beautiful white women, then may I suggest Kate Beckinsale, Sandra Bullock, Keira Knightley, Jennifer Garner, Milla Jovovich, Marija Vujovic, or Petra Nemcova (Natalie Portman or Jessica Biel, too)? Or are they not Nordic enough?

When I was in Britain a few weeks ago, there was no shortage of beautiful women. Just go to the UK for a while with a camera.

In any case, the most beautiful white people cannot hope to enhance their physical attractiveness by breeding with non-whites and will undermine it instead, and if you can argue against this, then I will be impressed.

If I could, I would be pretty impressed, too, so I must concede that point.

Besides, you do not strike me as a person who would argue that part-Jewish ancestry in a white-looking person makes the person non-white. All the pictures that you have posted of ‘beautiful “non-white” women’ are those of white-looking women who do not look anything like the majority of humans that are non-white.  Since my post focuses on looks, if you want to provide examples of beautiful non-white women, come up with pictures of women who do not look white.

Well, there are plenty of Asian women, too, but I don’t really have any names off the top of my head. I guess my point was that many on this blog don’t think that Jews are European [enough] to be listed right next to beautiful European women. Oh well…

Some of the most beautiful white women I have ever seen are Jewish, which gets to my next point:


94

Posted by Arcane on Mon, 30 May 2005 03:23 | #

Tournament, you said:

Paltrow’s mom is wasp, and if u’ve ever seen pictures of her parents it’s clear her phenotype is from her anglo side, not her jewish looking dad. C’mon, blonde hair? That’s semitic? Look at her features, it’s all WASP.

Google it. Look, there are lots of Jewish women who have blonde hair, especially those descended western Europe. Did you know that there are Arabs and Indians with red hair? There’s a lot more to a person than the color of their hair.

From what I can tell, GNXP seems to have gone down the crapper recently. Some combination of the disappearance of godless and the departure of any whites with a semblance of honor.

We miss Godless very much, however Gene Expression has not gone down to the tube, just changed its focus. You might notice that many GNXP bloggers haven’t blogged in a while… this is because the blog is moving from a fairly politically-oriented direction into a more science-oriented one. However, I don’t think this quote, which you said, is very honorable:

Jews are caucasiod though of another ethny, and out to exterminate all the other ethnies in teh world, except maybe blacks and hispanics, whom are congenitally too dull to ever pose a threat to them. For that reason alone they are distinct.

Even if they were wholly English, they would still have to be treated as a gang of conmen and murderous free-riders.

That’s why we started banning people. There are a heck of a lot of places where you can go and yap on all you want and hijack all the threads you want about Jews and how you think they should be ethnically cleansed. GNXP isn’t one of them. I have a feeling that’s why you say the things you say about the blog.

If you want to spew crap like that, why not go over to VNN or National Vanguard?

Oh yeah, that’s right… NatVan doesn’t allow commentators.

Look, I don’t like banning people, and I’ve banned a few. Mostly Nazis and far-left-wing megalomaniacs. If you guys could stay on topic, we wouldn’t have to ban people.


95

Posted by seelow heights on Mon, 30 May 2005 03:37 | #

I have to admit I haven’t had the patience to read through all these posts. But I did notice a reference to the the beauty of Europid-Mongoloid hybrids. I generally agree, but the champions of the beauty of this group tend to focus entirely on the females and ignore the males. I believe male EM’s tend to be effeminate in appearance and not very attractive to the opposite sex beyond the early teen years. Is there any data to refute me on this point? If my impressions are wrong it’s OK with me, unlike most of the GNXP crowd I do not fear the truth.


96

Posted by seelow heights on Mon, 30 May 2005 04:03 | #

The problem of threads like these is that they tend to draw out the jackal-like tendencies of posters like arcane. BTW, whatever happened to arcane’s promised dissection of Kevin Nacdonald’s Judaism trilogy. If I ever attempt to overreach to the extent that arcane does I hope someone hits me with a baseball bat.


97

Posted by Phil Peterson on Mon, 30 May 2005 05:17 | #

I suggest you read what Random Lurker said, and then go back to all the threads where you verbally insulted people, including me, and start practicing what you preach.

If we practised what we preach we would have already banned you by now. But we don’t believe in banning anyone as I hope you have understood by now.


98

Posted by Phil Peterson on Mon, 30 May 2005 05:18 | #

And let me tell you what, I don’t know where you’ve been, but there are some absolutely dro-dead UGLY white women out there.

Before shooting off again, find a quote where I said every white woman is beautiful or where I said there are no ugly white women. You must be imagining things.

Half your attacks on me here are based on things you imagine I said. There must something about us here that has got under your skin? What is it?


99

Posted by Phil Peterson on Mon, 30 May 2005 05:38 | #

where you verbally insulted people

If I have ever insulted people it is in retaliation. I don’t believe in turning the other cheek. But I never initiate insults.


100

Posted by J Richards on Mon, 30 May 2005 06:11 | #

Ephraim: What is the surgical solution for excess fat in the upper eyelid or droopy upper eyelids for Asians?  All one has to do is to remove the excess fat and trim the skin layer.  Besides, if the upper eyelid is not puffed up and the skin is not droopy, then there should not be a problem with applying make-up on the upper eyelid.  One does not have to create a crease/skin fold to solve the problem of puffy/droopy upper eyelids and attendant make-up issues.  Do you really expect Asians to admit that there is something ugly about a natural racial condition that they have and that they are trying to look white by correcting their eyelids?  Consider a related example.  Every now and then, a homosexual ends up in an emergency department with a stuck colorectal foreign body.  Such homosexuals typically explain the stuck objects ?in terms of accidental ingestion, deliberate insertion to disimpact feces, or accidents where they slipped and fell on the object lodged in their rectum,? (see here for the source).  Can one really believe such explanations?  People tend not to admit to the actual reasons for their behavior if the reasons are embarrassing.

Arcane: I do not know of readily available sources for pictures of nostrils other than X-rated sources.  By larger grid I presume you mean the one with more pictures, which would be Fig 5, and this collage focuses on nostrils; the women do not have to be really attractive for this collage; they just have to have aesthetically pleasing nostril shapes for whites.  Additionally, none of the women are adolescents.  From adolescence to adulthood, people tend to add some ruggedness to their facial features, but a number of Northern Europeans have such fine features that young adults among them still manifest the gracility of mid-/late-adolescents among other Caucasoids (this prompts me to come up with a post on this topic), which appears to be the reason that you believe that half of the white women that I have featured are adolescents.  Of the women that you have named, I am willing to use—as examples of beautiful white women—Kate Beckinsale and Petra Nemcova without hesitation but will hesitate about Natalie Portman and not use any of the others.  Natalie Portman looks really good in the picture that you have posted, but see her with her hair drawn back and a broad face (deviating from the aesthetic norm) is apparent; her profile (viewed from the side) is not very feminine due to a somewhat masculinized frontal portion of the lower jaw; and I do not like her lower jaw structure (just not classically European).  Jessica Biel lacks fine features and deviates from the European aesthetic norm on multiple counts.  Keira Knightley, Jennifer Garner and Milla Jovovich all have unambiguous facial masculinization and are good examples of attractive masculinized white women but not attractive feminine white women. Besides, Keira Knightley even has a pinched nasion (the region where the nose meets the forehead), which should never be the case in a really beautiful white person.  Finally, Marija Vujovic is not very European looking on multiple counts.  Once again, my post is not about Nordics, as I have explained above.


101

Posted by Phil Peterson on Mon, 30 May 2005 06:55 | #

I only treat you the guys the way you treated me in the past

Whatever slights you have suffered (real or imagined), the point I made earlier stands. If you insult the bloggers on this blog, we will first begin by deleting your posts and then we will ban you.

Free speech is not licence to do as you please.


102

Posted by Phil Peterson on Mon, 30 May 2005 07:05 | #

Phil Peterson: Arcane does resort to name-calling, but he is also an intelligent opponent, and in the spirit of free speech and also the desirability of decent critiques, which I hope he provides, just ignore his name-calling and please do not ban him.  We don?t want to end up like GNXP by banning those capable of providing decent critiques.

We are committed to free speech but within the bounds of civility.


103

Posted by Guessedworker on Mon, 30 May 2005 08:23 | #

Can I clarify the rule regarding civility.  If mere swearing was the yardstick we would likely all be at read-only sites.  We all swear, don’t we?

But there is a point at which ad hominem is motivated by an attempt to shut-down or delegitimise opposing arguments or to demonise the opposition.  A free speech blog, which we are, can support loose language but not if it masks an attempt at censorship.  I include disruption as a form of censorship.

Now it happens that we have banned very, very few commenters.  The last one - and the only one I personally have banned - was a Linderian-type who, clearly, was intent on disruption.  He went after one comment.

Most importantly, we don’t interpret free speech to mean “free while it is in agreement”, which is the GNXP position.


104

Posted by eufrenio on Mon, 30 May 2005 08:51 | #

Arcane:

Paz Vega is not latin-american, she´s Spanish, and thus a native European.


105

Posted by Tournament of Champions on Mon, 30 May 2005 09:41 | #

Arcane:

Yes, there are plenty of Jews with blonde hair, but thats a nordic phenotype. Like I said, Paltrow is 100% phenotypically wasp, hardly a typical bantu-wasp mulatto.

Regarding Jews, like I said, even if they were European their actions merit the severest penalties available under the law.

GNXP has gone down the crapper, frankly Godless was 75% of the reasoning for going, the rest of the crowd are a supporting cast, rather borderline reads (no offense Arcane, you’re ok). Also, the A-grade white commentators have left after Mr. Capitalist’s anti-white crusade. Left are the second tier minds e.g. David “genes are somewhat of a mystical nature” B.


106

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Mon, 30 May 2005 11:05 | #

“Also, the A-grade white commentators have left after Mr. Capitalist’s anti-white crusade.”  (—Tournament)

One such who departed was the first-rate woman blogger they had there a short while, “Duende,” who was a college undergrad at the time (a couple of years ago, which was when I stopped reading that anti-Eurowhite site) and brilliant unless I’m mistaken about her.  Anyone know if she’s still blogging anywhere?


107

Posted by Guessedworker on Mon, 30 May 2005 11:11 | #

I’ve tried to trace her, Fred, following your last commendation.  The only record I can find of an e-mail address is a dead-end.  There is no female Duende blogging elsewhere that I have been able to trace.  She seems to have given it up.


108

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Mon, 30 May 2005 11:50 | #

Arcane, can’t any of your pals over at http://www.AntiEurowhite.com give us a hint as to “Duende’s” current whereabouts?

(Oh, excuse me, Arc—that URL was supposed to be Subcontinentals&Orientals4WhiteEuroRaceReplacement;.com ... I’m so embarrassed for that typo I made, I could just crawl into a hole and disappear!—Once I’ll have had my second cup of coffee I’ll be less distracted ... Sorry again! .... my sincere apologies to all the phenotypes you are the extension of, Arc .... Errr…. scratch that!  Scratch that last bit I typed!  That was another typo—make that, “My sincere apologies to all your friends over there” ....)  (Hey I guess I’d better stop until I’ve had that second cup of coffee ...)


109

Posted by ed on Mon, 30 May 2005 12:00 | #

Kate Beckinsale is at least 1/8th Burmese. She said 1/4 in an interview. Apparently she was teased for her “Chinese” eyes in childhood.


110

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Mon, 30 May 2005 12:13 | #

ed, I don’t know anything about Kate—not even sure I’ve ever heard of her before, and have no idea what she looks like—but nowadays with government and Hollywood and everyone pressuring white folk, and brainwashing them from the tenderest age, to believe it’s more politically correct, not to mention more cool, to be non-white than white—or, lacking total nonwhiteness, to be at least partly nonwhite—all claims by whites who are trying to make it big in the extremely-PC U.S. or U.K. entertainment worlds that they are partly nonwhite must be taken with, shall we say, a very big grain of sodium chloride until those claims can be substantiated.


111

Posted by Svigor on Mon, 30 May 2005 14:35 | #

Look, I don’t like banning people, and I’ve banned a few. Mostly Nazis and far-left-wing megalomaniacs. If you guys could stay on topic, we wouldn’t have to ban people.

That’s a lie.  I was banned, more than once, for RESPONDING to idiocy from anti-WNs at GNXP; they’d make some absurd observation and pretend it was a categorical criticism of WNism (much as you are wont to make), I’d respond that it was absurd, and eventually that got on GNXPers nerves and I was banned for it.

Hehehe, one of the “rules” at GNXP is something along the lines of “no particularism,” so wtf is it that you’re on about?


112

Posted by Tournament of Champions on Mon, 30 May 2005 14:58 | #

Even if they were wholly English, they would still have to be treated as a gang of conmen and murderous free-riders.

If you want to spew crap like that, why not go over to VNN or National Vanguard?

I feel the need to return to that superficially harsh comment. The US currently accepts ~600,000 immigrants a year, perhaps 500,000 of them non-white. Assuming the white % of the population is 65%, they displace 350,000 whites. How many murders were there in the US last year? 50,000? The perpetrators of our mass immigration policy murders 7X as many whites as all the other murderers in the US combined.


113

Posted by Tournament of Champions on Mon, 30 May 2005 15:04 | #

Sorry about the imprecisions and mathematical errors in the previous post, but the idea is clear. Any comments Arcane? Your foreign masters at GNXP want to accelerate this murder spree.


114

Posted by Ephraim on Mon, 30 May 2005 15:37 | #

What is the surgical solution for excess fat in the upper eyelid or droopy upper eyelids for Asians?  All one has to do is to remove the excess fat and trim the skin layer.  Besides, if the upper eyelid is not puffed up and the skin is not droopy, then there should not be a problem with applying make-up on the upper eyelid.  One does not have to create a crease/skin fold to solve the problem of puffy/droopy upper eyelids and attendant make-up issues.  Do you really expect Asians to admit that there is something ugly about a natural racial condition that they have and that they are trying to look white by correcting their eyelids?

Your ludicrous non sequitor concerning homosexuals aside, allow me to quote the actual description of the blepharoplasty procedure:

The double eyelid surgery consists of cutting away “extraneous” fat, then stitching the thinned eyelid skin to the levator muscle. Once healed, the attached eyelid forms a crease, dividing the eyelid in two.

So yes, that’s exactly what they’re doing—cutting away the extraneous fat and skin. The reason the extra lid froms is because when the eyelid skin heals, it forms an eyelid crease. How else would you perform the procedure that *wouldn’t* result in a second crease? And concerning your point about makeup, it’s not just the excess fat but the “almond” Asian eye shape that makes it difficult to apply all that female frippery—I’ve noticed that eyeliner, shading, etc. gives my female Asian friends considerably more trouble than my white female friends. So you still haven’t convinced me that looking white is the *sole* reason Asians get this surgery. Do some of them go through with this surgery to look white? Probably. Can the same be said of all or even most of them, as you attest? I have yet to be convinced.

The point about African-American preferences is obvious.  If you live in the U.S., you would have observed the range of African-American phenotypes, and would have noted that the women in hip-hop videos and models in miscellaneous magazines catering to African-Americans are, on average, less black African-looking than the population norm.  Black supermodel Alek Wek has traditional black African facial features, but women with her facial features are not held in high aesthetic regard in the African-American community.

Personal observations are great and all, but I’m looking for hard, empirical data. Where are you getting this? Any peer-reviewed journals of sociology or African-American cultures? C’mon, don’t be a miser. Share the intellectual wealth you so undoubtably have at your disposal!


115

Posted by Ephraim on Mon, 30 May 2005 15:50 | #

Figure 7 shows beautiful white women, not the most beautiful white women, all of whom are clearly more attractive with respect to facial anatomy compared to Saira Mohan, which neither of you seems to dispute.

Sorry about that, I’ll dispute that point right now. In Figure 7, the bottom two women are okay-looking, IMO, but the top two…damn, I’m glad you’re right when you say there are more beautiful white women out there. Ms. Mohan is still more appealing than any of them.

Julia Roberts, Monica Bellucci (just see her without make-up), and Angelica Bridges are less attractive than the women in Figure 7; Jenna Jameson has low-class looks; more refined looks and I could have used her.

BS. I’d take Roberts, Jameson, Bellucci, and Bridges over any of the chicks in fig. 7 any day. And the bitter, bitter irony is, your friends and co-bloggers (all of whom are also white) would seem to agree with me. Edgar doesn’t like your choices much more than I do, and Phil Peterson seems to be quite the Monica fan—apparently he hasn’t seen her without makeup. Is Arcane white? He’s from GNXP, so he might be one of those “extended phenotypes” JW’s always talking about.

Look, man, I’m not trying to disparage your preferences—as tillman pointed out earlier, “De gustibus non disputandum est.” However, you’re apparently trying to prove that people, in general, share your conceptions of what’s “masculine”, “feminine,” and “appealing,” and if your own MR buddies don’t agree with you, you’re failing pretty miserably.


116

Posted by Sybach on Mon, 30 May 2005 15:54 | #

Well, Ephraim, those girls aren’t *all* ugly…the ones in figure 4 are okay, although I have to ask where Richards happened to find them. They look like they’re having sex, honestly. Maybe that’s why I like them better smile


117

Posted by bb on Mon, 30 May 2005 16:05 | #

Murder spree?  Even if whites became a minority in the U.S. (not a concern to me in and of itself, though large numbers of poor Hispanics could definately become a problem to say the least), it would be nothing tantamount to murder.  So the U.S. hits its carrying capacity sooner.  Big deal.  I like open spaces, and certainly don’t want them (or anywhere else) replaced by third world slums, but even several hundred thousand immigrants per year is not going to have a big impact, especially if they have sane birth rates.


118

Posted by Arcane on Mon, 30 May 2005 16:18 | #

Phil,

Half your attacks on me here are based on things you imagine I said. There must something about us here that has got under your skin? What is it?

Almost everything you’ve said about my comments in other threads were based on imaginings about things that I’ve supposedly said. You would take my comments and then start saying things about them entirely unrelated to the comments at hand, and then start asking questions entirely unrelated to the thread itself.

If there’s anyone here imagining stuff, it’s YOU. An example is this:

So how does this prove that race-mixing produces the best looking women?

See, I never said anything even related to that, and have never said that race-mixing produces the best looking women. Yet, you automatically assumed it.

Fred, you said:

One such who departed was the first-rate woman blogger they had there a short while, “Duende,” who was a college undergrad at the time (a couple of years ago, which was when I stopped reading that anti-Eurowhite site) and brilliant unless I’m mistaken about her.

Duende is still a blogger at GNXP, but she never writes anything, that’s all. I figure she did the same thing I’m doing, which is blog while in college and then stop once she has better things to do after graduation.

Svigor, Frank, you said:

That’s a lie.  I was banned, more than once, for RESPONDING to idiocy from anti-WNs at GNXP; they’d make some absurd observation and pretend it was a categorical criticism of WNism (much as you are wont to make), I’d respond that it was absurd, and eventually that got on GNXPers nerves and I was banned for it.

Hehehe, one of the “rules” at GNXP is something along the lines of “no particularism,” so wtf is it that you’re on about?

Again, GNXP is not a place to debate WNism and Jews; there are plenty of places to do that. We banned Abiola Lapite, too, so don’t give me this crap that we only ban WNists. And it’s not a “rule,” but a principle… “Ethnic pride” is a “Don’t,” no matter what your ethnicity is.

And as for the idea that I cannot make a valid criticism of WNism, the fact of the matter is that no matter what my criticism is of it, you will reject it wholesale because you’re a WNist. To you, there is no such thing as a critique of WNism, because it is uncritiquible in your mind.


119

Posted by bb on Mon, 30 May 2005 16:19 | #

I think people would *tend* to prefer those of their own race, but what any individual prefers is a matter of taste.  I think East Asian women are by far the most attractive—the white women (esp. the Finnish one) here (scroll down for the white women) for example are pretty hot, but there’s at least a half dozen East Asian women in my bio lecture I’d take over any of them.


120

Posted by Random Lurker on Mon, 30 May 2005 16:21 | #

Holy Moly, I’m having too much fun for my own good. Hey Phil, let’s take a look at this gem…

But we don’t believe in banning anyone as I hope you have understood by now.

No offense, but you’re full of it, Peterson. Remember Natvan? I’ll give you a refresher:

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

Let’s look at our good buddy Natvan’s post…

you should know that several Jews are a type of White people and that the Jews that are overrepresented in the top science and technology schools are usually White.

Speak for yourself, Richardberg.

I also reject the offensive, disjunctive hyper-nationalism of the German National Socialists who ignored, for example, the rights and interests of their Slavic neighbors to the East.

Yeah. I’m SURE it’s the Slavs who you were concerned about. Speak for yourself, Hollowitz.

That’s why he has a problem with Jared Taylor.  Taylor is exactly the sort of intelligent, articulate white guy that GC wishes would embrace high-IQ Asian immigrants.  But a look at AR confirms that, for Taylor, South Asians like GC are “them” and not “us”. 

Yeah, but Jews are considered white by Taylor, right? Which is why you’re A-OK with him, right Hollowitz? This would be hilarious if it weren’t so brazen. Two more operators or shabbos goys making moves straight from the Horowitzim playbook. Mike Levin would be proud!

Listen up people: Jews are the reason for white dispossession. J-E-W-S. Asians are a sidelight. Blacks and Mexicans are an annoyance. They are all symptoms, and the Ashkenazim are the disease. The borders would never have been opened without the Jews. The Civil Rights act would never have been passed without the Jews. White women would not have been turned against white men without the Jews. Europe and its kindred would never have been brought to their knees by guilt-tripping over the Holoco$t without the Jews. Russia would never have been subject to murder and destruction without the Jews.

No Jews = No NAACP, no lies about hate crimes, no Jacoby/Kristol/Chomsky/Zinn/Lewontin/Gould/Friedan/Steinem/Sontag/Schwartz/Goldberg/Marx/Freud to pathologize whites, manliness, America, self defense, etcetera etcetera. No Nuthin.

Cue Hollowitz and Richardberg insisting that Jews are white, and that Hitler was all bad, and German nationalism was “offensive”, and no matter WHAT we do, racial balkanization shouldn’t be RELIGIOUS balkanization, oh no sirree. It wasn’t like Hitler was reacting to Jewish communists in his country promising to do the same thing they did to Russia! Nah…couldn’t be…they’re white you know. Jared Taylor and Hollowitz and Richardberg told me so. 

All hat and no cattle, these folk…or should I say all yarmulke and no cattle. Hollow out nationalism before it even starts. Oh sure, at first it’s just subtle remarks about the “offensive” German nationalism and the “well spoken” judeophilic Jared Taylor. But just wait till the hammer drops and the purge starts. Like National Review this will become yet another Israeli outpost. Get fitted for tefillin boys!

Honestly, there’s no much there that Svigor, Stuka, Effra, or Beck would disagree with. Where NatVan erred, however, was that he *dared* to attack one of MR’s bloggers! And that super-genius J Richards, no less! Ah, the horror! So what was good ol’ guessedworker’s pithy response?

Natvan,

Goodbye

Of course, the hero of our story, J. Richards, tried to convince guessedworker not to ban natvan:

I am glad that unlike razib of GNXP, you did not simply erase the rant by NatVan, thus showing your stronger commitment to freedom of speech.  I would recommend that you not ban NatVan but flag such absurd posts in the future with the disclaimer that the outrageous comments expressed do not reflect the views of any on the bloggers at majorityrights, but are left there by the moderators in the spirit of freedom of speech.  I don’t think that you need be much concerned about NatVan spamming the comments section frequently because NatVan will post at most a few more rants and will go back to posting at Stormfront or equivalent.

Unfortunately for Natvan, guessedworker wasn’t convinced:


121

Posted by Random Lurker on Mon, 30 May 2005 16:23 | #

Continued from above:

I did IP-ban him.  The reason was two-fold. 

First, when a commenter has exhibited, let us say, untoward emotion I have til now reckoned on being able to appeal to some understanding of the way one behaves in another’s house.  There’s nothing special about this.  It’s just how ordinary, decent people behave.  In Natvan this decency was not immediately apparent, nor any redemptive qualities for that matter.  I could foresee only a long, pointless and unedifying argument if I attempted to engage him.

Second, it’s not as if his subject matter is never aired here.  The MR threads are enlivened by a small number of broadly nationalist commenters who are intelligent and articulate but also decent people.  They seek to persuade on the basis of factual debate, not abusiveness.  This is a better way for newcomers to the JQ to encounter the nationalist side of the argument.  It is a tender plant, however, and needs to be protected against the ruder elements.

So what does all this mean, Peterson? Well, apparently, your site *does* believe in banning. Really, can’t you understand why some people might be mystified concerning your statement that MR doesn’t believe in banning?


122

Posted by Arcane on Mon, 30 May 2005 16:26 | #

seelow, you said:

BTW, whatever happened to arcane’s promised dissection of Kevin Nacdonald’s Judaism trilogy.

It’s a work in progress… I’m still collecting articles and research, and I still have to purchase two of his books. I’ve also been incredibly busy with school (as seen by the fact that I haven’t written any long GNXP posts lately like my ones in the past) and will probably not have the time to thoroughly work on it until either this fall or early winter.

Looks like it might just be a book-length project, since MacDonald’s books are not just about Judaism, but cover a whole myriad of subjects.


123

Posted by Phil Peterson on Mon, 30 May 2005 16:44 | #

Arcane,

Its mystifying that while you keep hurling insults at various people, accuse people of sympathising with Hitler and Stalin and a whole range of other allegations from the absurd to the totally cartoonish and while we naturally retaliate against the attacks you make (such as what you said ealier on this thread that you were going to “defile” our site by putting up pictures of Jewish women, for example. Its typical of the pattern of behaviour you have shown here. That behaviour is based on bad faith.) which upsets you, it still doesnt hold you back from coming back for more.

If you find this blog so unfriendly and hostile and the bloggers uncivil towards you, then don’t come here and show some self respect instead of throwing tantrums like a teenager. Its a bit much for you (coming from a blog that randomly bans people left right and centre) to come here and lecture us about what we need to learn from you and your colleagues.

So you say whatever you want to say. But one thing which is clear to all of us is that your participation in almost all threads is usually defined by accusatory, disruptive and destructive tactics. That is clear to us all. Every one of us who has been arguing with you since you started posting your comments here has undertsood that much.


124

Posted by Random Lurker on Mon, 30 May 2005 16:48 | #

Right, and the reason you haven’t banned Arcane is because you “don’t believe in banning.” Natvan sure agrees smile


125

Posted by Kubilai on Mon, 30 May 2005 16:53 | #

Ephraim in typical juvenile glee stated:

<i>Your ludicrous non sequitor concerning homosexuals aside, allow me to quote the actual description of the blepharoplasty procedure:——And concerning your point about makeup, it’s not just the excess fat but the “almond” Asian eye shape that makes it difficult to apply all that female frippery—I’ve noticed that eyeliner, shading, etc. gives my female Asian friends considerably more trouble than my white female friends. So you still haven’t convinced me that looking white is the *sole* reason Asians get this surgery. Do some of them go through with this surgery to look white? Probably. Can the same be said of all or even most of them, as you attest? I have yet to be convinced.</i>

I refer Ephraim to this site…

http://www.drmeronk.com/asian-eyelid.html

Where the good Doctor states plainly…

Men and women of Asian heritage seek blepharoplasty eyelid surgery for the same basic reason as their Occidental counterparts, namely, to enhance the appearance of the existing eyelid structure so that it conforms to widely-accepted standards of aesthetics and balance. Not only is blepharoplasty the most requested cosmetic operation in the Asian population, but the typical age at which Asian patients request eyelid surgery is younger.

The sample photos of this site in particular clearly shows a “rounding” of the eyes that us “roundeyes” seem to take for granted.  Let me repeat, Asians have the surgery for conformity to widely-accepted standards of aesthetics and balance, i.e WHITES.  Also you go on and finish this post with…Personal observations are great and all, but I’m looking for hard, empirical data.

All well and good, however one needs to follow one’s advice and not pin his entire argument on what he observes with a few Asian chicks he knows. 

Next enlightening post from Ephraim states:

BS. I’d take Roberts, Jameson, Bellucci, and Bridges over any of the chicks in fig. 7 any day. And the bitter, bitter irony is, your friends and co-bloggers (all of whom are also white) would seem to agree with me.

Great, take them.  However that was NOT the point of the log entry, was it if you actually digested it for a few seconds before spouting off one hyperventilatory inanity after another?  He was stating the universal concepts of White beauty and comparing it to mixed women and NOT individual preferences that you enjoy whacking off to.  Get it?

Then finally, Ephraim states:

Look, man, I’m not trying to disparage your preferences

That’s exactly what you were doing and failing to realize that was not the point of the log, though that didn’t stop you from acting completely puerile and taking off on your own tangent.


126

Posted by Kubilai on Mon, 30 May 2005 16:57 | #

And then “Random Lurker” who cannot grasp the difference between two sites, where one has banned ONE person due to their completely inflammatory post with no redeeming qualities or room for discussion and another where simply the mention of Whites with a capital W is enough for banning.  LOL

Yeah, he’s got a real legitimate bone to pick!


127

Posted by Kubilai on Mon, 30 May 2005 17:02 | #

Actually, it’s nice to see the GnXp crowd is so riled up that they feel the need to find fault with the site.  No one gives a sh*t about people who are clueless, stupid, or do not pose any serious threat.  Do they??? LOL


128

Posted by ben tillman on Mon, 30 May 2005 17:03 | #

Murder spree?  Even if whites became a minority in the U.S. (not a concern to me in and of itself, though large numbers of poor Hispanics could definately become a problem to say the least), it would be nothing tantamount to murder.

If you prefer “sterilization”, we will use that term.  However, the indisputable ultimate result is that every non-white imported into a white country (assuming, unrealistically, equal resource consumption) precludes the existence of a white.  There is only so much of this world to go around, and it is tempting to say it is a zero-sum game.  But it is not.  The size of the “pie” can be expanded to some degree, at least temporarily, through technological advance.  The diminution of the white proportion of the world’s population, of course, slows the growth of the pie, and ultimately the “pie” will shrink.


129

Posted by ben tillman on Mon, 30 May 2005 17:14 | #

Really, can’t you understand why some people might be mystified concerning your statement that MR doesn’t believe in banning?

I do not speak for the management of this site, but it should be easy for you to perceive that, in practice, this aversion to banning means that viewpoints are not banned, only uncivil commenters may be, in extreme cases. 

I infer that some latitude for uncivil outbursts is granted for those who have made civil contributions to discussion in the past.

It is not very complicated.


130

Posted by Arcane on Mon, 30 May 2005 17:14 | #

Phil, you said:

Its mystifying that while you keep hurling insults at various people, accuse people of sympathising with Hitler…

Well, a lot of your commenters do sympathize with Hitler, as do some of your bloggers (such as Tomislav Sunic, who has given speeches to the openly national socialist NON in Italy, NPD in Germany, and National Alliance in the US, and has praised the Waffen-SS in many of his articles; however, now that he is doing diplomatic work again, he has removed himself from all mailing lists of those organizations).

...and Stalin…

Well, I did that as something of a joke, but oh well.

If you find this blog so unfriendly and hostile and the bloggers uncivil towards you, then don’t come here and show some self respect instead of throwing tantrums like a teenager.

I wish you would apply that same logic to GNXP, since you guys attack it left and right… quite frankly, I sort of like this blog, because you do hit some things that others don’t hit, and publish opinions that others won’t publish. Besides, you guys have a GNXP blogger among you: Thrasymachus.

Its a bit much for you (coming from a blog that randomly bans people left right and centre)...

Well, I don’t know about everyone else, but every person that I’ve banned I’ve shot an e-mail at telling them why I banned them and offered to unban them.

But one thing which is clear to all of us is that your participation in almost all threads is usually defined by accusatory, disruptive and destructive tactics.

Not true. In case you’ve forgotten, look at the very earliest threads on this blog. I praised you guys. If my friends weren’t attacked merely because of their skin color and national origin by you guys, I doubt any of this would have ever happened. Razib originally even linked this blog up on GNXP, in case you’ve forgotten.

Every one of us who has been arguing with you since you started posting your comments here has undertsood that much.

Again, read what I read above. I seem to remember the first time I was attacked it was by Geoff, who attacked with a slew of feces-laced analogies, including “excrement spreader,” “excrement smearer,” who has his “hands full of excrement” (which he continued by saying that JJ Ray has it “on his face”) because I criticized Kevin MacDonald. Before then, I had not made a single nasty comment about you guys. I did not begin this.


131

Posted by Random Lurker on Mon, 30 May 2005 17:15 | #

And then “Random Lurker” who cannot grasp the difference between two sites, where one has banned ONE person due to their completely inflammatory post with no redeeming qualities or room for discussion and another where simply the mention of Whites with a capital W is enough for banning.  LOL

Yeah, he’s got a real legitimate bone to pick!

I’m not from GNXP, genius.


132

Posted by Kubilai on Mon, 30 May 2005 17:15 | #

We banned Abiola Lapite, too, so don’t give me this crap that we only ban WNists. - Arcane

Arcane, you aren’t parading out the “Abiola card” are you?  LOL Abiola is a vile, bitter little Afrocentric apologist who repeatedly spewed insults at GC.  GC, the humanitarian, took it for MONTHS before he decided to ban him and only after Abiola posted nothing but inflammatory, derogatory remarks and nothing else.  Spare me the comparison, dude.  As Ephraim is quick to say, in his case WRONGLY I may add, it is a non sequitur.


133

Posted by Kubilai on Mon, 30 May 2005 17:17 | #

I’m not from GNXP, genius. - Random Lurker

Well, genius is correct.  As for the GnXp part, there must be others who love the “Random Lurker” name that post there.  My “mistake”.  LOL


134

Posted by Arcane on Mon, 30 May 2005 17:21 | #

And don’t get me wrong… I have Sunic’s book on the “New Right” in Europe, Against Democracy and Equality. It’s a very interesting read, although I’m done with it now and want to read Michael O’Meara’s (that’s a pseudonym; real name is Michael Torigian) book on it.

I’m currently selling that on Amazon for cheaper than anyone else on the net, in case any of you guys are interested.


135

Posted by Arcane on Mon, 30 May 2005 17:25 | #

Kubilai, you said:

Arcane, you aren’t parading out the “Abiola card” are you?  LOL Abiola is a vile, bitter little Afrocentric apologist who repeatedly spewed insults at GC.  GC, the humanitarian, took it for MONTHS before he decided to ban him and only after Abiola posted nothing but inflammatory, derogatory remarks and nothing else.  Spare me the comparison, dude.

He was banned for being a denier of Communist Holocaust and accusing GNXP bloggers of being deniers of the Jewish Holocaust.


136

Posted by Ephraim on Mon, 30 May 2005 17:27 | #

Kubilai, I admit you have a point—I did grow overly heated, and for that, I apologize. As Sybach pointed out, not all the white women J. Richards posted are unattractive, and personally speaking, I don’t find white women in general unattractive. I suppose I came off that way, and I apologize.

The sample photos of this site in particular clearly shows a “rounding” of the eyes that us “roundeyes” seem to take for granted.  Let me repeat, Asians have the surgery for conformity to widely-accepted standards of aesthetics and balance, i.e WHITES.  Also you go on and finish this post with…Personal observations are great and all, but I’m looking for hard, empirical data.

All well and good, however one needs to follow one’s advice and not pin his entire argument on what he observes with a few Asian chicks he knows. 

As I mentioned above, my complaint wasn’t that *no* Asian women got this surgery to look more white—I distinctly said that a few women might opt for this procedure to look more white. What I was protesting was Mr. Richard’s failure to acknowledge other possible reasons for it, which were attested to in the article he himself provided.

Great, take them.  However that was NOT the point of the log entry, was it if you actually digested it for a few seconds before spouting off one hyperventilatory inanity after another?  He was stating the universal concepts of White beauty and comparing it to mixed women and NOT individual preferences that you enjoy whacking off to.  Get it?

This is simply vulgar. If I was “uncivil” in my previous post, I ought to apologize for encouraging that sort of behavior in you.

In this case, you do not adequately defend Mr. Richards. As I pointed out above, I am not the only person to question Mr. Richard’s aesthetic preferences. As Edgar has pointed out, his arguments would be greatly buttressed if he used pictures of women *all* whites would consider attractive, which he didn’t. Whatever the merits of his post, they would have come across with much greater force had he taken into note not only my considerations, but also those of edgar, and also Phil Peterson.

That’s exactly what you were doing and failing to realize that was not the point of the log, though that didn’t stop you from acting completely puerile and taking off on your own tangent.

You’re right, I apologize, and I must thank both you and Sybach for pointing out that I was overly critical of the poor girls whom J Richards chose as examples. It was certainly most ungentlemanly of me. I and Mr. Peterson may find Ms. Bellucci attractive, evidently Mr. Richards finds the girls in his figures more to his liking. As the Roman saying goes, there is no disputing tastes.


137

Posted by Random Lurker on Mon, 30 May 2005 17:35 | #

Well, genius is correct.

I’m sure it is.

there must be others who love the “Random Lurker” name that post there.  My “mistake”.

You really are a genius! There are a few “Lurkers” on MR, none of whom are me, obviously—just compare our posts. Neither site allows anonymous posting, so yeah, finding a few other “lurkers” doesn’t prove anything. Still, believe what you want. You think I’m from GNXP, good for you, champ.

I do not speak for the management of this site, but it should be easy for you to perceive that, in practice, this aversion to banning means that viewpoints are not banned, only uncivil commenters may be, in extreme cases. 

I infer that some latitude for uncivil outbursts is granted for those who have made civil contributions to discussion in the past.

You have a pretty funny view of “uncivil” behavior, chief. Was natvan a prick? Yeah, I’ll agree with you there. But how “uncivil” was he? Not only did he say stuff most of you agree with, he said it without resorting to swearing or references to masturbation, which can’t be said of our good buddy Kubilai. If your MR buddies have a certain “latitude” for “uncivil” behavior, they’ve stretched it pretty damn far.


138

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Mon, 30 May 2005 17:35 | #

“Is Arcane white? He’s from GNXP, so he might be one of those ‘extended phenotypes’ JW’s always talking about.”  (—Ephraim)

White?  He never said.  As for “extended phenotype,” well, he sure as hell behaves like one.  Exactly like one.  Hey if it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, and waddles like a duck, it’s probably a duck, right?  So ... I’d say he’s an extended phenotype, all right.  Same as you, Ephraim—that’s exactly what you seem to be, an extended phenotype.  Hey you’re starting to catch on. Good.

“Even if whites became a minority in the U.S. (not a concern to me in and of itself, [...]”  (—bb)

Not of any concern to you?  Well you DON’T SAY!  Gee, WHOEVER WUDDA GUESSED?  (Talk about stating the obvious ....)  So, what else is new, Birch? ...  Anything else to surprise us with?  (I mean, as if, had you held any other views, you’d have been invited to blog at Hindu&OrientalAntiWhiteCentral;.com ... Like the whole thing comes as a big surprise to us ...)  “several hundred thousand immigrants per year is not going to have a big impact [just make sure it’s Hindus and Chinese, not Negroes or Mexicans]”  (I repeated that here, just to make sure the phenotypes you devote your life to saw it and will know you’ve been seeing to your job description, bb.  They’ll congratulate you later—hey maybe they’ll even let you blog again (that is, once they’ve decided you’d cleaned their boots enough with your tongue ...)!  Wouldn’t that be great!)

“And it’s not a ‘rule,’ but a principle… ‘Ethnic pride’ is a ‘Don’t,’ no matter what your ethnicity is.”  (—Arcane)

Maybe the place has changed since a couple years ago when I stopped going there, Arc, but back then it was awash in Subcontinental and yellow ethnic pride, absolutely bursting with it, which was perfectly fine with me, but when I once opened my mouth to respond in kind to an obnoxious yellow named “AsianDude” who’d attacked U.S. whites in a nasty way I was instantly banned and the entire exchange erased, amidst a torrent of the sickest, most psychotic babblings spewing from the Godless Capitalist’s maw, in such a way that I realized for the first time what the name of the game was with him (he identifies extremely strongly with non-whites against whites in this whole anti-white thing going on nowadays) and of course never again sullied my foot by setting it there in that anti-white cesspool.  I’ll note that I never received anything but gentlemanly treatment from Razib or Jason Molloy (neither of whom has any objection to white race-replacement, by the way).

“the white women (esp. the Finnish one) here (scroll down for the white women) for example are pretty hot, but there’s at least a half dozen East Asian women in my bio lecture I’d take over any of them.”  (—Birch)

Yeah, too bad none of the half-dozen would take you, Birch ...  But dream on, by all means ....

Random Lurker, you sure are doing a lot of crybabying here.  You wouldn’t be NatVan posting under another pen name, would you?  Never got over your banning?


139

Posted by Arcane on Mon, 30 May 2005 17:39 | #

Fred, you said:

White?  He never said.

Well, I have in other threads. Yes, I’m a WASp.

...an obnoxious yellow named “AsianDude” who’d attacked U.S. whites in a nasty way…

He is long gone.


140

Posted by Random Lurker on Mon, 30 May 2005 17:47 | #

Random Lurker, you sure are doing a lot of crybabying here.  You wouldn’t be NatVan posting under another pen name, would you?  Never got over your banning?

Nope. I don’t have the same fixation with Jews he does. Whatever charges you levy against me, you can’t claim I ever called you “Scroobyberg” smile

And calling me a crybaby, honestly, I’m just pointing out the hypocracy that seems prevalent in this site, Fred. Candidly speaking, you impressed me when you apologized for your behavior—you’re a bigger man than I thought. If the other bloggers ‘round here could show the same spine and admit that yes, there have been many occaisons when they’ve proven themselves to be just as “uncivil” as their detractors, I wouldn’t be hanging around.


141

Posted by Svigor on Mon, 30 May 2005 17:53 | #

Again, GNXP is not a place to debate WNism and Jews; there are plenty of places to do that. We banned Abiola Lapite, too, so don’t give me this crap that we only ban WNists. And it’s not a “rule,” but a principle… “Ethnic pride” is a “Don’t,” no matter what your ethnicity is.

Did I say you only ban WNists?  Your love of strawmen continues.

I know that GNXP is not a place to debate WNism and Jews.  It’s a place for people to make unchallenged criticisms of WNism, WNs and their opinions on Jews, where those who disagree are banned.  As I said, I seldom brought these subjects up, I simply responded when they were.  So, anti-WN trolls are encouraged and WNs are banned for responding.  The cherry on top is that GNXP masquerades as a site dedicated to scientific and objective inquiry.

And as for the idea that I cannot make a valid criticism of WNism, the fact of the matter is that no matter what my criticism is of it, you will reject it wholesale because you’re a WNist.

Wrestle with that strawman Arcane, wrestle with it heroically!

When did I say you cannot make a valid criticism of WNism?

You are incorrect.  I do not reject criticism of WNism per se, I simply object to criticism of certain forms of WNism or certain trends among its adherents that masquerade as categorical criticisms of WNism.

If critics of WNism would present their criticisms more honestly, I’d respond differently.

For example, many critics of WNism are fond of accusing WNists of being would-be mass murderers.  There is a grain of truth here, as a small minority of WNs do advocate race-war.  The critics seldom admit this, they just tar all WNs and WNism per se with that brush.

You’ve given example in this thread - you conflated the WNish posters here with the left half of the bell curve at Stormfront who refuse to acknowledge or understand that the real division between Jews and Whites (not whites) is not blood or genes but tribe.

To you, there is no such thing as a critique of WNism, because it is uncritiquible in your mind.

That’s nonsense.  The fact that you have not (if memory serves) successfully critiqued WNism does not lead to the conclusion that WNism is “uncritiquible” in my mind.  The fact that I criticize flavors of WNism that I do not agree with belies your assertion.

I am quite open-minded about a great many issues underpinning WNism.  For example, I realize the possibility that IQ has nothing to do with race, that the heritability of IQ does not prove that it varies by race.  I think the evidence points the other way, but I do not present the matter as definitively settled.

My agnosticism on THE Holocaust (not that it in any way underpins my WNism) is open to vigorous debate and I readily admit that THE Holocaust epic might’ve occurred mostly or even overwhelmingly as told by the orthodox historians.

Wasn’t it in this thread that I admitted that my aesthetic preference for my own race was the only issue not up for debate?

There is plenty wrong with the totality of those who call themselves WNs, but this is quite distinct from WNism itself.  If a WN promotes literal race war or genocide I feel he is indeed espousing a brand of WNism that is very open to attack.  I don’t promote those things (nor do most WNs), and I feel that attacking me and my WNism based on that other WN’s beliefs isn’t fair.  Perhaps if I tacitly approved of his behavior by ignoring it I’d open myself to attack, but I do not: I often roundly and openly criticize my fellow WNs when I feel they’re out of line.

Your rhetorical habit of branding people Nazis when they display no real sign of National Socialist leanings is an indication that you are somewhat less than honest on this issue. 

You’ve admitted freely that you’re a philo-Semite and that this colors your discussions of Jews.

Out of curiousity, I ask if you troll Zionist and Neocon Websites and challenge their beliefs.  Do you troll Black Nationalist sites and debate BNs?

Your behavior, and the policies standing at sites you contribute to, are testaments to the fact that you are uninterested in an honest critique of WNism, at least certain forms of it.  You’re just fine with arguing against the far left side of the WNist bell curve, it’s the right side you like to avoid.


142

Posted by Ephraim on Mon, 30 May 2005 17:56 | #

Same as you, Ephraim—that’s exactly what you seem to be, an extended phenotype.  Hey you’re starting to catch on. Good.

I don’t go to GNXP either. Neither does Sybach, if you’re wondering—he’s a friend of mine.

And as for me being an “extended phenotype?” I actually DON’T support turning America into a dark-skinned nation. I just don’t think non-white women are as “unfeminine” as J. Richards does. If he believes so, that’s his business, and it was uncivil of me to contest that. His tastes do not seem to be as widely held as he makes them out to be, however.


143

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Mon, 30 May 2005 17:56 | #

That sounds like a conciliatory note, Random.  Haven’t they admitted they’re not perfect?  I’m certainly not.


144

Posted by Random Lurker on Mon, 30 May 2005 18:05 | #

That sounds like a conciliatory note, Random.  Haven’t they admitted they’re not perfect?  I’m certainly not.

As I said, it takes a pretty big man to admit that, Fred. Unfortunately, many of your comrades don’t seem to have taken that step. For some reason, Phil neglected to mention natvan’s banning when he said MR “doesn’t believe in banning.” For some reason, everyone jumps on Arcane’s behavior while ignoring even worse behavior on the part of their fellows, such as Kubilai’s lewd suggestion. As I said, if the other denizens of MR were able to apologize as openly as you were, I likely wouldn’t be here, or if I were, I’d be much more civil. Unfortunately, that has yet to be the case.


145

Posted by amren_fan on Mon, 30 May 2005 18:10 | #

Sheesh! It’s gettin’ pretty hot in here…well, it goes against my better judgement to just pop in here when such a heated argument is goin’ on, but I just have to ask J Richards a question:

As you can probably tell from my s/n, I love Jared Taylor’s American Renaissance, and I visit the site quite a bit. I’m just curious, but Mr. Richards strikes me as *very* familar. You wouldn’t happen to have posted as “Cassiodorus” over at http://www.amren.com would, you? You remind me so much of Cassiodorus smile


146

Posted by Arcane on Mon, 30 May 2005 18:13 | #

Svigor, Frank, you said:

That’s nonsense.  The fact that you have not (if memory serves) successfully critiqued WNism does not lead to the conclusion that WNism is “uncritiquible” in my mind.

That’s because in your mind it’s uncritiquible! You made my point for me.

If a WN promotes literal race war or genocide I feel he is indeed espousing a brand of WNism that is very open to attack.

I’d much rather have an e-mail debate over this instead of hijacking this thread, but since you’re so keen on this… what WNists promote race war or genocide? The entire national socialist wing does, and there’s a lot of NSs in the WNist movement. I don’t worry about Jared Taylor… I worry about people like William Pierce. I have never alleged that all WNists espouse race war or genocide; what I have alleged is that the majority do, and based on the comments of many commentators here and ones we’ve banned at GNXP, I’m right when I say this.

I don’t promote those things ... and I feel that attacking me and my WNism based on that other WN’s beliefs isn’t fair.

OK, maybe it is unfair. But it doesn’t help when you link to websites run by those who sympathize with Hitler or are openly national socialist, like TBR News and American Free Press (both of which were created by Willis Carto), National Journal, National Vanguard, National Alliance, Creativity World Wide (otherwise known as WCOTC), David Duke, Kevin Strom, Chuck Pearson, White Revolution, Stormfront, etc.

You delegitimize yourself when you do this.

Your rhetorical habit of branding people Nazis when they display no real sign of National Socialist leanings is an indication that you are somewhat less than honest on this issue.

Based on the sites listed above, who is being dishonest?

Out of curiousity, I ask if you troll Zionist and Neocon Websites and challenge their beliefs.  Do you troll Black Nationalist sites and debate BNs?

Yes, I do, actually. I disagree with neocons all the time.


147

Posted by Kubilai on Mon, 30 May 2005 19:01 | #

Ephraim, apology accepted and please do not take it to mean that dissenting views are unwanted or discouraged because as we all know, they are the things we enjoy to not only get the “juices” flowing, but also allows for topics to be discussed thoroughly, as is the case here.  Just the tone was a bit much.  Thanks for being civil and a gentleman.


148

Posted by Kubilai on Mon, 30 May 2005 19:09 | #

There are a few “Lurkers” on MR, none of whom are me, obviously—just compare our posts. - Random Lurker

I never said you were the same lurker as the other ‘lurkers’ here on MR.  I said you have the same exact “Random Lurker” name, with capitals, as the Random Lurker on GnXp.  If you aren’t the same, and it is a possibility though somewhat remote, then so what?  Am I to assume there are two creative geniuses with the “Random Lurker” id?  Regardless, your point was picking the ONE person banned, in a quite unique situation, as some confirmation that people get banned here, which is hardly the case.  Is that your contribution?


149

Posted by Svigor on Mon, 30 May 2005 19:15 | #

That’s because in your mind it’s uncritiquible! You made my point for me.
No, you’ve just restated your opinion, I haven’t made your point for you.

I don’t worry about Jared Taylor

Of course you don’t, Taylor avoids discussing your chosen people like the plague.

I have never alleged that all WNists espouse race war or genocide; what I have alleged is that the majority do, and based on the comments of many commentators here and ones we’ve banned at GNXP, I’m right when I say this.

I don’t know from your samples of banned GNXPers, since I’m not privy to them, but I find your assertion that many here do puzzling; who are you talking about?  Further, could you explain how the comments of many commentators here or at GNXP support your assertion that the majority of WNs favor literal race war?  Do you have any more support for this sweeping assertion?

OK, maybe it is unfair. But it doesn’t help when you link to websites run by those who sympathize with Hitler or are openly national socialist, like TBR News and American Free Press (both of which were created by Willis Carto), National Journal, National Vanguard, National Alliance, Creativity World Wide (otherwise known as WCOTC), David Duke, Kevin Strom, Chuck Pearson, White Revolution, Stormfront, etc.

You delegitimize yourself when you do this.

Hatewatch links (or did) to these sites too, does that delegitimize Hatewatch?  You see my point of course, that linking does not constitute endorsement per se; linking usually constitutes…linking.

I don’t know anything about TBR News, and I don’t know that I’ve ever linked to American Free Press, and I’m pretty damn sure I’ve never sourced the first thing through them.  I don’t read National Vanguard or source them, I don’t know what the National Journal is, I could care less about the creativity movement or whatever it’s called these days, I don’t see what the big deal about David Duke is (he doesn’t advocate genocide or race war as far as I know), I do like reading Chuck Pearson as I find his writing very funny (he was offline the last few times I checked), White Revolution isn’t on my radar at all, and Stormfront is a Web board devoted to discussion of WNism (the views expressed there are by no means monolithic or generally genocidalist - racial epithets are grounds for banning there for Chrissakes!).

I don’t think you’ve honestly assessed WN opinion, if you really think the general tenor of Stormfront is genocidalist.  It’s hard to say for sure, since calls for genocide can get posters banned, but in my experience people in favor of genocide at SF are roughly as common as people who think Jews are White and can do essentially no wrong collectively (no I’m not exaggerating here).

I read GNXP far more than I read any National Alliance material.  I read Amren occasionally.  I read MR daily.  I read Stormfront daily and post there frequently (and have more than a few problems with moderators there, who don’t like my criticisms of other WNs).  Everything else is occasional (I like antiwar.com and the war nerd and Google news and such).


150

Posted by Kubilai on Mon, 30 May 2005 19:16 | #

Not only did he say stuff most of you agree with, he said it without resorting to swearing or references to masturbation, which can’t be said of our good buddy Kubilai. - Random Lurker again

The point GW was making in banning him is that he came and spewed garbage in typical Neo-Nazi fashion.  NONE of us here are Neo-Nazis, you dinkus.  When we speak of “stuff” here, we make sure that it is either referenced or verifiable.  Just because a Neo-Nazi hates Jews for no apparent reason aside from that is what he is supposed to do, does not mean he has anything in common with people here. 

As to masturbation, LOL, don’t worry, you won’t grow hair on your palms.  Sorry to have offended your virgin eyes, “Random Lurker”.


151

Posted by Svigor on Mon, 30 May 2005 19:18 | #

Yes, I do, actually. I disagree with neocons all the time.

That’s not what I asked you; I asked if you regularly go to Zionist or Neocon SITES (i.e., message boards) and criticize them and theirs?


152

Posted by Kubilai on Mon, 30 May 2005 19:25 | #

As I said, if the other denizens of MR were able to apologize as openly as you were, I likely wouldn’t be here, or if I were, I’d be much more civil. Unfortunately, that has yet to be the case. - Random Lurker, yet again

Oh good grief, man!  LOL You’re here specifically to keep us in line, otherwise you’d have no interest to be here?  I believe that LESS than I believe you aren’t the same RL on GnXp.  For me, there is nothing to apologize to you about.  Your pitbull latching of Phil does not deserve any apology from my part because it was uncalled for and the banning was an isolated event.  GET IT??


153

Posted by Svigor on Mon, 30 May 2005 19:29 | #

I mean really arcane!  I regularly link to articles published by the mainstream media, which lies regularly about racial science.  Does that “delegitimize” me, or make me a “neo-liar,” or a “HBD denier” or somesuch?  The NYT printed Duranty’s lies and refuses to acknowledge them or their malfeasance; does linking to their stories make me a Communist or a neo-Communist or a pinko?


154

Posted by bb on Mon, 30 May 2005 19:31 | #

“Yeah, too bad none of the half-dozen would take you, Birch ...  But dream on, by all means ....”

Well you could be right, but that’s not the point—anyway whatever my chances with those girls in my bio class, my chances with any who look like Hanna Ek are far worse.


155

Posted by Random Lurker on Mon, 30 May 2005 19:31 | #

you have the same exact “Random Lurker” name, with capitals, as the Random Lurker on GnXp.  If you aren’t the same, and it is a possibility though somewhat remote, then so what?  Am I to assume there are two creative geniuses with the “Random Lurker” id?

Is that so? I don’t hang around GNXP, so I wouldn’t know, and neither would I care. So yes, the most logical assumption would be that I share the same pseudonym as this GNXP person (assuming you didn’t just make him up) by coincidence. If you don’t believe that, well, good for you.

The point GW was making in banning him is that he came and spewed garbage in typical Neo-Nazi fashion.  NONE of us here are Neo-Nazis, you dinkus.  When we speak of “stuff” here, we make sure that it is either referenced or verifiable.  Just because a Neo-Nazi hates Jews for no apparent reason aside from that is what he is supposed to do, does not mean he has anything in common with people here. 

Natvan, a Neo-Nazi? He reminds me more of Svigor or Stuka than anyone else. The “garbage” he spewed was mainly stuff quite a few people would agree with. The only reason he was banned was that he happened to pick a fight with one of MR’s bloggers. If Peterson’s assertion that “we don’t believe in banning” was true, he’d still be hanging around.

As to masturbation, LOL, don’t worry, you won’t grow hair on your palms.  Sorry to have offended your virgin eyes, “Random Lurker”.

Yeah, you’d know, wouldn’t you? smile


156

Posted by Random Lurker on Mon, 30 May 2005 19:37 | #

Oh good grief, man!  LOL You’re here specifically to keep us in line, otherwise you’d have no interest to be here?  I believe that LESS than I believe you aren’t the same RL on GnXp.  For me, there is nothing to apologize to you about.  Your pitbull latching of Phil does not deserve any apology from my part because it was uncalled for and the banning was an isolated event.  GET IT??

“Pitbull latching of Phil?” You’d think he’d be man enough to accept it when someone points out where he’s wrong. Fred Scrooby was able to do it, why not him?

And heck, if you want to apologize to somebody, apologize to Ephraim. Rude as he was, you were the one who brought up the subject of his “whacking off.”


157

Posted by Arcane on Mon, 30 May 2005 20:01 | #

Svigor, Frank, you said:

Of course you don’t, Taylor avoids discussing your chosen people like the plague.

That’s because Taylor doesn’t advocate genocide like the Aryan Nations, White Revolution, National Alliance, National Vanguard, Creativity Movement, White Aryan Resistance, Posse Comitatus, Aryan Republican Army, New Order, or any of the other Christian Identity, Odinist, and KKK organizations out there.

I don’t know anything about TBR News, and I don’t know that I’ve ever linked to American Free Press, and I’m pretty damn sure I’ve never sourced the first thing through them.  I don’t read National Vanguard or source them, I don’t know what the National Journal is, I could care less about the creativity movement or whatever it’s called these days, I don’t see what the big deal about David Duke is (he doesn’t advocate genocide or race war as far as I know), I do like reading Chuck Pearson as I find his writing very funny (he was offline the last few times I checked), White Revolution isn’t on my radar at all, and Stormfront is a Web board devoted to discussion of WNism (the views expressed there are by no means monolithic or generally genocidalist - racial epithets are grounds for banning there for Chrissakes!).

Wow, Snow you’re out and out lying… this is your site, is it not?
http://svyatoslav.50megs.com/

This is the WN sites page from your site, is it not?
http://svyatoslav.50megs.com/SITES.HTML

in my experience people in favor of genocide at SF are roughly as common as people who think Jews are White…

Pretty common then!

<blockquote>That’s not what I asked you; I asked if you regularly go to Zionist or Neocon SITES (i.e., message boards) and criticize them and theirs?</blockquotes>

YES! I’ve criticized them on numerous occasions on GNXP, too!


158

Posted by Svigor on Mon, 30 May 2005 20:18 | #

Pretty common then!

I meant SFers who feel that way.


159

Posted by ben tillman on Mon, 30 May 2005 20:21 | #

I have never alleged that all WNists espouse race war or genocide; what I have alleged is that the majority do….

But the question this raises is, why do you care?  Why do you make this a priority?

There is a genocide in progress, and the victim is *our* genus!  The fact that you are a WASP should settle the question.  But ignore what should be a bias toward the preservation of your own kind.  How—objectively—can a genocide that is in progress and is certain to run to completion if present trends are not reversed be deemed a less pressing concern than a genocide that exists only in your speculations?


160

Posted by Svigor on Mon, 30 May 2005 20:24 | #

Oh for Chrissakes arcane, there’s a difference between a bookmarks dump (that page) and an endorsement, and you know it.  You’re making yourself look like a putz.

You’re coming across as a sophist here.


161

Posted by Svigor on Mon, 30 May 2005 20:29 | #

Btw my name isn’t Frank, I just chose Frank at random because of GNXP’s policy of serial banning (why put any thought into a name that’ll last 5 minutes?).


162

Posted by ben tillman on Mon, 30 May 2005 20:33 | #

Natvan, a Neo-Nazi? He reminds me more of Svigor or Stuka than anyone else. The “garbage” he spewed was mainly stuff quite a few people would agree with. The only reason he was banned was that he happened to pick a fight with one of MR’s bloggers.

You are being a bit dense here, Random Lurker.  You allege that some people here agree with or are sympathetic to the statements made by Natvan (and I will be the first to say that the truth content of his comments is in fact greater than zero).  If your allegation is true, you should understand that this is an exacerbating not a mitigating factor.  How uncivil must one be to treat an allegedly sympathetic audience in that manner?


163

Posted by Random Lurker on Mon, 30 May 2005 20:42 | #

How uncivil must one be to treat an allegedly sympathetic audience in that manner?

Comparatively, natvan was “civil.” Others on MR have used invective far worse than his. Had he directed it towards anybody besides J. Richards or another blogger, I find it hard to believe he’d have been banned. Thus, why Peterson’s claim that MR “doesn’t believe in banning” holds little water.


164

Posted by TheChamp on Mon, 30 May 2005 21:30 | #

Wisest words that will ever be spoken in this thread:

hi


165

Posted by Kubilai on Mon, 30 May 2005 23:14 | #

Random Lurker,

Aside from your aversion of anything remotely sexual in nature, which has the markings of some quirky phobia, the “point” you are trying to make is sophistry at its finest.  Please tell me what is it about the concept of an ISOLATED, UNIQUE CASE that you do not understand?  Let’s start there, shall we?  For example, the interstate highway speed limit is 65 MPH for arguments sake.  If you pass a trooper going 68 MPH or even 70 MPH and he does not stop you to give you a ticket, do you automatically conclude that troopers DO NOT give tickets to speeders or would you thank your lucky stars and think it was an ISOLATED CASE?  Here’s another one, you order from Burger King a Whopper and the attendant forgets to take your money though still gives you the Whopper.  Will you conclude from this that Whoppers are free or would you use some shred of logic and think it to be an ISOLATED CASE?  One more for good measure since you seem to be a bit of a slow learner.  This one is a bit more tricky so pay attention.  You buy a coat from Walmart that comes with a $25 dollar rebate that you have to mail in with the stipulation that you have to send in the receipt.  You do not mail in the receipt for the rebate because you lost it trying to get a ridiculous point across on MR, and return the coat the following day.  The clerk gives you your money back and a week later you get a $25 check for the rebate.  Do you conclude that in order to get a rebate you must return the coat?  Do you conclude that you need to lose a receipt in order to get a rebate and money back when returning an item from Walmart?  Do you thank your dumb luck because getting a rebate and your money back from Walmart without a receipt is an, you know what’s coming don’t you?  An ISOLATED CASE!

Was that really so hard??


166

Posted by Arcane on Mon, 30 May 2005 23:16 | #

ben, you said:

But the question this raises is, why do you care?  Why do you make this a priority?

There is a genocide in progress, and the victim is *our* genus!  The fact that you are a WASP should settle the question.  But ignore what should be a bias toward the preservation of your own kind.  How—objectively—can a genocide that is in progress and is certain to run to completion if present trends are not reversed be deemed a less pressing concern than a genocide that exists only in your speculations?

You know, this would be funny if it weren’t your true opinion…

Lets not forget that there are more European people on this planet now than there have ever been before and just because current birthrates are in a state of decline does not mean that a “genocide” is taking place. If there is a “genocide” taking place of white people, then it’s simply because white people are choosing not to have more than 2 children.

I don’t see how the fact that white people are voluntarily choosing to have less children justifies the forceful and coercive exterminationist ideas advocated by many of the groups I listed above.

Remember, genocide is “the systematic and planned extermination of an entire national, racial, political, or ethnic group.” There is no “systematic and planned extermination” of white people taking place (except in maybe Zimbabwe, which isn’t Europe… I’m focusing on Europe), but there is a “systematic and planned extermination” being planned by those groups listed above.

There is no comparison between the forceful genocides of the past with voluntarily declining birthrates now.


167

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Mon, 30 May 2005 23:57 | #

“genocide is ‘the systematic and planned extermination of an entire national, racial, political, or ethnic group.’ There is no ‘systematic and planned extermination’ of white people taking place”  (—Arcane)

Sorry, Arc, but there is:  race-replacement immigration is a deliberate attempt to eliminate the traditional races in the nations in which it’s being forced on popuations against their wills.  The way we know it’s deliberate is the cause-and-effect is obvious, so no one in a position to pull political strings can be unaware of the consequences of the policies.  Knowing what the consequences of a policy are yet still doing it means you’re deliberately trying to bring those consequences about, otherwise you’d stop.  Remember one of James Burnham’s axioms:  “Who says A must say B.”  Jews weren’t reduced to zero by the Nazis, just reduced.  Gas chambers and death from communicable diseases in camps (Ann Frank died of typhoid fever, not in a gas chamber) are one way to accomplish the “reduction” of a targeted race.  Forced race-replacement is another.  It qualifies as genocide, my friend.  And it’s deliberate.


168

Posted by Arcane on Tue, 31 May 2005 00:17 | #

We’ll just have to agree to disagree on that. I don’t see immigration replacing whites anytime soon (like, within the next 100 years), especially in Europe. What I do see is declining birthrates, and I think those are of a much greater concern, along with multiculturalist propaganda, than immigration (which is a concern, just not the greatest).

In the US, immigration is the problem that I am most concerned about.


169

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Tue, 31 May 2005 00:50 | #

“I don’t see immigration replacing whites anytime soon (like, within the next 100 years), especially in Europe.”

First, reducing native whites in a place like, let’s say, Holland from one hundred percent of the population to a minority amounts, for all practical purposes, to replacing them.  That reduction is being forced on them right now as we speak, against the wishes of the majority there who are kept from protesting too loudly, or organizing opposition politically, by things like hate-speech laws.

Second, did the fact that Hitler couldn’t catch U.S. Jews and put them in concentration camps disqualify what he did to the ones he could catch as genocide?  Whites replaced anywhere is genocide, regardless of whether it’s in Europe or elsewhere. 

“What I do see is declining birthrates, and I think those are of a much greater concern, along with multiculturalist propaganda, than immigration”

I completely agree that the collapse of white birth rates around the West is an extremely grave situation in terms of making race-replacement of whites by non-whites vastly harder to prevent.  There are many forces, political and economic among others, that just want warm bodies and don’t give two damns what race they are, and these forces are powerful and will exert their power to fill a country up that’s not filling itself up.  Part of the approach to the problem of race-replacement is going to have to be a multi-faceted reform aimed at getting government off the backs of young couples so as to relieve its, government’s, downward pressure on white birth rates.  The biggest cause of low white birth rates is downward governmental pressure on those rates in dozens of ways, ranging from discouraging marriage to ruining neighborhoods in ways that make them far less family-friendly to ruining school quality to policies that make home prices skyrocket to very baby-unfriendly tax policies, and so on. 

“In the US, immigration is the problem that I am most concerned about.”

Me too.  You’re a good man, then.  Welcome aboard—we need all the help we can get in turning this thing around.


170

Posted by Tournament of Champions on Tue, 31 May 2005 01:09 | #

What I do see is declining birthrates, and I think those are of a much greater concern, along with multiculturalist propaganda, than immigration

The same govt that promotes mass immigration is the one that ignores declining birthrates. In reality they are both trivial to reverse; it’s not difficult to set the parameters of society so that those whom desire to have families are selected over those whom do not.


171

Posted by George Taylor on Tue, 31 May 2005 01:23 | #

I find the gal on the cover of the Goebbelsian propaganda mag Newsweek about as attractive as a malnourished potted plant with yellow leaves.

The intangable construct of ‘beauty’ is a subjective impression, dependant on one’s personal criteria.

Hence, from perusing the aforementioned propaganda, collective ‘man’ is an obtuse idiot who knows nothing at all, but loves to pretend he does; wishing to force a particular worldview down the lemminglike masses’ throats.

Enough said, I find the present state of this planet revolting, and those who are fostering it will get exactly what they deserve in the end.


172

Posted by Arcane on Tue, 31 May 2005 02:35 | #

Tournament, you said:

The same govt that promotes mass immigration is the one that ignores declining birthrates.

Generally, the US does not have the same problem with birthrates that the Europeans do. The two areas with declining birth rates in the US are New England and the northwest… basically the blue states. The red states are reproducing way above replacement levels.


173

Posted by J Richards on Tue, 31 May 2005 05:35 | #

Ephraim,

Both regular upper eyelid surgery and Asian eyelid surgery involve excision of excess fat and skin; the excesses of these structures being what make it difficult to apply make-up.  All one needs to do is to get rid of the excess; one doesn?t have to create a crease/fold.  Why don?t you understand that the creation of the crease/fold is for aesthetic reasons?  By now, you should have read what Kubilai has posted in this regard, a few comments below your comment.  Besides, the analogy involving homosexuals is not a non-sequitur; it is a similar example of not admitting to the true reasons out of embarrassment.  Once again, not all aspects of the upper eyelid surgery are related to looking whiter, but specifically the creation of the crease/fold in the upper eyelid.

Speaking of the aesthetic preferences of African-Americans, there is a huge amount of evidence out there—in terms of hip-hop videos and the models used in magazines catering to the African-American community—that supports my contention, which in turn is something I believe many in the U.S. would be familiar with.  Anyway, I do not know of any systematic study concerning facial-feature preferences among African-Americans that has been published in peer-reviewed journals, but there are some studies on skin color preference among African-Americans, and they show a general preference for lighter-skinned African-Americans:

Bond, S., & Cash, T.F. (1992). Black beauty: Skin color and body images among African-American college women. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 22 (11), 874-888.

Hall, R.E. (1992). Bias among African American regarding skin color: Implications for social work practice. Research on Social Work Practice, 2 (4), 479-486.

Lighter-skinned African-Americans also have somewhat less African facial features than their darker counterparts, on average.  Besides, you should know that Halle Berry is considered one of the most beautiful African-American women in the U.S. on the part of the African-American community; she not only has a white mother, but she has also surgically corrected her nose to make it look less African.   

Your comment concerning the greater appeal of Saira Mohan to you compared to the top two women in Figure 7 reflects a failure to understand the central point of my post.  My post is not about my preferences.  I couldn’t care less if you disparage my alleged preferences.  People vary in their aesthetic preferences, and it would be remarkable if everyone found the women in Figure 7 more appealing than Saira Mohan.  However, there are objective aesthetic criteria that apply to Europeans, and using such criteria—while ignoring pigmentation—it is clear than Saira Mohan is not as attractive as the women in Figure 7, irrespective of which of these women anyone prefers the most. 

Speaking of my buddies/co-bloggers, the only people that have not liked the white women that I have featured are you, Edgar, Chris W, Sybach, Ben Tillman, Arcane, and onetwothree, none of whom blog at MR or are known to me personally.  Phil Peterson has expressed his appreciation of Monica Belluci, without disapproving of the pictures in Figure 7.  Besides, in all three cases of the pictures posted in the comments section, namely that of Natalie Portman, Jessica Biel, and Monica Belluci, their hair is concealing their facial breath; see them with their hair drawn back, especially in three-quarters and profile view, and they won?t look as attractive, and you should try to get pictures of them without make-up.


174

Posted by J Richards on Tue, 31 May 2005 05:39 | #

Ephraim,

Nowhere in my post do I imply that people do or should share my own views of what is appealing; once again, there are objective, exacting within-race criteria concerning aesthetic judgment, which need not be held by every same-race individual, but which will be held by the majority of same-race individuals.  I have known of some whites who have a strong sexual preference for some very specific types of non-whites but little sexual preference for whites, and then there are men who prefer obese women, and you also have homosexuals, pedophiles, those into bestiality, and people with a variety of other unusual sexual interests.  Every same-race individual cannot be expected to have the same exact aesthetic preferences; there is natural variation, and then sometimes things go wrong.  It is for this reason that one needs to consider the central tendency of race-specific aesthetic preferences to understand what is normal, and judge same-race individuals using these race-specific criteria.  In the case of Saira Mohan, I am applying European standards to her facial features—but not skin color—because her facial features are well-within the variation seen in Europe, and I need to consider whether race mixing has made her very attractive by European standards.  In a nutshell, it is not possible for me to judge the attractiveness of the women that I have featured by taking into consideration the preferences of all whites, let alone all humans.  Besides, I doubt that you are white, and even if you are, it is unlikely that you are Northern European.

On the other hand, as to what is masculine or feminine with respect to facial anatomy, it is well known how sex hormones sculpt facial features and it is a matter of objective analysis as to how masculine- or feminine-looking someone is, not a subjective judgment.  Consider the following reference to learn more about the effects of sex hormones on facial features: 

Antonio Rosas, Markus Bastir. Thin-plate spline analysis of allometry and sexual dimorphism in the human craniofacial complex. American Journal of Physical Anthropology, Volume 117, Issue 3, Date: March 2002, Pages: 236-245.

You have also noted, ?I just don?t think non-white women are as ?unfeminine? as J. Richards does.?  Where did I say that non-white women in general are not very feminine? This post specifically focuses on one non-white woman, who is unambiguously not very feminine looking. 


Random Lurker,

For the record, NatVan was not banned for attacking an MR blogger, but he was banned by Guessedworker because Guessedworker wants the Jewish Question to be discussed at MR, and with absurd comments such as that of NatVan, it would not be possible to have a reasonable discussion in this regard.  The latter is something that you have copied and pasted; so, you should be aware of it.  Besides, I was not an MR blogger back then; I started blogging at MR roughly a month after the thread that you refer to was posted.

Amren_fan,

I have not posted at Amren, let alone used the alias that you mention.


175

Posted by Guessedworker on Tue, 31 May 2005 07:16 | #

JR,

Thanks for bringing up the JQ issue.  Early on here we were under regular thread-attack from a widely-known and very intelligent WNist.  His presumption was that we were a just another bunch of paleos unwilling to incorporate Jewish culpability for the State of Everything into our public views.

In fairness, he was no NatVan.  His arguments were well-presented and documented, and he never tipped over into ad hominem.  But he was locked into the presumption that, particularly, John, Geoff and myself must be exposed for the dangerous ignorance of our Conservative leanings.  Meanwhile, damage was certainly being done to the blog’s reputation among folks uncomfortable with the continuing emphasis on such matters.

So what to do?  Well, certainly not ban him.  I tried to argue that an extreme concentration on the JQ was counter-productive.  It drove away the very people whom he wanted to benefit with his views and, thereby, kept knowledge of Organised Jewry’s workings walled up in the WN ghetto.

This, I have to say, still did not halt his frontal attack on MR.  Then one day, in an e-mail exchange between us, the meaning of free speech in the blogging context finally hit him.  It was one of those forehead-slapping moments.  There’s no need to force anyone to eat intellectual senapods!  The merit of the idea is the thing.  He wrote, “In competition WN ideas will always come out on top.”

If they are good and true that is certainly so.  We live in times, for that very reason, when Free Speech is being weakened throughout the West.  The furthering of majority rights requires the furthering of Free Speech, and that’s all we are trying to do.


176

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Tue, 31 May 2005 08:39 | #

“The same govt that promotes mass immigration is the one that ignores declining birthrates. In reality they are both trivial to reverse; it’s not difficult to set the parameters of society so that those whom desire to have families are selected over those whom do not.”  (—Tournament)

This is one-hundred-percent right and very well put, Tournament.  You’re got a very big piece of the picture exactly right.

“The two areas with declining birth rates in the US are New England and the northwest… basically the blue states. The red states are reproducing way above replacement levels.”  (—Arcane)

One is tempted to reply that this fact gives us all sorts of instruction as to what factors must be ameliorated in order to allow birth rates to rise to natural levels rather than permitting a situation in which government continues to push them forcefully down and bring in non-whites to make up the difference (in actual practice, to way more than make up the difference—the race-replacers are in a hurry, you know, and they are taking no chances:  they are determined to get this job done).  But replying that way would give the false impression that the behind-the-scenes forces pushing white race-replacement didn’t already know exactly what they were doing.  They already know precisely what the factors are pushing birthrates down and they damn well intend keeping those factors in place.  What this fact does, then, is simply verify what we’ve known all along.  No one needs this fact to “teach” them anything:  none of this is a surprise to either side of the issue.  It merely officially gives the lie to one side.  One can be absolutely certain that a highly partisan demographer like Ben Wattenberg who wants to see whites made a minority in this country knows exactly what those governmental factors are which forcefully push white birthrates down.  He doesn’t need facts like the ones in question to show him.  He just wants low white birth rates, that’s all.  We could speculate as to why.


177

Posted by ben tillman on Tue, 31 May 2005 09:58 | #

I don’t see how the fact that white people are voluntarily choosing to have less children justifies the forceful and coercive exterminationist ideas advocated by many of the groups I listed above.

I thank Fred for making, quite well, one of the points I would have made:  that it is the immigration imposed on white populations that is the primary immediate instrument of genocide, and that that genocide is deliberate, as one is presumed to intend the foreseeable consequences of one’s actions. 

I will focus on your contention that the reduction in birth rate is wholly voluntary.  I must disagree.  It is complex, but a large part of the problem is what we see, for instance, in the green crab when it is parasitized by the sacculina carcini barnacle—or in many other instances of parasitism.  Because a host’s reproduction provides no benefits to a parasite, a parasite that is able to modify its host’s behavior or physiology will benefit from causing the host to redirect to the parasite (or its allies) the resources that would have gone into reproduction.  Though the proximate mechanisms are much different within human populations, the reduction in birth rate is largely due to increased taxation that benefits the parasitic elements, the increased costs associated with forced integration, et cetera.  Each child costs considerably more than it would cost in a healthy autonomous community, yet each family’s resources are less than they would otherwise be.  Lower birthrates are the result.


178

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Tue, 31 May 2005 10:31 | #

Ben Tillman has that exactly right.  That’s exactly how the process works.


179

Posted by bb on Tue, 31 May 2005 11:06 | #

Hate to say it (because I disagree so much with his views on the importance of whiteness and WASPness), but I think Ben Tillman has a point in his 1:58 PM post.  Having children is quite costly for the middle and upper-middle class who are taxed to hell to pay for the underclass’ children.  Essentially the underclass is subsidized, causing them to have more children than they otherwise would, while the upper middle class is taxed, causing them to have fewer children.  It’s basic economics—subsidize something and you get more of it, tax something and you get less.


180

Posted by ben tillman on Tue, 31 May 2005 11:29 | #

Hate to say it (because I disagree so much with his views on the importance of whiteness and WASPness)....

Birch, have you read David Sloan Wilson yet?  Do you understand multilevel organization & selection theory?  These are important ideas, and whatever you think of them you will need to appreciate them to understand my point of view.


181

Posted by ben tillman on Tue, 31 May 2005 11:35 | #

It’s basic economics—subsidize something and you get more of it, tax something and you get less.

That’s a point I make often, but it is a more direct route to my conclusion (though it is valuable to look at things from a biological perspective as well).

Non-whites are subsidized; whites are taxed.  Ergo, more non-whites; fewer whites.


182

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Tue, 31 May 2005 12:04 | #

“Non-whites are subsidized; whites are taxed.  Ergo, more non-whites; fewer whites.”  (—Ben)

This is the race-replacement angle on this process which, predictably, Birch completely missed, taking the process as race-neutral in his note of 3:06, which it isn’t and isn’t meant to be by those in control.  So, that whole point was lost on you, Birch, but do stick around and keep trying as hard as you can—maybe at some unknown future moment you’ll actually get it right.

As for “the underclass,” Birch, that’s analogous to, let’s say, your two legs:  are you going to cut them off and have a surgeon graft a pair of Chinese legs on you in their place?  No.  They’re your legs; they’re part of you; you and they go together.  So’s the white underclass:  part of your race; your race and it go together.  Class-and-IQ snobs like the Hindu brahmins and overseas Chinese you pal around with at GnXp are that way because they have no nation—the Brahmins in India have only their class and disdain all else in their country, and the Overseas Chinese like Jason Soon have only their diaspora race and disdain the members of the nation-state in which they find themselves.  You, on the other hand, are a white man.  You have an entire nation you are attached to, something they know strictly nothing about.  And that nation consists partly of a traditional race and of the actual physical land that traditional race lives on, and that traditional race is made up of parts, all of which exchange genes with each other to a significant extent and have done for a thousand and more years.  Take away one of those parts and the whole entity changes:  it’s not as if you can take away one of those parts—“the underclass,” for example—and have the “overclass” stay the same.  You want to live among different kinds of people?  Then relocate to a different country.  Don’t try to change my country or my nation-state please.  I don’t want it changed.


183

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Tue, 31 May 2005 12:45 | #

Off the topic of the log entry but on the topic of Julia Roberts, mentioned numerous times in the thread, and also kind of funny (OK, I admit—also for a bit of comic relief in what’s been a somewhat tense thread): 

For a photo of herself to post on her web-site a Canadian political pundit and her web-site designer took a pic of her face exclusive of hair, neck, and body—just her face—made it the right size, and attached it to a photo of Julia Roberts’ hair, neck, and body sitting in a lounge chair, <u>pretending it was all her</u>.


184

Posted by Amman on Tue, 31 May 2005 13:42 | #

Hmm…this is an interesting post. If I could make a few comments…

Both regular upper eyelid surgery and Asian eyelid surgery involve excision of excess fat and skin; the excesses of these structures being what make it difficult to apply make-up.  All one needs to do is to get rid of the excess; one doesn?t have to create a crease/fold.  Why don?t you understand that the creation of the crease/fold is for aesthetic reasons?  By now, you should have read what Kubilai has posted in this regard, a few comments below your comment.  Besides, the analogy involving homosexuals is not a non-sequitur; it is a similar example of not admitting to the true reasons out of embarrassment.  Once again, not all aspects of the upper eyelid surgery are related to looking whiter, but specifically the creation of the crease/fold in the upper eyelid.

I am not a surgeon, and I don’t know if you or Ephraim are, so I won’t comment on the technical aspects of blepharoplasty. However, I do have a question about the demographics of this procedure. The articles you provide seem to center around Asian women. Are there many Asian men who get this surgery done?

I also can’t help but wonder whether culture more than “aesthetic preferences” plays a part in this phenomenon. At this point in time, America in particular, and European countries in general, are the strongest states economically, politically, and culturally. It is unsurprising that many Asian women choose to “look more white,” since at this point in time, whites are still the dominant race (so to speak). Rummaging through MR’s archives, however, you can see that dominance beginning to ebb (although there are myriad posts I could cite, look for anything about the U.S economy, demographic shifts, and the Iraq War to see my point). In conjunction with this, the star of China seems to be rising (Again, your co-bloggers have written many posts about this subject as well). I am not sure whether a procedure to remove the non-Asian eyelid crease exists, but should Asian countries like China replace the U.S as the dominant superpower, it would be fascinating to see if white women began demanding such a procedure. Of course, that’s merely a hypothesis.

One more point. Sir, you claim that Asian women get this eyelid crease in order to “look more white.” It is obvious, however, that it is not only whites who posess this eyelid crease—blacks, Latinos, “Hindoos,” and Arabs are a few examples I can think of at the top of my head. An article you yourself provided would buttress that assertion, as http://www.lacitybeat.com/article.php?id=1618&IssueNum=87 points out, The eyelid fold is a dominant genetic trait found in nearly all non-Asians. If the eyelid crease is found in non-Asian races in general, not just whites, on what basis do you say that Asians get this surgery to look more white?


185

Posted by Arcane on Tue, 31 May 2005 14:38 | #

Fred, you said:

...replying that way would give the false impression that the behind-the-scenes forces pushing white race-replacement didn’t already know exactly what they were doing.  They already know precisely what the factors are pushing birthrates down and they damn well intend keeping those factors in place.

“Behind-the-scenes forces” who know “exactly what they’re doing?” What behind-the-scenes forces?

Hmmm, you mention Ben Wattenberg, who has constantly warned about the declining birthrates in Europe, although he is supportive of US immigration… typical neocon… lets see what Ben says about these “forces…”

Ben said:

I will focus on your contention that the reduction in birth rate is wholly voluntary.  I must disagree.  It is complex, but a large part of the problem is what we see, for instance, in the green crab when it is parasitized by the sacculina carcini barnacle—or in many other instances of parasitism.  Because a host’s reproduction provides no benefits to a parasite, a parasite that is able to modify its host’s behavior or physiology will benefit from causing the host to redirect to the parasite (or its allies) the resources that would have gone into reproduction.  Though the proximate mechanisms are much different within human populations, the reduction in birth rate is largely due to increased taxation that benefits the parasitic elements, the increased costs associated with forced integration, et cetera.  Each child costs considerably more than it would cost in a healthy autonomous community, yet each family’s resources are less than they would otherwise be.  Lower birthrates are the result.

Ah, so we have our “behind-the-scenes forces” described as “parasites” now… I’m sort of laughing right now, which I shouldn’t be because you guys are serious…

Portman is one of those “parasites,” right? LMAO


186

Posted by Svigor on Tue, 31 May 2005 14:59 | #

For the record, NatVan was not banned for attacking an MR blogger, but he was banned by Guessedworker because Guessedworker wants the Jewish Question to be discussed at MR, and with absurd comments such as that of NatVan, it would not be possible to have a reasonable discussion in this regard.

I agree; I’m about as wild-eyed an anti-Semite as MR wants around here.  What was one to think of NatVan when his first post was one like that?  How does one deal rationally with a person who “accuses” everyone he disagrees with of being Heimy-this or that-Stein?

As much of a pain in the ass as it is, the JQ is an extremely delicate issue since the overwhelming majority of whites wear the rosiest-tinted shades possible to view Jewry.


187

Posted by Arcane on Tue, 31 May 2005 15:07 | #

Svigor, you said:

I agree; I’m about as wild-eyed an anti-Semite as MR wants around here.

I dunno… Ben, Tournament, and Stuka are giving you quite a run for your money in regards to this.


188

Posted by Svigor on Tue, 31 May 2005 15:13 | #

Ah, so we have our “behind-the-scenes forces” described as “parasites” now… I’m sort of laughing right now, which I shouldn’t be because you guys are serious…

Actually, I think he was referring to the underclass blacks and imported mestizos, not your precious chosen people.  I think you’re conflating the “behind-the-scenes forces” with the “parasites” in error.

If you didn’t know that your chosen people were the a (if not “the”) dominant force behind mass immigration, perhaps you haven’t been paying attention.

I know it’s hard to admit when the one you love betrays you.  smile


189

Posted by Anonymous on Tue, 31 May 2005 15:13 | #

I have to wonder whether accusing any white who disagrees with you of being an “extended phenotype” of some hostile ethny or another differs from Natvan’s rhetoric in any significant respect other than the use of scientific terminology.


190

Posted by Svigor on Tue, 31 May 2005 15:20 | #

What is an anti-Semite arcane?  Is it one who holds negative views of Jews just for being Jews, or is it something else?

What do you think of this quote from John Hartung:

In-groups sandwich an outline for animosity, an organizing principle for prejudice, between layers of social support. Whether Christian or Muslim or Jewish, every extremist is supported by a small number of less extreme admirers and each of those supporters is buoyed, in turn, by a larger group of sympathizers. These connections are continuous right down to the bottom of the pyramid, where vaguely symapthetic in-group members are offended by the very extremists who would have no base, and no basis, without them.

It is that vague sympathy which needs to be examined.

http://members.aol.com/toexist/Shiksa11.html


191

Posted by Tournament of Champions on Tue, 31 May 2005 15:22 | #

“behind-the-scenes forces” described as “parasites”

Arcane:
For the simplest example, how about that $5 billion we send to that certain nation annually? Have not our resources been redirected to fund the reproduction of those in the home nation of the “parasites”? The biological interpretation is, yes, we are the host organism, and our resources are being drained.

I wont even discuss redirections to other groups. I for one am keen on removing any and all such parasites from my body, or that of my semi-extended phenotype the nation.


192

Posted by Svigor on Tue, 31 May 2005 15:23 | #

I have to wonder whether accusing any white who disagrees with you of being an “extended phenotype” of some hostile ethny or another differs from Natvan’s rhetoric in any significant respect other than the use of scientific terminology.

That’s a good point Anonymous.  Can you show someone who exhibits this behavior? (assuming you meant “every” white when you stated “any white” of course).


193

Posted by Arcane on Tue, 31 May 2005 15:25 | #

Svigor, you said:

I think he was referring to the underclass blacks and imported mestizos, not your precious chosen people.

All the blacks I know do not like Mexicans and support immigration restrictions. I’ve seen polling data, although I can’t remember where at the moment, that indicates the same.

The vast majority people who are pushing for more immigration and more multiculturalism are all white.

I got an idea… why don’t you marry 5 or 10 women and start reproducing like mad? You’d be doing a lot more for your race by doing that than by sitting here complaining about J-J-Jews… LOL.

Then again, I don’t remember. Did the Nuremberg Laws allow for polygamy?


194

Posted by Arcane on Tue, 31 May 2005 15:37 | #

Tournament, you said:

For the simplest example, how about that $5 billion we send to that certain nation annually? Have not our resources been redirected to fund the reproduction of those in the home nation of the “parasites”? The biological interpretation is, yes, we are the host organism, and our resources are being drained.

$5 billion out of a $11,500,000,000,000 billion economy… our resources are not “being drained.”

I wont even discuss redirections to other groups. I for one am keen on removing any and all such parasites from my body, or that of my semi-extended phenotype the nation.

Hmmm, lets compare that quote and the ones you said above with some more quotes…

Who said this?

This infection of our blood, which hundreds of thousands of our people overlook as though blind, is, moreover, promoted systematically by the Jews today. Systematically these black parasites of the nations ravish our innocent young, blonde girls and thus destroy something that can never gain be replaced in this world.

... or this?

It is this Jewry that is dragging them into adventures which, when all is said and done,
are no concern of theirs and in which the interests at stake are of no importance to them. ... One thing is
quite certain - within a quarter of a century the Americans will either have become violently anti-semitic
or they will be devoured by Jewry…

I could go on, but we know where your sympathies lie, Tournament… too bad you can’t be honest about your intentions… LOL


195

Posted by Svigor on Tue, 31 May 2005 15:38 | #

You don’t read too carefully here, do you Arcane?


196

Posted by Anonymous on Tue, 31 May 2005 15:38 | #

That’s a good point Anonymous.  Can you show someone who exhibits this behavior? (assuming you meant “every” white when you stated “any white” of course).

JWHollidayn and Fred Scrooby, for instance. And no, I meant any white.

Of course, perhaps I’m wrong. You’ve been at MR for quite a while, Svigor. Could you link me to a thread where anyone, white or otherwise, who dissented with MR’s position was treated courteously and respectfully? If this thread is any indication, vulgarity and ad hominem attacks seem to be the norm.


197

Posted by Arcane on Tue, 31 May 2005 15:44 | #

Svigor, you said:

You don’t read too carefully here, do you Arcane?

You don’t read too carefully here, do you Svigor?

You do an incredible job of avoiding being questioned. You’d make a good SA man.


198

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Tue, 31 May 2005 16:03 | #

Arcane you have a particular kind of fixation on the Jews that leads me to believe you yourself are what is commonly called an “anti-Semite,” you disapprove of being that, and are struggling to overcome that in yourself by constantly trying to uncover and condemn it in others.  That’s certainly the way it’s starting to appear.  If you want to discuss Jewish influence in some of today’s events, do so soberly and drop the constant extremely snide “Gotcha!” insinuations which implicate YOU as a closet anti-Semite more than anything.  I called you a good man a few posts back, and figuratively “welcomed you aboard,” but the last thing we or anyone need is the “help” of a guy half of whose time and effort are spent trying to see how many others he can accuse of anti-Semitism just in order to hide his own secret anti-Semitism.  Grow up or go back to GnXp please.


199

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Tue, 31 May 2005 16:07 | #

“Fred Scrooby, for instance” 

Anonymous, yes, I called Birch an extended phenotype, which is exactly what he is.  Any more questions about that?


200

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Tue, 31 May 2005 16:10 | #

Your other fixation, Arcane, is with the Nazis—you can’t participate in a thread here five seconds without one of your “Gotcha!  You’re a Nazi!” posts.  If you yourself are a closet Nazi please don’t use these threads to try to exorcise your inner Nazi/anti-Semite demons.  It does get boring.  There are psychiatrists for that.


201

Posted by Svigor on Tue, 31 May 2005 16:11 | #

Arcane:
What questions would you like answered?

You honestly don’t see your own dodges, or how you strawmanize so many opinions?

JWHollidayn and Fred Scrooby, for instance. And no, I meant any white.

Well, that makes it rather problematic, doesn’t it?  Natvan’s first post was shot through with the Heimy thing.  It gave every indication that he was a Linderite, and trust me, that’s a real bore.

This isn’t quite the same as an occasional accusation of “extended phenotype,” now is it?

If anyone thinks the level of discussion here is too heated, methinks a perspective adjustment is needed.  Try around the ‘Net, people are at each other’s throats over comic books and video games for God’s sake.

Of course, perhaps I’m wrong. You’ve been at MR for quite a while, Svigor. Could you link me to a thread where anyone, white or otherwise, who dissented with MR’s position was treated courteously and respectfully?

If this thread is any indication, vulgarity and ad hominem attacks seem to be the norm.

I think vulgarity and ad hominem is called for in some cases.  I think it’s precisely what the Lindsays of the world demand.  That said, I don’t approve of scatalogical attacks and the like.  I make an effort to keep things logical and civil, but by no means do I try to handle anyone with kid gloves.  (I should point out here the distinct difference between calling someone stupid and calling his ideas stupid)  If I think someone is playing games, as Arcane does, I feel no motivation to treat him as an honest opponent.

Added to this is the fact that nearly all the “home team” here is fed up with the crap, right up to the goddamn eyeballs.  If the “away team” players would keep this well in mind, things might go more smoothly for them.

All of the ‘Net is out there if they want someone to agree with them.  They need only turn on their teevees or pop in a DVD if that’s what they’re after.


202

Posted by Arcane on Tue, 31 May 2005 16:12 | #

I see Fred that you’re a Hitler-sympathizer, too, since you refuse to condemn the blatantly pro-Nazi sentiments of Stuka, Svigor, Tournament, and Ben.

Fine… I’m leaving.

You guys are all just a bunch of Nazis anyways. Why don’t you tell Thrasymachus to leave, too, since he’s part of our little conspiracy and an active blogger on GNXP?

Good riddance.


203

Posted by Svigor on Tue, 31 May 2005 16:19 | #

Also, I should add that THE FACT THAT EVERYONE HERE DOESN’T AGREE OR FEEL WARM AND FUZZY ABOUT EVERYONE ELSE IS A DIRECT RESULT OF THE FREE SPEECH DEDICATION OF THIS SITE, WHICH IS AS RARE AS HEN’S TEETH.


204

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Tue, 31 May 2005 16:23 | #

“I see Fred that you’re a Hitler-sympathizer, too, since you refuse to condemn the blatantly pro-Nazi sentiments of Stuka, Svigor, Tournament, and Ben.  Fine… I’m leaving.  You guys are all just a bunch of Nazis anyways. Why don’t you tell Thrasymachus to leave, too, since he’s part of our little conspiracy and an active blogger on GNXP?  Good riddance.” 

What a performance.  I had begun to think Arcane was normal but it’s looking as if he’s got inner demons of an anti-Semitic, pro-Nazi nature which he’s having trouble dealing with.  Poor guy.  Hope he makes out all right.  But GnXp’s probably the best place for his kind of confused neurotic—less likely to get into trouble while he’s—one hopes—straightening himself out over there.


205

Posted by ben tillman on Tue, 31 May 2005 16:30 | #

I have to wonder whether accusing any white who disagrees with you of being an “extended phenotype” of some hostile ethny or another differs from Natvan’s rhetoric in any significant respect other than the use of scientific terminology. -Anonymous

It’s not that diferent, except that Natvan was wrong in his characterization.  I may prefer “pod people” as a term for those whose bodies have been hijacked by hostile memes (propagated by hostile organisms), but “extended phenotypes” is just fine with me.

The question to ask yourself is, how could self-sacrificial behavior of this sort evolve?  How could it be selected for?  How could so many whites have evolved to work for their own extinction?  I’m serious.  I’m asking you to provide a mechanism or model of this phenomenon.

Evolutionary biologists will tell you that the phenomenon is presumed to be due to manipulation.  G.C. Williams:  “As a general rule, a modern biologist seeing an animal doing something to benefit another assumes either that it is being manipulated by the other individual or that it is being subtly selfish.”  The “subtly selfish” part accounts for within-group (intraorganismic) “altruism” as discussed by D.S. Wilson.  The manipulation part explains the actions of whites who “willingly” participate in their own genocide.

This is an example of Dawkins’s “extended phenotype” concept every bit as much as his example of monomorium santschii: 

“But sawing off heads is a bit of a chore. Parasites are not accustomed to exerting themselves if they can coerce a stand-in. My favourite character in [E.O.] Wilson’s The Insect Societies is Monomorium santschii. This species, over evolutionary time, has lost its worker caste altogether. The host workers do everything for their parasites, even the most terrible task of all. At the behest of the invading parasite queen, they actually perform the deed of murdering their own mother. The usurper doesn’t need to use her jaws. She uses mind-control.”

Could you link me to a thread where anyone, white or otherwise, who dissented with MR’s position was treated courteously and respectfully? -Anonymous

First, MR does not have positions.  But for the examples you seek, take a look at this thread.  I believe my comments meet that standard.


206

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Tue, 31 May 2005 16:34 | #

“Could you link me to a thread where anyone, white or otherwise, who dissented with MR’s position was treated courteously and respectfully?” -Anonymous

Anonymous if you can’t stand the heat get out of the kitchen.


207

Posted by anonymous on Tue, 31 May 2005 16:40 | #

Well, that makes it rather problematic, doesn’t it?  Natvan’s first post was shot through with the Heimy thing.  It gave every indication that he was a Linderite, and trust me, that’s a real bore.

This isn’t quite the same as an occasional accusation of “extended phenotype,” now is it?

This would be accurate is the allegation of “extended phenotype” actually was occaisonal. Unfortunately, from what I have seen of MR’s interactions with not only GNXPers, but any white who does not agree with it, that term is bandied about quite frequently.

Natvan was banned for “the Heimy thing” as you said. If he called Mr. Richards a “Jewish extended phenotype” instead, he would likely not have been banned. His arguments would still have been as spurious.

If anyone thinks the level of discussion here is too heated, methinks a perspective adjustment is needed.  Try around the ‘Net, people are at each other’s throats over comic books and video games for God’s sake.

You’re right—this sort of behavior is common around the Internet in general. Which is why I’m surprised to see it so prevalent among the commenters and bloggers at MR, whites who supposedly pride themselves on the civility and gentlemanliness.

In any case, you still haven’t answered my question, which I postulate out of sincere curiosity—as I said, you have been here longer than I. Are there any threads you can link me to in which discussion between the denizens of MR and a dissenter have been civilized and respectful, and which have not degenerated into vulgarity and ad hominem attacks?


208

Posted by anonymous on Tue, 31 May 2005 16:44 | #

First, MR does not have positions.  But for the examples you seek, take a look at this thread.  I believe my comments meet that standard.

Yours do, actually. I applaud you for your refusal to resort to name-calling and mud-slinging. Unfortunately, sir, you are one of the exceptions which prove the rule.


209

Posted by ben tillman on Tue, 31 May 2005 16:46 | #

I quoted Dawkins from The Selfish Gene before; this is Dawkins from The Extended Phenotype:

Let me stress again what a feat of mind-control the Monomorium santschii
queen achieves.  To a sterile worker ant, her mother is a kind of genetic
gold-mine.  For a worker ant to kill her own mother is an act of genetic
madness.

And from Matt Ridley’s excellent “The Origins of Virtue”:

There was a revolution in biology in the mid 1960s, pioneered especially by two men, George Williams and William Hamilton. This revolution is best known by Richard Dawkins’s phrase ‘The Selfish Gene’, and at its core lies the idea that individuals do not consistently do things for the good of their group, or their families, or even themselves. They consistently do things that benefit their genes, because they are all inevitably descended from those that did the same. None of your ancestors died celibate….  [A]lways, without exception, living things are designed to do things that enhance the chances of their genes or copies of their genes surviving and replicating.

And Dawkins again:

We are survival machines - robot vehicles blindly programmed to preserve the selfish molecules known as genes.

Manipulation is the answer.


210

Posted by anonymous on Tue, 31 May 2005 17:04 | #

Since you asked, Mr. Tillman, I suppose I can answer to the best of my abilities. I should state, however, that I am not a trained scientist, and my purpose in entering this thread was to protest what I saw as an undue amount of vitriolic rhetoric and personal attacks. Thus, I should warn that I do not claim this hypothesis as valid, only that it is what my studies of history have lead me to believe. That said, allow me to state a response to that question.

I would find the concept of “extended phenotypes” to be much more convincing if whites did not act in a seemingly self-destructive manner without the influence of “hostile ethnies.” In another thread, there is a debate going on about the (Caucasian) Aryans who entered India. As Friedrich Bauch pointed out there, “miscegenation is inevitable when two races are in close contact.” In that light, it was clearly “genetic madness” for the Aryans to invade India—they were so vastly outnumbered by the dark-skinned masses that their consumption by inter-breeding was inevitable. Yet the Aryan tribes knew no Jews to provoke them towards miscegenation, and they actively tried to prevent it. The Aryans were “extended phenotypes” of no ethny, yet they drove themselves out of existence all the same.

Perhaps we should look at a somewhat more contemporary example—the Civil War. This war was obviously a titanic blunder for American whites. Not only did it result in the deaths of hundreds of thousands of whites, by its end, slavery was abolished, and the “liberation” of blacks resulted in an increased threat of miscegenation, since they were no longer as “oppressed” and coerced to keep their distance from White ladies. Yet Abraham Lincoln was not a Jew. As far as I know, he was not under Jewish sway. The Jews, or any other “hostile ethny,” do not seem to have played a large part in precipitating this conflict. As far as I can tell, American whites seem to have brought it on themselves. If manipulation is your only explanation for the “suicidal” tendencies of whites, how do you explain this sort of behavior in the absence of groups capable of manipulating them? Looking at history, I must consider factors other than hostile, manipulative ethnies to explain the “suicidal” tendencies of whites.


211

Posted by Svigor on Tue, 31 May 2005 17:04 | #

You’re right—this sort of behavior is common around the Internet in general. Which is why I’m surprised to see it so prevalent among the commenters and bloggers at MR, whites who supposedly pride themselves on the civility and gentlemanliness.

Speaking only for myself (as is usual unless stated otherwise), allow me to disabuse you.  I am very much in favor of ingroup morality (i.e., dual standards; see Judaism and the history of Judaism for details).  My civility and gentlemanliness are reserved for those I deem members of my ingroup or those I wish to persuade into it.

Chivalry is only applicable to those who operate within its sphere.  It is reciprocal.  It does not apply to the “other,” nor should it.

In any case, you still haven’t answered my question

I didn’t answer it because I can’t; I don’t monitor threads using this criterion, so I don’t know.


212

Posted by Svigor on Tue, 31 May 2005 17:10 | #

Anon:
That said, allow me to state a response to that question.
So, your argument is essentially that you don’t buy arguments of negative external influence because negative behaviors have existed without external influence?  Is this a fair assessment, and if so, do you consider the argument a logical one?


213

Posted by Svigor on Tue, 31 May 2005 17:16 | #

Looking at history, I must consider factors other than hostile, manipulative ethnies to explain the “suicidal” tendencies of whites.

I don’t object to that at all.  In fact, I think the selfish, short-sighted tendencies of white elites are in the same ballpark as hostile ethnies in terms of power and effect.  I think that the two factors are quite different in nature though; hostile ethnies are collectives and operate more or less deliberately, our own elites operate selfishly and out of ignorance.


214

Posted by Anonymous on Tue, 31 May 2005 17:33 | #

Speaking only for myself (as is usual unless stated otherwise), allow me to disabuse you.  I am very much in favor of ingroup morality (i.e., dual standards; see Judaism and the history of Judaism for details).  My civility and gentlemanliness are reserved for those I deem members of my ingroup or those I wish to persuade into it.

Chivalry is only applicable to those who operate within its sphere.  It is reciprocal.  It does not apply to the “other,” nor should it.

I see. If this is your belief, far be it from me to contest it.

I didn’t answer it because I can’t; I don’t monitor threads using this criterion, so I don’t know.

Very well. Thank you anyways for your time.

So, your argument is essentially that you don’t buy arguments of negative external influence because negative behaviors have existed without external influence?  Is this a fair assessment, and if so, do you consider the argument a logical one?

No, I am merely saying that external influence does not account for all negative behavior. This is why I protest referring to Arcane, Birch Barlow, et. al as “extended phenotypes.” They may have ulterior motives and interests which result in their views, and these interests may collude with Razib’s rather than being created by him. Just as the elites you mention often seek the same goals as Jews even though they may not necessarily be Jewish or even philo-Semitic perhaps white GNXPers seek the same goals as Razib despite the fact they are not of his ethny or even sympathetic to it.


215

Posted by Svigor on Tue, 31 May 2005 17:38 | #

I don’t think any of that actually disputes the term “extended phenotype.”  As far as I am aware, the term has little to do with intent and everything to do with behavior and effect.  One need not be a conscious extended phenotype to be an extended phenotype.


216

Posted by Anonymous on Tue, 31 May 2005 17:47 | #

One need not be a conscious extended phenotype to be an extended phenotype.

That is true, to an extent, but I don’t think it applies to Arcane, birch barlow, etc. To prove this, let us pretend that they’re not GNXPers, and that they have no association with a hostile ethny. Would they still champion “self-destructive” ideologies like constitutional patriotism? I believe so. If an organism champions a self-destructive meme with or without the influence of a competing ethny, how can you say it is an “extended phenotype” of that ethny?


217

Posted by Svigor on Tue, 31 May 2005 17:54 | #

The whole idea of constitutional patriotism or propositional nationhood is, in my view, hostile to my genetic interests.  I believe that it was only popularized as such.


218

Posted by Anonymous on Tue, 31 May 2005 17:58 | #

The whole idea of constitutional patriotism or propositional nationhood is, in my view, hostile to my genetic interests.  I believe that it was only popularized as such.

Perhaps that is true, but assuming it is harmful to white genetic interests, and white GNXPers would champion it even if they weren’t part of the GNXP blog, how can you say that Arcane, birch barlow, et. al are extended phenotype? If they’d advocate harmful memes with or without Razib, calling them “extended phenotypes” of the man doesn’t really make sense.


219

Posted by Svigor on Tue, 31 May 2005 18:03 | #

Your message seems to be that ignoring genetic interests in the public sphere exists without the help of hostile ethnies.

My message is that genetic interests should be of primary concern and that any influence to the contrary should be removed.

So, the difficulty in disentangling the sources becomes less important in my view.  I also find it disingenous of anyone to argue that x or y isn’t a necessary factor or whatever because what I’m really hearing is “I don’t give a shit,” even if it’s spoken sotto voce.  If white elites are pouring gas on the fire, and Jews are pouring gas on the fire, the fact remains that preventing Jews from pouring gas on the fire reduces the amount of gas available to the fire.


220

Posted by Svigor on Tue, 31 May 2005 18:09 | #

Would you really like to go over the sources of the “propositional nation” meme (and its sundry cousins)?  If so, let’s do it via email or in a thread at Stormfront (or a neutral forum we can agree on); this thread is too big and cumbersome for me to really deal with it via my 56k modem.


221

Posted by ben tillman on Tue, 31 May 2005 18:13 | #

I would find the concept of “extended phenotypes” to be much more convincing if whites did not act in a seemingly self-destructive manner without the influence of “hostile ethnies.”

We can always expect competition within groups as well as between groups.  Such competition will exist to one degree or another even without manipulation form the outside.  Either type of competition is vastly different from suigenocide.

For the Union forces, the Second War of Secession was fought for control of, and to maintain the unity of, a group; for the Confederacy the war was fought to establish itself as a separate entity.  That is not self-destruction, in either case. 

The result of the Union regime’s victory was a larger biological unit (good) and the loss of bidirectional control—i.e., acceleration of centralization and a concomitant erosion of moral enforcement mechanisms (bad).  There is an evolutionary tradeoff between size and structural stability.  Was a larger union in fact adaptive for the Northern interests that pushed for the war?  Who can say?  But no one will allege that humans possess perfect information about the world—especially about the future!  We are evolved to make decisions based only on what we know. 

Nor would I simply assume that there were no hostile memes at work.  The New England abolitionists were certainly influenced by “British Israel” and “Tikkun Olam” concepts that passed from Holland through England in the 17th century.  There is much more to say, but I’ll leave it at that. 

Regarding the Aryans, I just don’t know the facts.  I would presume they left behind an Aryan population wherever they embarked from, but I don’t know.  If not, where did we come from?


222

Posted by Anonymous on Tue, 31 May 2005 18:14 | #

My message is that genetic interests should be of primary concern and that any influence to the contrary should be removed.

So, the difficulty in disentangling the sources becomes less important in my view.  I also find it disingenous of anyone to argue that x or y isn’t a necessary factor or whatever because what I’m really hearing is “I don’t give a shit,” even if it’s spoken sotto voce.

This seems to be one of your tightly held beliefs, Svigor. In that case, I suppose I shouldn’t try to change it. If disentangling any two sources is unimportant in your view, any attempts to do so will be of little concern to you. In any case, thank you for your time, and the comparative civility with which you have comported yourself.


223

Posted by Anonymous on Tue, 31 May 2005 18:26 | #

Nor would I simply assume that there were no hostile memes at work.  The New England abolitionists were certainly influenced by “British Israel” and “Tikkun Olam” concepts that passed from Holland through England in the 17th century.  There is much more to say, but I’ll leave it at that. 

If you could expound on those concepts, I’d appreciate it. I’d never heard of them before.

And in any case, I suppose I could cite examples of “suigenocide” on a smaller scale—European tribal units. Take the Frankish migration into Celtic Gaul. I am quoting W. Scott Haines, “The History of France:”

“Aside from bequeathing their name to the nation, the Franks had only a minimal long-term demographic impact on France. Historians estimate the number of invading Franks to have been in the range of 150,000 to 200,000, perhaps 2 to 3 percent of a population between 6 and 7 million.” (29)

Thus, although the Franks definately left their mark culturally on Celtic Gaul (as the Merovingian dynasty and the fact we refer to the area as France now attests) genetically, they were as doomed as the Aryans. Their distinctive “Germanness” so to speak, was swallowed up by the native Celts. The Aryans spread west, so perhaps their migration into India was not an act of suigenocide on their part. The Franks left no settlements behind them, and were entirely swallowed up by the Celts…without the influence of Jews. Now, the Celts and the Germanic tribes were far more closely related than the Aryans and the Dravidians, but they were still two distinct peoples, which they ceased to be of their own volition, apparently.


224

Posted by Svigor on Tue, 31 May 2005 18:38 | #

This seems to be one of your tightly held beliefs, Svigor. In that case, I suppose I shouldn’t try to change it.

It isn’t a tightly held belief, any more than my belief that the Earth revolves around the Sun; introduce evidence that contradicts it and I’ll hold my belief up against it and see what shakes out where.  A lot of mumbo-jumbo of the GNXP sort isn’t going to do it though (I’m not referencing you with that, just my experience).

If disentangling any two sources is unimportant in your view

It isn’t unimportant to me at all, it’s just that I don’t find it the stumbling block you do (in this context).  I’d very much love to know where one ends and another begins.  In fact, I’d probably give a digit to know (no I’m not kidding).

In any case, thank you for your time, and the comparative civility with which you have comported yourself.

My bit about dual morals aside, I find behaving civilly (i.e., with common courtesy) to be the best way forward with all people, as long as it’s reciprocated.  You needn’t thank me for that.


225

Posted by ben tillman on Tue, 31 May 2005 18:53 | #

I don’t object to that at all.  In fact, I think the selfish, short-sighted tendencies of white elites are in the same ballpark as hostile ethnies in terms of power and effect.  I think that the two factors are quite different in nature though….

I’m not sure they can be separated at all.  The “white elite” is the traditional point of Jewish entry into a white community.  See Shahak, Netanyahu, MacDonald, et al.  What is exploited is the greater standard deviation in intelligence (and perhaps other characteristics) among whites, combined with our greater individualism and our lesser ethnocentrism (though these are interrelated concepts).  The tendency of white elites to exploit their poor relations (or engage in group-forming behavior, in the words of Arthur Keith) is not dependent on Jewish influence.  What the Jewish entry into the community has done traditionally, however, is to drive a wedge between the white elite and the lower orders.  The wedge severs or at least weakens the bidirectional social controls whereby group-orientedness (i.e., morality) is enforced.  See D.S. Wilson.  This accelerates the process of centralization, i.e., the growth of a “state”.  See Benjamin Ginsberg.

As group size increases (again assuming the absence of a cohesive invading group), “structural stability” (Seeley, after Bronowski)or “hierarchic harmony” (MacDonald) becomes more difficult to achieve.  Over time, even without outside intervention, these ties will erode, power will centralize (and internal parasitism will grow), and the society will head toward collapse (see Tainter), although self-correction is possible if the group’s degenerating structure endangers the existence of the group – i.e., puts both the elite and the lower orders in the same boat.  This is all part of the evolutionary process whereby, over time, larger groups gain greater structural stability through competition among groups.  It is part of a general increase in complexity.

Suigenocide is something else entirely.  It is not in the evolutionary interest of the white elite.


226

Posted by Anonymous on Tue, 31 May 2005 19:03 | #

Tillman, while I’m familiar with McDonald’s Judaism trilogy, that’s pretty much the only reference I’m familiar with, at least if I’m just given the names of the authors. If you wouldn’t mind, are there any specific works by Ginsberg, Shahak, Netanyahu, et. al that you’re referring to in particular?


227

Posted by Anonymous on Tue, 31 May 2005 19:11 | #

Also, I believe my point about the Franks still stands. They didn’t have a “elite” in the sense we’d think of—Germanic kings and elites were relatively close to the common tribesmen, a fact Tacitus attests to in his Germania. And, of course, there were no Jews in the tribe. Unlike the Aryans, the Franks left nothing behind them—their migration led to them being completely consumed by the Celts. Now, even if that isn’t “suigenocide” in and of itself, it is not unreasonable to say it was definately detrimental to Frankish genetic interests, as the citation from Haine seems to prove. It seems to be a telling reminder that Jews, or even “elites,” or outside manipulation in general, are not at all required for an ethny to act in a manner contrary to its “ethnic genetic interests.”


228

Posted by ben tillman on Tue, 31 May 2005 19:27 | #

Joseph Tainter - The Collapse of Complex Societies

Benjamin Ginsberg - The Fatal Embrace:  Jews and the State

Benzion Netanyahu (father of the former Israeli prime minister):  The Origins of the Inquisition in 15th-Century Spain, p.959 (New York:  Random House, 1995):

It was primarily because of the functions of the Jews as the king’s revenue gatherers in the urban areas that the cities saw the Jews as the monarch’s agents, who treated them as objects of massive exploitation.  By serving as they did the interests of the kings, the Jews seemed to be working against the interests of the cities; and thus we touch again on the phenomenon we have referred to:  the fundamental conflict between the kings and their people—a conflict not limited to financial matters, but one that embraced all spheres of government that had a bearing on the people’s life.  It was in part thanks to this conflict of interest that the Jews could survive the harsh climate of the Middle Ages, and it is hard to believe they did not discern it when they came to resettle in Christian Europe.  Indeed, their requests, since the days of the Carolingians, for assurances of protection before they settled in a place show (a) that they realized that the kings’ positions on many issues differed from those of the common people and (b) that the kings were prepared, for the sake of their interests, to make common cause with the ‘alien’ Jews against the clear wishes of their Christian subjects.  In a sense, therefore, the Jews’ agreements with the kings in the Middle Ages resembled the understandings they had reached with foreign conquerors in the ancient world.”

David Sloan Wilson - (1) Unto Others, (2) Darwin’s Cathedral

T.D. Seeley:  The Wisdom of the Hive


229

Posted by ben tillman on Tue, 31 May 2005 19:34 | #

Thus, although the Franks definately left their mark culturally on Celtic Gaul (as the Merovingian dynasty and the fact we refer to the area as France now attests) genetically, they were as doomed as the Aryans. Their distinctive “Germanness” so to speak, was swallowed up by the native Celts.

But what did they know when they did this?  Did they know they were outnumbered?  What were their alternatives?  Could the maladaptiveness be readily determined ahead of time, as the maladaptiveness of the multicultural ideology can be?  How do we know it was maladaptive, even in hindsight?  What would have become of them otherwise?  And what was the gebetic gradient between the two populations?  Again, this seems very different.


230

Posted by Anonymous on Tue, 31 May 2005 19:37 | #

Mr. Tillman, thanks so much for the sources! It sounds like fascinating material, and by great fortune, I think I might actually own a few of the books you list. Thanks again.


231

Posted by Anonymous on Tue, 31 May 2005 19:44 | #

But what did they know when they did this?  Did they know they were outnumbered?  What were their alternatives?  Could the maladaptiveness be readily determined ahead of time, as the maladaptiveness of the multicultural ideology can be?  How do we know it was maladaptive, even in hindsight?  What would have become of them otherwise?  And what was the gebetic gradient between the two populations?  Again, this seems very different.

I don’t think so. Germanic tribes had been squabbling with the Romans for centuries, so the Franks should have had a pretty good idea of what to expect when they poured into Gaul. The Frankish invasion, along with Germanic migration in general, seems to have been caused by the Huns, but in this case, it seems like running from the frying pan into the fire—either way, the Franks were doomed.


232

Posted by ben tillman on Tue, 31 May 2005 20:02 | #

Regarding the 17th century, it was a time of great social and intellectual upheaval—the regicide, the spreading of Kabbalistic ideas to Holland (Isaac Luria & tikkun olam),  the radical Enlightenment, Spinoza & the Enlightenment as a reaction to the Jewish presence in the West (see Adam Sutcliffe), the devlopment in the Enlightenment of ideals of universalism (even pantheism) and individualism that are precisely the opposite of what is adaptive in competition with Jewry, millenarianism on the part of Jews and gentiles, bogus claims of the discovery of Lost Tribes of Israel in the New World used to influence Cromwell, gentile uprising against the Jews in Poland in 1648, Jewish refugees from Poland, Menasseh ben Israel’s self-appointed mission to gain readmission of the Jews to England, general Protestant craziness, emigration of zealous “New Israel” types to New England (who would later form the backbone of the abolitionist movement), etc.  And it would appear that they all tie together somehow.

Some random links to get you started:

http://www.culture.hu-berlin.de/ub/texte/text_purit.pdf

http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?artid=743&letter=M

http://www.kheper.net/topics/Kabbalah/LurianicKabbalah.htm

http://www.culturewars.com/2003/RevolutionaryJew.html

“Then the year 1648 arrives, which had been mentioned in the Zohar as the year of the resurrection. The cry went up from the whole House of Israel at the horrors of the Cossack insurrection that had broken out in Poland and Russia and that became known in Jewish history as the Chmielnicki massacres.”—Gerschom Scholem, Sabbatai Sevi

“The kabbalists had calculated that the year 1648 would bring the redemption; instead it had brought Chmielnicki.”—Chaim Potok, Wanderings

“Three events which could be interpreted as “signs” happened in 1648 and 1649. The treaties of Westphalia proclaimed, to a certain extent at least, freedom of conscience; above all they marked the end of Spanish supremacy, and therefore of that of Catholicism. For a good many jews in Amsterdam, who were former victims of the Spanish Inquisition, 1648 might have been the dawn of redemption. Furthermore, Jewish refugees now arriving in Amsterdam were still in a state of terror as a result of the massacres perpetrated by Chmielnicki’s Cossacks in Poland. Might not these horrors be the birth pangs of the Messiah spoken of by the traditional texts? Finally, did not the news of the beheading of Charles I herald the overthrow of the things of this world and the beginning of the longed-for new era?”—Menasseh Ben Israel, The Hope of Israel


233

Posted by ben tillman on Tue, 31 May 2005 20:19 | #

Heinrich Graetz’s “History of the Jews” is avaliable online:

http://www.saltshakers.com/lm/GraetzD.rtf

Excerpts from Volume V:

The central point of the later Kabbala was most intense expectation of the Messiah; Lurya, Vital, and their disciples and followers proclaimed anew, “The kingdom of heaven is at hand.” 

***

SETTLEMENT OF THE JEWS IN ENGLAND AND MANASSEH BEN ISRAEL.

1655-1657 C.E.

At the very time when the Jews of Poland were trodden down, slaughtered, or driven through Europe like terrified wild beasts, a land of freedom was opened, from which the Jews had been banished for more than three centuries and a half.  England, which the wise queen Elizabeth and the brave Cromwell had raised to be the first power in Europe, a position very different from that of crumbling Poland, again admitted Jews, not indeed through the great portal, yet through the back door.  But this admission was so bruited abroad, that it was like a triumph for Judaism.  The Jews of Amsterdam and Hamburg looked with longing to this island, to which they were so near, with whose merchants, shipowners, and scholars they were in connection, and which promised wide scope for the exercise of their varied abilities.  But settlement there seemed beset with insuperable obstacles.  The English episcopal church, which exercised sway over

                RESETTLEMENT OF JEWS IN ENGLAND.   

the English conscience, was even more intolerant than the popery which it persecuted,  Not grantlng freedom to Catholics and Dissenters, would it tolerate the descendants of those aspersed in the New Testament? The English people, who for centuries had seen no Jew, shared to the full the antipathy of the clergy. 

***

Who would undertake to banish this strong prejudice in order to render people and rulers favorable to the descendants of Israel? The man who undertook and executed this difficult task did not belong to the first rank of intellectual men, but possessed the right measure of insight and narrowness, strength of will and flexibility, knowledge and imagination, self-denial and vanity, required for so arduous an undertaking. Manasseh ben Israel, second or third rabbi at Amsterdam, who at home played only a. subordinate part, the poor preacher who, to support his family, was obliged to resort to printing, but obtained so little profit from it, that he wished to exchange pulpit oratory for mercantile speculation, and was near settling in Brazil; he it was who won England for Judaism….

***

Manasseh ben Israel had complete grasp of Jewish literature., and knew the Christian theology of his time, and what was to be said on each point, i. e., what had been said by his predecessors.

***

THE PURITANS.           

The greatest number of ardent admirers of “God’s people” were to be found in England, precisely among those who now had powerful influence in the army council and the camp. 

***

A desire was excited in the hearts of the Puritans to see this living wonder, the Jewish people, with their own eyes, to bring Jews to England, and, by making them part of the theocratic community about to be established, stamp it with the seal of completion. The sentiments of the Puritans towards the Jews were expressed in Oliver Cromwell’s observation, ” Great is my sympathy with this poor people, whom God chose, and to whom He gave His law; it rejects Jesus, because it does not recognize him as the Messiah.”  Cromwell dreamt of a reconciliation of the Old and the New Testament,of an intimate connection between the Jewish people of God and the English Puritan theocracy.  But other Puritans were so absorbed in the Old Testament that the New Testament was of no importance. Especially the visionaries in Cromwell’s army and among the members of Parliament, who were hoping for the Fifth Monarchy, or the reign of the saints, assigned to the Jewish people a glorious position in the expected millennium.  A Puritan preacher, Nathaniel Holmes (Holmesius), wished, according to the letter of many prophetic verses, to become the servant of Israel, and serve him on bended knees.  The more the tension in England increased through the imprisonment of the king, the dissensions between the Presbyterian Long Parliament and the Puritan army, the civil war, the execution of King Charles, and the establishment of a republic in England, the more public life and religious thought assumed Jewish coloring.


234

Posted by ben tillman on Tue, 31 May 2005 20:21 | #

There is much more, but I’m out of time.


235

Posted by anonymous on Tue, 31 May 2005 20:25 | #

Again, thanks very much for the sources, ben. I’m in your debt.

Concerning outside manipulation of EGIs, however, I’ve found some interesting examples from Roman history that also seem interesting. For instance, look at how the Roman Empire treated citizenship. It must be said at once that Jews were present in the Empire, but they definately didn’t hold the same influence they’ve had since the Middle Ages during the time period I’m referring to. The Romans held a concept of citizenship that seems almost like todays “proposition nation.” Roman law stated that anyone who served 20 years in the Roman army was eligible for Roman citizenship, This applied to Barbarian auxilliaries as well! Thus, we see the Romans acting in a curiously self-destructive way. They dominated the barbarian tribes of Europe and Britain, they were under no obligation to extend citizenship to these “out” groups. However, they ended up doing so anyways, and thus opened the door to an influx of foreign genes, since these barbarian “citizens” could now marry good Roman women. It is easy to see what that practice would lead to, so it is reasonable to assume the Romans realized foreigners would intermarry with them. However, even without a extremely influential Jewish ethny controlling their decisions, the Romans still decided NOT to make citizenship based on race. This wasn’t exactly “suigenocide,” but it came very close, since Roman ethnic genetic interests would be decimated by the influx of foreign blood. Yet this seems to have been lost on them. Apparently, centuries before the “proposition nation” came into vogue, the Romans were valuing military service more than genetic proximity, and were fully aware of it, too!

NOTE: Although the genetic distance between the Romans and the barbarian tribes is hard to precisely gauge, it is reasonable to assume the gulf was sizable, given Tacitus’ descriptions of the people. He describes the Germanic barbarians as much larger and sturdier than the Romans, and also, ill-adapted to warm climates. Perhaps the genetic distance between Roman and Goth was not insurmountable, but it was considerable.


236

Posted by bb on Tue, 31 May 2005 21:22 | #

I think the “extended phenotype” business really is nonsense, at least in the pejorative way it is used here.  What matters to me and to post people are personal wants and needs, not genes per se.  My genetic code is meaningless outside of its function—I don’t care about one’s exact gene sequence any more than I care about say, the exact sequence of modulations needed to transmit a radio or TV program.  What matters is what the information does, not what it is per se.  To give an extreme example, I doubt anyone here would be willing to die in exchange for having an additional (or even many additional) descendants.


237

Posted by Anonymous on Tue, 31 May 2005 21:29 | #

I think Geoff Beck might disagree with you…


238

Posted by ben tillman on Tue, 31 May 2005 21:44 | #

I think the “extended phenotype” business really is nonsense, at least in the pejorative way it is used here.  What matters to me and to most people are personal wants and needs, not genes per se.

You’re rather missing the point, which is that the wants and needs of which you speak may not be your own!


239

Posted by Anonymous on Tue, 31 May 2005 21:59 | #

I wouldn’t entirely disagree, sir. As my example of the Roman practice of extending citizenship to genetically distant “out-group” members seems to show, people can think in terms unrelated to “genetic interest,” without the influence of hostile ethnies.


240

Posted by Tournament of Champions on Wed, 01 Jun 2005 02:22 | #

Our loquacious “anonymous” is surely razib. His ability to conjure up interesting but irrelevant facts in support of specious arguments is legendary.

Notice his polite “sirs”, “thank yous”, thats how it is when foreigners know they cannot run amuck. Compare to recent examples of his rather despotic behavior at GNXP. Kiss up kick down, thats the popular phrase now isnt it?


241

Posted by Guessedworker on Wed, 01 Jun 2005 02:43 | #

Gentlemen,

Thank you for a debate of the highest standards.  It has been a pleasure to read.  But, if only out of fairness to Svigor and his 56k connection, I think it’s time to declare the thread CLOSED.

Ben, if you want to cull something from this and make it into something we can post just send it to me.  Maybe then you two can pick-up again on the new thread.


242

Posted by Delmore Macnamara on Wed, 01 Jun 2005 11:56 | #

BB do you have children?  If so do you seriously doubt that you would die yourself rather than allow one of them to die?


243

Posted by J Richards on Wed, 01 Jun 2005 12:01 | #

Although it is time to stop commenting on this thread, since I am responsible for the post, there is one question above that I haven’t yet answered, and I need to answer it.  People with comments/queries related to my post may leave comments, but please, no off-topic comments on this thread anymore. 

Amman,

If China and Japan were to be the leading economic and military powers in the world, I would not expect white women to try to surgically acquire the normal upper eyelids of Asians.  For instance, when the physical features of Asians are made fun of among whites, the two features of their face that are made the most fun of are their slanted eyes and facial flatness because these traits are among the least visually appealing in the Asian face—from the perspective of whites.  A white Northern European (elongated crania) could also make fun of the roundish crania of Asians, but roundish crania do not appear to be visually repulsive to most whites.  Additionally, the slanted-eyed appearance in Asians is due to the eyelid structures known as epicanthal folds; these folds are physical defects when they occur in white persons, and one does not expect nature to normally make somebody find physical defects visually appealing.  Further, more prominent cheekbones are an ancestral trait, and within any race, cheekbones more prominent than the norm are considered less attractive.  Therefore, given that Asians have more prominent cheekbones than whites, it is highly unlikely that whites would want more prominent cheekbones if Asians were economically and militarily the most dominant. 

You have correctly pointed out that many non-white populations possess a crease/fold in the upper eyelid; so, why do I say that the Asians who try to have this crease surgically created are trying to look white?  Well, Asians tend to hold the looks of whites in higher regard than that of blacks or non-Caucasoid dark-skinned people; some Asians have their cheekbones reduced in size and even have some of their cheek muscles atrophied* to achieve a narrower face and/or try to obtain a projecting nose/longer nose, too.  Therefore, when the totality of cosmetic surgical procedures concerning alteration of racial features is considered, then it becomes clear that the Asians undergoing these procedures are trying to look whiter. 

*See the article titled “Changing faces” in the July 29, 2002, Time-Asia magazine if the link is no longer functioning.


244

Posted by Amman on Wed, 01 Jun 2005 13:47 | #

First off, thank you very much for your responses, JR.

Before this thread runs into the sands, however, I would like to make a few technical critiques of the methodolody utilized in your post.

I believe you may have failed to control for variable factors which may have affected how “beautiful” these women look in their pictures, which may explain the fact that quite a few people here did not find your choices of “beautiful” white women convincing. First off, all those pictures of Ms. Mohan seem to be from magazines, and those that aren’t still seem professional. It is thus reasonable to assume that she was in make-up, which, as has been discussed previously, can make a woman appear much more attractive. Similarly, the pictures of the white women you chose were all from X-rated sources. It is thus reasonable to assume that the photography was geared towards highlighting their genetalia rather than their overall “beauty.” Thus, given these cofounding variables, the pictures you chose may not have supported your argument as strongly as you intended.

That is, of course, merely nitpicking. A more serious critique I have is that your post seems to be rather qualitative rather than quantitative. You post a total of 10 pictures of white women, while simply assuring us that all the nostril shapes of these women fall into the “European aesthetic range.” True that may be, but it would be much more convincing if you actually defined the limits of that range. There are objective criteria with which to define beauty within a race, to at least some extent, but are there no quantitative criteria to define beauty as well? Is it not possible to take cranial measurements, or measure and compare the degree of nasal projection in Ms. Mohan and some sample of “beautiful” white women? Had you incorporated some quantitative data into your analysis, your point would have come across much more easily. You can look at a picture different ways, but it’s harder to argue with numbers.


245

Posted by Amman on Wed, 01 Jun 2005 13:52 | #

Edit: I see a picture of an actress in there, so make that “all the pictures of the nostrils of white women,” notably figure 5. You yourself mentioned that it was difficult to find good pictures of nostrils outside of X-rated sources, thus, the overall “beauty” of these women beyond their nostrils may have been obscured.


246

Posted by J Richards on Fri, 03 Jun 2005 04:33 | #

Amman,

You are right about factors such as make-up, lighting, and hairstyling obscuring a reliable assessment of the attractiveness of the models.  It is for this reason that I have featured a variety of pictures of Saira Mohan, in different settings, and from different angles, so as to reliably portray her looks.  You are also correct in that the focus in X-rated models is on their secondary sexual characteristics and genitals rather than the face, and these women need not be the most attractive, but there is a huge amount of pornography out there, and one can find some very attractive women among them.  An advantage of X-rated photography, apart from a ready assessment of nostril shapes, is that the models are shown from multiple angles, which makes it easier to assess how their faces look in three dimensions.  Many of the women that I have shown are very attractive as is obvious from several other photographs of them that I have access to.  On the other hand, as I have noted previously, I did not select the women in Figure 5 for a high level of overall facial attractiveness; I selected them for their nostril shapes.  Nevertheless, many women in Figure 5 are more attractive than most white women.

A quantitative formulation of aesthetics would be desirable, and there are indeed anthropological data addressing the average traits of various races, which is relevant to beauty since beautiful people tend to have multiple average traits.  However, such quantitative data are often in the form of abstractions such as principal components analysis and associated eigenvalues, which would not be very intelligible to non-academics.  Nevertheless, I will be addressing some quantitative data in the future, and this post should be considered an introductory post since there is a lot more on the topics that I have addressed here that I plan on elaborating in the future.


247

Posted by J Richards on Thu, 20 Oct 2005 11:45 | #

Sachi Lovatt,

My post above is concerned with whether race mixing could enhance the beauty of whites, not which race is the most attractive.  I am addressing whether the most attractive whites could become more beautiful if they absorbed non-white genetics into their gene pool, and do not deny that some whites are ugly.  Armand Marie Leroi has used an example of a Caucasoid non-white female, and she can be compared to beautiful white women using objective criteria.  I have not argued that the attractiveness of different races can be compared using standard or objective criteria; you should read this post for more on this issue.

You are correct that people find average faces more attractive than outliers, but this applies to within a race, not to the human species as a whole, for which an average face has no meaning given tremendous racial variation in facial features and that Caucasoid/non-Caucasoid mixes look more like the non-Caucasoid parent, on average (I have not implied that this is always the case).  Some Japanese are not the most Mongoloid-looking people around, and their offspring with whites could look closer to whites than Japanese, but if large-scale race-mixing between Japanese and whites were to occur, the offspring would, on average, look more Japanese than white.

Your note on recessive mutations is a reiteration of Armand Marie Leroi’s argument and ignores shape-aspects of facial features, which are crucial to attractiveness.  Besides, race mixing is known to be associated with an increased likelihood of adverse health effects related to developmental disruptions, which generally do not enhance attractiveness.  Related to this post are my posts on a study of Eurasian beauty and racial variation in the chewing apparatus.  This post is actually a first in a series, and I will be coming up with more related posts.


248

Posted by fuckyouracist on Wed, 25 Jan 2006 23:52 | #

wow, i used to wonder why people would call me “masculine” looking, and “ugly.”  But now I know why; anyone that doesn’t possess the “Northern European” standard of beauty is an ugly dog that looks like a man. 
thanks for clearing that up for us!

oh, and thanks for finally answering my question to my query; the one’s who were picking on my “Greek” ethnic, looks, were racists.  The use of the word “masculine looking” is the calling card of a racists. thanks! now i know.


249

Posted by J Richards on Thu, 26 Jan 2006 09:54 | #

F***youracist,

You have spewed a bunch of nonsense.  Where is the racism?  White Greeks belong to the same race as white Northern Europeans.  If you—presumably a woman—look masculine and unattractive, it is not my fault.


250

Posted by Svyatoslav Igorevich on Thu, 26 Jan 2006 15:07 | #

FYR, you’re in the wrong place if you think “racist” is an epithet with any power.

Yes, I’m a racist.  Now move over and give me a seat at the table, and pass the gravy.


251

Posted by fuck you all on Sat, 28 Jan 2006 19:14 | #

you are a bunch of racists, all of you assholes see Saira, and say she looks masculine because of her inferior “indian” heritage- THAT is RACICST- just because someone is not northern european- which this article has defined as idea- and NO GREEKS as well as OTHER SOUTHERN EUROPEANS ARE NOT OF THE SAME LINEAGE- according to you RACISTS- YOU DEFINE THEM AS MASCULINE> SAIRA IS ANYTHING BUT MASCULINE- you are a bunch of racist idiots- her nose, hair face, chin EVERYTHING IS BEAUTIFUL- those white “perfect” girls DONT MATCH UP

and no i am not ugly you asshole- but racists such as yourself have used the fact that anyone who looks different from their “english” and north european beauties as reason enough to say I look “ethnic” and therefore masculine.

you bunch of idiots call supermodels ugly and masculine- you are probably jealous because you could never get a woman as beautiful as that. and have to settle for your meat and potato girls- with their huge “feminine” asses.


252

Posted by concerned on Sat, 28 Jan 2006 19:25 | #

i agree with F***youracist

you are all racists, not only that you are all sick in the head- I have to say that a lot of the white women pictured here are quite ugly, and only serve to make Saira more beautiful by comparison- she looks like a young Gia Carangi (a beautiful italian girl, who most of you would define as non northern european and therefore of characteristics that are “masculinized” - which if you have read the article you would have noticed the comment made that “ethnic women” have masculine features—and YES by definition southern Europeans are described by MANY northern europeans as ethnics-).  Further, according to the KKK, which I suspect runs this website, Greeks, Italians, Arabs are referred to as non-white and sometimes referred to as “sand niggers.”  Your arguements are plain, stupid. 

And Svyatoslav Igorevich, you are one to talk- do you realize that your name is non-white; you ain’t no “Smith,” “Ferguson” or “White” mister, so, really, who the hell do you think you are. your name doens’t match up.


253

Posted by Svyatoslav Igorevich on Sat, 28 Jan 2006 19:35 | #

Svyatoslav Igorevich is my Web handle, genius.  I chose it as a deliberate expression of pan-European solidarity (also because he was the first (I think?) Christian king of Kievan Rus and he smashed the Khazars), to combat precisely the kind of stupid maladaptive racialism forwarded by Hitler and, more to the point, his extant well-wishers.

I myself am as Anglo-Saxon as Americans come.

I see, it’s bad to state that race-mixing decreases attractiveness, but it’s a-okay to say that it increases attractiveness, or at least tacitly approve via omission.  A-ha.

As for the rest of your post - thanks for representing your side well.


254

Posted by Andrew on Sat, 28 Jan 2006 21:01 | #

Fairdinkum:
You Racist, you F&%^ing Racists,
Dummdeedummmdedarrr.

You racist you F&%^$ ing Racist.
Dummdeedummmdedarrr.

Must be some new Existentialists Christmas carol. Of the Third World Reich with Bone head o-No as Reich Fuhrer.
That’s closer to the truth. Ziggi Zig haaa. (Sorry , that was the spice Girls.)


255

Posted by herewegoagain on Sun, 29 Jan 2006 12:36 | #

first christian king huh? no wonder i had not idea what your “name” meant- religion means as little to me as equality does to you all


256

Posted by not on Sun, 29 Jan 2006 12:40 | #

i have seen ALOT of butt ugly northern europeans and so called “all americans” (which is just another way of saying north european) that are so damn ugly, and could use a little race mixing so they wouldn’t look like such horsefaces.


257

Posted by Lurker on Sun, 29 Jan 2006 12:50 | #

Italics have gone berserk on this thread! Someone needs to add a closing <I>!


258

Posted by Alex Zeka on Sun, 29 Jan 2006 16:28 | #

And Svyatoslav Igorevich, you are one to talk- do you realize that your name is non-white

Sorry to keep this alive, but Svyatoslav Igorevich is a white name: Nord/Slavic to be precise. “herewegoagain”, etc. evidently (apart from lacking even the most basic of English language skills) do not consider Slavs a part of their race, aswell as despising Christianity. JJR, I think your theories about Leftism/Fascism have been eloquently supported.


259

Posted by Svyatoslav Igorevich on Sun, 29 Jan 2006 17:00 | #

first christian king huh? no wonder i had not idea what your “name” meant- religion means as little to me as equality does to you all

Well, I’m an agnostic, but I’m not a west-hating psychopathic leftist, rather I’m a west-loving traditionalist, so I see the value of Christianity.

Plus I have this whole thing about taking a second look at what my mortal enemies hate, and most of them seem to have a real rod up their asses about Christianity (not, repeat not the oxymoronic invention “Judeo-Christianity”).

As for equality, that’s yet another leftist chimera - equal means identical, it means the same.  Obviously human groups aren’t equal.

Btw, there’s nothing equal, or even reciprocal, about masses of non-whites invading all white living spaces while…no one invades non-white living spaces.

And yes Alex, I should’ve made that clearer.

i have seen ALOT of butt ugly northern europeans and so called “all americans” (which is just another way of saying north european) that are so damn ugly, and could use a little race mixing so they wouldn’t look like such horsefaces.

Why do the models in all countries look whiter than their general populations?

Just wondering.


260

Posted by Fred Houser on Wed, 12 Apr 2006 23:36 | #

This site is bullshit


261

Posted by Guessedworker on Thu, 13 Apr 2006 04:54 | #

I take it, Mr Houser, that you don’t possess the intellectual equipment to raise your game above ad hominem.


262

Posted by Art Castillo on Tue, 02 May 2006 18:38 | #

Remember what happens to a species that does not seek diversity for its gene pool?
No?
Bubba, you need to read the basics of evolution again!
This planet is a symbiotic system.
Do you know what percentage of people tend to get skin cancer?
How about the percentage with vitamin D deficiency?
Think! If you really think you belong to a superior race, your emotions are not supposed to get involved in this! Objectivity is imperative here.
You are wasting some precious resources here. Do something your loving God would be proud of!

P.S.
Please stay away from real beautiful women. You might find them intimidating and cold.  It seems that your gentle heart can only handle their pictures.


263

Posted by JB on Tue, 02 May 2006 21:44 | #

Art Castillo:

Remember what happens to a species that does not seek diversity for its gene pool? No? Bubba, you need to read the basics of evolution again!


it seems that although they have ignored the “basics of evolution” Jews are doing rather well. And the Japanese too. Hey wait…the Germans too… and the Anglos too, the Swedes, the Chinese, the…


264

Posted by NCS on Tue, 09 May 2006 03:28 | #

I just happened to stumble upon this thread and this website, and actually found it quite amusing to read some of the comments by who I am sure are ugly white blond males… let me sum it up for you: To all the Nordics males out there: you look dull, boring, whitewashed, and if I may add, very closely border with ugly - all of you. Beckham included.

Sorry, I do not mean to be blunt, but this is how it is. Face it.

Because as someone else has correctly mentioned above, your kind is desperately trying to mix with the much livelier, beautiful and exotic darker haired and skinned Hindus and Mediterraneans with the hope of having better offspring and losing the dullness that is typical of the Nordic race.

I myself am a North Western Indian (Punjabi) female. I am accustomed to receiving interest from males of every race and every ethnicity that exists on the planet. I do not find the black African races in line with my tastes. Similarly, I do not find Nordic blonds at all aesthetically pleasing. On the contrary, my contempt for the Nordic look has increased because of their “ I am all that and a bag of chips attitude” but with your yellow teeth, white eyebrows and albino like fearful whitewashed faces, you are no more than just plain boring, and many of you even scary. Blond men look too feminine and do not have the “manhood,” strength, nor physical beauty that a North Indian or Med male has. 

My husband is Spaniard (Mediterranean - for Americans who don’t know the difference, Spaniards are different from Hispanic and Latinos) and together we will create offspring of such beauty that you Nordics can only dream of, but never can achieve…


265

Posted by Guessedworker on Tue, 09 May 2006 06:11 | #

NCS,

I trust that you, your husband and your future offspring will live - and stay living - in India, where you can keep well away from ugly Northern Europeans.  Pity for Spanish EGI, though.


266

Posted by NCS on Tue, 09 May 2006 07:02 | #

Guessedworker,

Your Nordic countries had their day when they came into my country and looted, killed, raped and plundered… now its India’s time to shine.. and we are doing that without going down to your low levels… Secondly, I will ensure that my “ethnic” offspring is kept away from people like you… while your ugly white ass can stay in your frozen hell-holes and just wish for mountains, deserts, rivers and oceans… and beautiful people with beautiful hearts..

..something you KKK bastards can never be…


267

Posted by Guessedworker on Tue, 09 May 2006 07:19 | #

India will not “shine” because the mean IQ level is too low.  Some limited areas may do OK, if their IQ level is fairly comparable to European/East Asian levels.  Certainly, the rest will be utilised by global capitilism, and contribute nothing much of itself to Man’s progress.

Always, the key is mean IQ.  No unintelligent peoples prosper.


268

Posted by NCS on Tue, 09 May 2006 07:54 | #

Guessedworker, I can’t blame you for your ignorance - you have just given away that you’re American!

However, being American and therefore intellectually inferior to me (and to most other nationalities), I must enlighten you that according to numerous studies, “Asian-American children consistently obtain IQ scores 11 points higher on intelligence tests than do Euro-American children of similar socio-economic backgrounds.”

And if intelligence of a nation and their peoples has any corelation to the intelligence of its president, I’m afraid you (ugly AND stupid) Americans dont have much of a case with a monkey like Bush as your “high IQ representative.”


269

Posted by ben tillman on Tue, 09 May 2006 08:47 | #

Remember what happens to a species that does not seek diversity for its gene pool?

Art, you’re a moron.  No one is arguing that our race must remain static, only that if it is to change we shall do the changing.  And more specifically, that we should not choose to introduce mutagens from other races for the purpose of increasing our physical appearance because it won’t work.


270

Posted by NCS on Tue, 09 May 2006 08:57 | #

Furthermore, since I now know that you are American (read: stupid, ignorant), I consider you below my intellectual level; incapable of giving me a stimulating argument and therefore I will not be posting further on this bullshit website. Besides, the very Europeans that you poor Americans try so hard to emulate are those that despise you and your rotten McDonalds culture.

Cheers,
NCS


271

Posted by Guessedworker on Tue, 09 May 2006 11:38 | #

NCS,

Respect the limitations of your own knowledge and do not argue IQ here.  We are fully aware of those qualifications which attend academic performance by some Asian children in the West.  The relative economic condition of Asia, however, is a better guide to an understanding of the general levels of intelligence of populations there.


272

Posted by pqs on Tue, 09 May 2006 18:00 | #

NCS, your vulgar anti-Americanism really cheapens your arguments and makes you look bad. It is true that many Europeans share this point of view out of ignorance and in order to puff up their own egos, but you should avoid it. Guessedworker is not American, in fact, he is British, read European.


273

Posted by J Richards on Tue, 09 May 2006 19:35 | #

NCS,

This is a pan-European site in scope and was started by an Englishman.  Only some of the regular contributors here are American.  Anyway, why don’t you cite appropriate references to support your claims?  The average IQs of white Americans and Asian-Americans are 103 and 106, respectively.  This is far from an 11-point gap that you mention.  Besides, this does not remotely correspond to prominence in top-notch scientific and engineering work.  For instance, modern civilization is a Northern European product.  The recent ACM international competition for top computing prowess was dominated by white males.  Northeast Asians, in spite of their superior average IQ, especially in math ability, and huge numbers could at best manage the 5th rank, and people from India were nowhere to be seen among the ranked.  Similarly, the great majority of top-ranked computer programmers dealing with the most difficult aspects of computer programming at topcoder.com are white males; there are few Northeast Asians and no South Asians in the top ranks (top 20).  Besides, the average IQ of South Asia is in the low 80s.  India’s economic improvements in recent years have more to do with Western jobs being outsourced there than any indigenous developments.  India’s masses remain mired in poverty, illiteracy and superstition; India is only going to shine in your dreams, and I sincerely hope that India is where you and your descendents will reside in.

As far as attractiveness goes, you should know that Nordic women rather than Mediterranean or South Asian women are the stuff of men’s fantasy around the world, which is not bad for an “ugly” people, and better see some comparisons between Nordic and South Asian women to judge for yourself.  Besides, Northern European men are taller and more muscular than Southern European and North Indian men.  So much for blond males being more feminine.


274

Posted by Yarus on Tue, 30 May 2006 14:39 | #

I’d just like to say that those links to programming competition results that you gave list Universities, not people. The winners are indeed situated in Western countries, but why do you suppose the teams from the winning universities participating in the competitions are entirely white?

Universities, especially prestigious ones, commonly have international students studying there, and are very meritocratic. Considering that a very disproportionate number of Asian-Americans (Chinese, Japanese, Korean etc.) study at MIT (something like 20% of the student body?) compared to their percentage of the US population seems to invalidate the theory of a smaller SD of their IQ, which I assume is one you suscribe to. SAT scores, which correlate quite strongly with IQ, also don’t follow this theory. If, for example, the Japanese population did have a significantly smaller SD of IQ then they wouldn’t be the second most prosperous country in the world.

Modern civilization is a result of Western European culture’s inventions and innovations. Calling it a purely Northern European phenomenon is inaccurate, seeing as Scandinavian and Slavic countries only caught on later, especially in Russia’s case. Did the Renaissance not happen in Italy, a predominantly Mediterranean country? I agree that later on, economic supremacy moved upward to France, Germany and Britain, but for the most of history it didn’t move much further North, or East for that matter.

I agree that the Nordic females are pretty much the epitome of attractiveness, but from what I’ve heard, females seem to prefer darker-haired types.

I know IQ is mostly heritable, and that there are differences in IQ between breeding groups, but I’m not a WN (don’t hurt me >_<) and I also accept that IQ levels can fluctuate over time. India is a very good example of this; Northern India was home to the first universities in the world, and the Dravidian Chola Empire of Southern India successfully conquered Indonesia and produced brilliant architecture. The subcontinent was home to many important mathematicians, and at least three major religions. Sadly, large numbers of its populace do all the horrible things you’ve mentioned in modern times, but it’s foolish to assume they were always this way.

I enjoy listening to some of the scientific opinions of this board, and indeed as someone mentioned earlier such opinions are voiced rarely anywhere else, even if it is a tad biased.


275

Posted by Yarus on Tue, 30 May 2006 15:08 | #

Argh, I meant to say “reading”, obviously not “listening”...

I also meant to say in my last post that the British Empire did indeed install alot of technology and Western ideas, but why did it need to invade and rule the country in order to do so? I don’t recall Japan or China being ruled by the British, yet they didn’t have a problem adopting Western technology et al. It’s a gross oversimplification to say they ruled justly, for great damage was done to the country thanks to them.

Hey, don’t you think its hypocritical to justify the rule of India by white Britons because they stopped the practice of widow burning amongst the locals? I recall the Norse cultures still burned the wives of kings in early Medieval times…


276

Posted by J Richards on Wed, 31 May 2006 17:06 | #

Yarus,

You should not expect to be spoonfed.  You need to look up the composition of the teams yourself.  Anyway, here are some of the details.

The top 10 teams in the 2006 ACM competition, in order, were: 1) Saratov State University, 2) Jagiellonian University – Krakow, 3) Altai State Technical University, 4) University of Twente, 5) Shanghai Jiao Tong University, 6) St. Petersburg State University, 7) Warsaw University, 8) Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 9) Moscow State University, 10) Ufa State Technical University of Aviation

The Western Universities, except MIT, are from non-English-speaking nations that have few non-whites.  If you looked around, you would find the following names of the participants (you can search for their pictures if you like):

Saratov State University - Michael Mirzayanov, Igor Kulkin, Ivan Romanov, Roman Alekseenkov.

Jagiellonian University (Krakow) - Pawel Idziak, Arkadiusz Pawlik, Bartosz Walczak, Pawel Walter.

Altai State Technical University - Elena Kryuchkova, Coach; Artur Mogozov, Dmitry Gozman, Roman Gomenjuk.

University of Twente – Eljakim Schrijvers, Boris de Wilde, Erik-Jan Krijgsman, Kamiel Cornelissen.

Shanghai Jiao Tong University - Yong Yu, Bohai Yang, Chang Liu, Yuan Lin.

St. Petersburg State University – Andrew Lopatin, Gleb Leonov, Sergey Bankevich, Vitaliy Valtman.

Warsaw University – Jan Madey, Bartek Romañski, Marcin Michalski, Pawel Parys.

Massachusetts Institute of Technology – Martin Rinard, Heng Ping Nabil Christopher Moh, Hubert Hwang, Velin Tzanov.

Moscow State University - Eugueny Pankratiev, Andrey Khalyavin, Andrey Rumyantsev, Ivan Popelyshev.

Ufa State Technical University of Aviation - Alexander Fridlyand, Alexey Zhevak, Denis Nazarov, Konstantin German.

Thus, in the top 10 teams, out of a total of 40 individuals, 34 were white, 6 NE Asian and 0 South Asian.  Whites clearly dominated, and considerably so if you consider their much smaller population size compared to East and South Asians.

Similarly, regarding the topcoder.com data, of the 20 top coders at the time of this writing, 18 are white, 2 NE Asian and 0 South Asian.  The NE Asians were ranked 12th and 14th, and the white males were overwhelmingly Northern European types; there were no Southern Europeans.

I should also mention the data from the ACM software system award, the highest award for the most outstanding innovations in computing.  From 1983 to 2005, of the 63 people awarded, 58 were white males, 4 were NE Asians and 1 was South Asian.

I have never said anything about NE Asians having a smaller SD of IQ.  IQ raw scores are not normally distributed; they are normalized.  Additionally, given the really small numbers of people with 160-plus IQs, it would not be possible for population-based sampling of adults to come up with enough extremely high IQ individuals from different ethnic groups for a proper statistical comparison.  Thus, the claim of considerable white overrepresentation among the smartest people is based on computing results such as above, Nobel Prizes, Field Medals and other data documented by Charles Murray in his book, Human accomplishment. 

It is true that Asian-Americans outcompete American whites in the Math SAT, too, and by three-fifths of a standard deviation as opposed to the 0.2 SD advantage in IQ, but this does not translate to overrepresentation at the extremely high end of the IQ distribution.

I have not said that modern civilization is a purely Northern European phenomenon.  In science, there is a saying about standing on the shoulders of giants.  Thus, modern civilization is overwhelmingly a Northern European phenomenon.

Yes, the Renaissance began in Italy, but it was in Northern Italy, among the Germanic Lombards, who occupied the region after migrating from Germany; the darker people of Southern Italy were not behind the Renaissance.

Similarly, the busts/sculptures from the ancient Roman and Greek civilizations reveal features closer to modern Northern Europeans than modern Southern Europeans.  In a study by Hanihara cited below, ancient and modern skulls were analyzed from around the world.  Some important skull measurements of people in modern Southern Italy and modern Greece were similar to several modern Middle Eastern populations but not modern Northern Europeans, but the skulls from the Roman and classical Greek era were similar to modern Northern Europeans.  This should not be surprising.  It is known from history that the Roman and Greek civilizations were the products of Northern tribes such as the Latini and the Dorians, respectively, that settled in the South, and it is also known that in craniofacial studies, modern Southern Europeans cluster with Middle Eastern populations before they cluster with Central and Northern Europeans.  The study referenced:

Hanihara T. Frontal and facial flatness of major human populations. Am J Phys Anthropol. 2000 Jan;111(1):105-34.

As far as India is concerned, what is the point of assigning the contributions of the Aryans in Northern India and the non-aboriginal people in the South to that of the dark masses of India?  The Aryans have long disappeared, but their legacy lives on, mostly in the form of Indo-European languages and some early noteworthy achievements, and to a much smaller extent in the form of a small number of light-skinned and Caucasoid-featured people in India, disproportionately found among the upper caste people and in the Northern parts of the country. 
 
Regarding your comments about the British occupation of India, I have not set out to justify it, but have pointed out that it cannot be viewed as destructive when it benefited more than it harmed.  Besides, the British did not invade India.  They were mercantile people and were easily able to transform trade to occupation without a formal invasion.

I have not heard of the Norse burning the wives of kings in medieval Europe; see if you cite the source.  Also, white women do not necessarily prefer dark-haired men; hair color preference among Northern Europeans is variable among both men and women.


277

Posted by Yarus on Thu, 01 Jun 2006 21:22 | #

I apologize for carelessly overlooking that site. Perhaps you have a point. However, even if hypothetically East Asians were the same neurologically as whites, that wouldn’t mean that they would outnumber whites in academic pursuits, even higher ones, if environment and culture were the same as they are in the real world.

You need schools to educate people, and sufficient funds to make sure the schools are good enough. Most of the East Asian world, except Japan, is relatively poor compared to the West, thus one would not only expect less universities per capita but also lower quality universities on average.

Culturally, Japan is quite similar to the rest of East Asia in sharing a faint Neo-Confucian atmosphere, regardless of its economic power. The way people act and think is very much different from Westerners, including fully assimilated Japs living in Western countries.

Taking all this into account, its rather impressive that a Chinese team came fifth. One could say they were superior to half of the other teams who participated, who happened to be white. What would the result be if China were somehow a rich superpower and had a less collectivist culture?

The existence of the youngest ever college student in America, the Korean/Japanese Shon Yano, and an oddly large number of other young East Asian-American college students makes me skeptical about the claim of European (sorry- Nordic!!) numerical supremacy at the high end of the curve. It may be possible that these prodigies will eventually become intellectually normal in adult life, but on the other hand many great white/Jewish scientists were child prodigies in early life too.

I reiterate what a GNXPer some time ago said about waiting a few decades to analyze East Asian achievement in Western environments, seeing as Nobel Prizes/Fields Medals etc. are awarded for lifetime achievement, most East Asians came to the US in 1965, and the rest who had been there before were discriminated against. Of course this would be impossible if either: A) what you lot say is true and the Western world is destroyed by the blasted minorities, or B) your ideal government is in power, and there are now no minorities in Western countries. Even though I’m a Celtic/Anglo Briton, I wouldn’t like to live in either scenario.

What I’m trying to say is that it’s preferable to remain skeptical; we shouldn’t leap to entirely genetic conclusions, given that environment and culture can play a large role and does vary immensely. Similarly, we definately shouldn’t jump to entirely environmental conclusions, like the media does.

We also shouldn’t jump to cretinous Nordicist claims like you have!! Christ, where do I start…

Since when did Greek Civilization start with the Dorians? Don’t the words Minoan, Aegean and Mycenaean ring a bell at all? If anything, the immense achievements of the Ionians which were adopted by those on the Western shores of the Aegean who created the Later-Ancient and Hellenic Greece we know of and are thankful for. The famous artistic and architectual styles that of the period originated in Ionia, which built upon the early pre-Dorian styles. The original Greek philosophers came from this place, and the first of those, Thales, was of Phoenician descent, at least according to Herodatus. I’m not sure if this is entirely true, however, but it very well may be, seeing as there were many rich Phoenicians at the time in Miletus, the city from which Thales originated. The adoption of the Phoenician alphabet would explain this. Regardless of his ethnicity, we must be thankful for him, for he founded the Ionian School of Philosophy, which in turn lead to the famous works of Aristotle, Plato etc.

I’m not able to read that PDF study at the moment; I’m using an ancient bulky laptop at the moment and it doesn’t support Adobe Acrobat. =\ From what I’ve heard, the scholarly consensus places great continuity between the physiology of Ancient Greeks and Modern Greeks. Looking at numerous frescoes, mosaics and pottery decoration, every Ancient Greek I’ve seen has jet black hair, minus the occasional dark haired person. Not a single blonde or blue eyed person.

Looking at the statues, I have no idea how you came to the conclusion the ancient Greeks modelling for the sculptors were Northern European. Hardly any of the other sculptures I’ve seen (and believe me, I’ve seen many close up) resemble Nordics. If I were to imagine them with black hair, swarthy skin and dark eyes, they would look similar to the modern Greeks (at least the good looking ones). This applies to male and female sculptures. Dienekes has this to prove my point.

I wouldn’t be suprised that modern Greeks cluster closely with Levantine Middle-Easterners, and the same goes for the Ancient Greeks. After all, the entire Mediterranean basin thought of themselves as one world, with those to the North and the blacks to the South being a different sentience all together. An ancient Greek would’ve likely felt closer to a Phoenician or Assyrian than a Swede or a German.

This page discredits the notion of significant Germanic genetic input into Northern Italy somehow “enhancing” the populace, getting it primed for the Renaissance. Would you seriously look at, say, the portrait of Michelangelo and think “Nordic”?! It would be interesting if perhaps you could make a study of all the important figures in the Renaissance and determine if they display Northern European characteristics, but I doubt it would be a fruitful endeavour. If your theory of Lombardic rejuvenation were true, one would expected the Renaissance to have occured in the Northernmost city states of Italy, but instead it seemed to have started in the relatively central city of Florence.

Nowhere did I say that the Renaissance happened in Southern Italy.

I find it funny how you also downplay the Arab/Iranian societies, predating the Renaissance by many centuries, who were very productive intellectually at the time (sad this isn’t the case now; bloody cousin marrying…), and especially the whiter scholars of Constantinople. I’m not sure you could call either Northern European.


278

Posted by Yarus on Thu, 01 Jun 2006 21:24 | #

What do you mean by the “dark masses of India”? Are you referring to the Dravidians? If you are, you should read about the Dravidian Chola Empire. They certainly were aboriginal to the subcontinent. Notice the immensely intricate architecture. Is it not possible to imagine Dravidians designing and building such structures?

I cannot accept that the mathematical discoveries in India occured mostly ‘early on’ and then, after the presumed dreadful miscegenation of the Brahmin caste, in much smaller frequency in Northern India, where the supposed Aryan genes were most abundant. If you read up on the history of Indian mathematics, the ‘Golden Age’ was around the Gupta Period, approx. 400 AD - 1200 AD, and most of the prominent mathematicians of the age came from central India, and later on South India. One of the most important South Indian mathematicians was Madhava, who lived in the Middle Ages and is considered one of the founders of mathematical analysis, among his other important discoveries. And guess what? Not Nordic!

I would attribute the stupid Muslims (to be fair, in those days they weren’t that stupid…) for invading, messing up the country and arguably destroying the process of mathematical discovery that had been going on. I would not attribute it to miscegenation of the Brahmin caste. Your assertation that the intellectual capacity of the Brahmins, and even the lower castes such as the artisans and masons, somehow had been dulled by outbreeding with the darker lower castes doesn’t hold up. It doesn’t explain how the frequency and potency of mathematical discovery seemed to increase as time went on, up until the Islamic invasion, even though as time passed the Aryan genes became more spread out. It also doesn’t explain how large numbers of dark skinned Dravidian tribes formed large empires, made beautiful temples to rival anything that came out of Northern India, invented the catamaran design and built numerous ships using the said design to conquer Indonesia. Indonesia, for crying out loud! Look how far away it is from the Eastern coast of the subcontinent.

The Brahmin caste of Southern India looks less white than the commoners of North-Western India, yet they have higher intelligence. I would attribute this to breeding for intelligence, rather than Aryan genes. After all, you can have a whiter than white breeding population with subpar intelligence, i.e. chavs. Am I missing something, or is it impossible to think that intelligence in populations can vary without there being genetic input from outside?

Ibn Fadlan’s account of a Norse slave-girl accompanying her dead lord to be burnt in a ship burial is a good indicator of Norse practices. Human sacrifice was very common among Norse societies as well, more so than Indian ones at the time. Tell me, why weren’t these Norse and Germanic types able to form super advanced societies at the same time as the Greeks and the Romans, even though plenty of natural resources were around where they lived?

I really am sad people suscribe to Nordicist doctrine in this day and age, you seem intelligent - if biased - otherwise. I kind of understand the need to create a white ethnostate in whichever country you live in, even though I don’t agree with the proposal, but I definately don’t understand why you have to argue that “X is superior to every other group on the planet at pretty much everything” in order to sell the idea of “X should seperate from other ethnic groups”. I thought this was a white nationalist site, not a (Northern) white supremacist site?

I would like to point out to any Southern Europeans and even Indians/Middle Easterners reading this that J Richards says most of the accomplishments of Mediterranean and Indic societies are solely the work of those with substantial Northern European genes. He’s basically saying “Nordz r00l!!1”, but with clever words.

Great job attracting Southern Europeans to your cause, you wonderfully unbiased science guy, you… -_-


279

Posted by Voice on Fri, 02 Jun 2006 01:15 | #

Yarus,

Have only read your last two posts but I would have to say welcome to the board.  I am of partial mediterranean descent and Nordicist stuff pisses me off as well.

I always have to laugh at the point you made in your last post.  If Nordics have done everything, where are their great structures in Northern Europe if they did everything in the Mediterranean?

J Richards doesn’t need me fight his battles, but if you follow these boards we get a lot of Arabs/Indians joyfully dancing on the grave of Western European Caucasoids(of any anthropological extraction) in truly and sickenly genocidal fashion if one dares mentions the preference for Nordic beauty.

Paradoxically, it is the last remaining Mediterraneans (referred to as Old Mediterranean from many genetics studies I have seen) from the Greek and Italian areas which are probably at greatest risk of being wiped out genetically-as they are fairly small in number and have a reproductive rate of around 1.2.


280

Posted by Guessedworker on Fri, 02 Jun 2006 04:11 | #

Yarus,

I echo Voice’s welcome.  Reasoned disagreement is always welcome here - reasoned agreement, too!

To make matters perfectly clear about this blog, it is NOT a Nordicist blog or even a White Nationalist one.  We are Americans, English, Canadians, Australians, and there is one Flemish.  Among us are self-described Conservatives, libertarians and WN’s, all of whom share a driving concern for the future of European Man and his homelands.  Those include southern as well as northern European countries, and every other country around the world where our peoples have settled and created successful societies.

On the surface of it you appear to be among those who, essentially, espouse razib’s message of high-IQ multi-racialism in the West.  If that’s not a fair assessment I hope you will stick around to correct me.  If it is, you will encounter some interesting debate here.


281

Posted by Yarus on Fri, 02 Jun 2006 09:58 | #

Voice,

Yah, I don’t see what’s so offensive with finding Northern European people the most aesthetically pleasing. It’s pretty obvious Nordic type women are usually the most sought after, I don’t think we need science to prove it. It’s also pretty obvious that Nordics didn’t create all the great civilizations of the Mediterranean basin.

Guessedworker,

Thanks for accepting me. I don’t know who this Razib dude is (I’m guessing GNXP?), but I’m not pro-race mixing. I wouldn’t mind some form of panracial cognitive elitism, but I neither wish for the smartest of the smartest populations to combine their genes, nor do I want to enforce laws prohibiting interracial marriage. People should marry who they want to.

Even though I don’t like the idea of IQ deficient minorities becoming the majority in countries, I equally don’t like the idea of IQ deficient whites becoming the majority, for example the continuous spawn of chavs in the UK. Personally I think the latter is more of a threat than the former, although both should be dealt with.

I also don’t like the idea of removing most minorities from Western countries, especially smart ones e.g. East Asians, Indians etc. Some of them are my friends, and here in Milton Keynes alot of East Asians guys/girls fit snugly in white groups of friends, including mine (I’m 18). I would fight a government, such as the BNP, which would make the lives of my non-white friends worse.

Just because the BNP are one of the only political parties out there in the UK who recognise individual and group differences in IQ doesn’t mean they would be a good choice of government, as some bloggers here would think. They don’t seem at all intelligent enough to handle it, especially since Nick Griffin, in a pseudoscholarly paper on the Celts, showed a blatant Nordicist viewpoint, called the Roman commoners “half-caste” (read: half-Nordic, half Southern European =S) and said all non-Northern Europeans are “botched, stupid and ugly” and “shouldn’t inherit the Earth”. This applies to Southern Europeans and other populations who’s ancestors have done remarkable things. What a brilliant PM he would make….

So basically I do think panracial cognitive elitism might prove slightly more beneficial than white-only cognitive elitism. Who knows? Maybe if such a system was installed, most of the elites would be white. It could happen. I’m *not* suggesting we all mix, infact it would be best if Western countries stayed indigenous as a majority. But I don’t believe we should discriminate via race. Such a policy might work in the US to an extent, as earning and crime rates are divided into races (the races which outperform whites would be problematic), but in the UK they’re divided into classes.

In my city, all the tw@ts who commit the petty crime, hassle innocent passers by, vandalize and generally make living in MK a burden are white. Occasionally they are Pakistani, but only in parts of the city like Wolverton. The worst offenders around my patch and many others are very much indigenous occidentals, and the BNP seriously doesn’t get this. One could say I’m victimizing the working class, but c’mon, they don’t even work!

Perhaps a system of cutting back drastically on welfare would solve this problem; both chavs and other underclass non-whites would have to take up jobs.

Personally, a more economically rightist position might be beneficial, except possibly regarding foreign workers; the Japanese system with their awesome robots looks more appealing to me. A party with a pro-robot platform would have my vote in an instant.

Socially, I’m pretty liberal. People should say whatever they want and be allowed to protest whatever they want, gays should be free to be gay, basically lifestyles should not be interfered with by the state unless paedophilia or other criminal activities are going on.

So…erm…in short I’m not a pro-race mixer. Looking around, I guess this site is pretty diverse in its views. I’m just saying Nordicism, especially coming from the keyboard of a blogger, is pretty detrimental to the purpose of the site.


282

Posted by Yarus on Fri, 02 Jun 2006 10:14 | #

Sorry, I should’ve been more accurate in my last post. I meant to say a form of cognitive elitism is already in place. I am definately not saying it should be multi-racial as a rule, just open to the smartest. To be fair, I don’t see how this system is different from the one in place in most Western liberal democracies; most of the MPs or Representatives/Senators have high IQs compared to the population.


283

Posted by Guessedworker on Fri, 02 Jun 2006 10:19 | #

Yarus,

I will try to do a piece on Wolverton - certain aspects of which I happen to know.  I hope to demonstrate to you that you are a creature of modernity, and that is not enough for a man.  It is an inevitable condition, of course.  The embrace of the moral culture in which we live is impossible to resist, its scope difficult to apprehend.  We have, therefore, all acquired the same enculturation.  But none can go back to sleep again once dawn comes.


284

Posted by GassedArbeiter on Fri, 02 Jun 2006 10:50 | #

High caste Hindu procreates with European woman.  They have a pretty daughter.  NEWSWEEK turns it into propaganda to encourage racemixing and praise globalism.

Nothing remarkable here.

I wonder how the Negroes and other morphologically repulsive races feel about being excluded from the “Global standard of beauty”.

I would also note that Asians have long presented themselves as Europeanized in their art and propaganda, no where has that been undertaken in the West.


285

Posted by C. M. on Fri, 02 Jun 2006 11:20 | #

“High caste Hindu procreates with European woman.  They have a pretty daughter”

Get a pair of glasses buddy, this half hindu is ugly but gays in fashion industry decided that she is “pretty” and a “supermodel”.


286

Posted by Yarus on Fri, 02 Jun 2006 13:58 | #

Guessedworker,

What on Earth do you mean by saying I’m “a creature of modernity”? I think it’s up to me to decide what’s good enough for myself, if you don’t mind.

I actually live in Wolverton, and I know that in lots of parts of the town Pakistani kids and teenagers are right pricks and can cause trouble, but try going through Fuller’s Slade, Downe’s Barn, Beanhill, Coffee Hall, Greenleys etc. etc. All these shitty council estates are populated by a large number of equally brain-dead white teenagers, alot of whom have given me abuse before as I passed through them to get to friend’s houses. Are you going to do a piece on Fuller’s Slade? I’ve cycled/walked through there countless times, through rough parts, and it isn’t a pleasant experience at all. I certainly could do a piece on it, after I’ve refined my writing skill.

I repeat: in the UK the underclass is mainly populated by whites. This isn’t the case in the US where it’s mainly Blacks/Hispanics, or Australia, where…erm….I’m not familiar with the demographics of Australia…but you get what I mean.

Being a teenager who has had too much contact with these people - at one time defending myself from attack - while going through rough parts of MK, I swear by this. I am *not* race-hating, trying to be ‘Pee Cee’ or Marxist or any of that. Look, I accept that there are differences in IQ between breeding groups, and some groups on average will be more problematic than others in a society like the UK. What you need to realise is that there is a large low-IQ breeding group in this country, or at least in MK.

I mean no hostility, but perhaps it is you who is mistaken here, and I am in no way ‘asleep’ in acknowledging the problem of white low-IQ idiots in Milton Keynes, Salford, Glasgow etc and the threat they pose to society. Notice how I’m also aware of the problem low-IQ non-white idiots as well; I thought I addressed this in suggesting cutting back drastically on welfare, which might help ease the problem, or perhaps there is a better method of dealing with this that you know of?


287

Posted by J Richards on Fri, 02 Jun 2006 16:03 | #

Yarus,

This site, and my arguments in particular, have nothing to do with Nordicism.  The problem is that the likes of Dienekes et al. see Nordicism whenever they encounter any documentation of Northern European advantage on some count.  Sometimes there are population differences that favor one group over another without having any implications for overall superiority-inferioriy.

To address your points, whereas 70% of Chinese are village-based, you are still looking at a roughly 400 million urban population, and many bright people in the villages are undoubtedly migrating to the cities.  Thus, the placement of the Chinese in the 2006 ACM competition or the top topcoder rankings, in spite of their notable average math advantage over Europeans, is shockingly low.  Similarly, Russia and Japan have a similar population size, and Russia is and has been economically worse off for a long time, but Russians rather than the Japanese dominated the top ranks of the 2006 ACM competition.  Communism devastated Russia in the 20th century, certainly no less than the Chinese, yet in spite of its population being a fraction of China, it was the leader in fighter jet, military and space technology for a while around the mid-20th century, but the Chinese were not able to successfully launch a rocket until a few years ago and their most advanced military technology is disproportionately stolen form the West.

Some people would like to explain the NE Asian deficit at the top in terms of their collectivist and more conformist cultures.  However, the most advanced aspects of science and math (most of advanced math has no practical applications) are so obtuse that it is absurd to postulate encouragement of divergent thinking behind the European advantage at the top. 

You have mentioned a lot of underage Asian students in American college.  Well, the IQ and academic achievements of children are more dependent on the environment and less on genetics compared to adults.  Asian parents push their children toward academic excellence both in the U.S. and in Asia, and thus the overrepresentation of underage Asians in college should not be surprising.  The math and computational abilities of average white schoolchildren is simply no match for average Japanese schoolchildren, but when biological factors are most evident, i.e., in adulthood, nothing close to NE Asian advantage is seen at the top in even the fields related to the IQ components where NE Asians have the greatest advantage.

I will elaborate on the European-NE Asian discrepancy at the top in the future, but for now, there is evidence that the male-female discrepancy in the top of the IQ range is less in NE Asians than in Europeans, and there is documentation of androgens enhancing various mental abilities.  Thus, higher androgen exposure in European males and more intense sexual selection among Northern Europeans in particular could very well be responsible for the Northern European advantage at the extremely high end of the IQ range.  There are a number of reasons to suspect biology rather than culture and environment for the European-NE Asian gap at the top.

I have not claimed that the Greek civilization began with the Dorians.  You have mentioned the Mycenaeans, the people behind the Ionian civilization, but the Mycenaeans themselves were Indo-European people that migrated down south.  On the other hand, the highest points of Greek civilization were seen in classical Greece, and these achievements were largely the product of the Greek upper class; a Northern European type of people.  I know you will ridicule this statement, but then your evidence to the contrary comprises of various links to the writings of Dienekes, who is a Greek propagandist.

As to the claim of great continuity between the physiology of Ancient Greeks and Modern Greeks, Dienekes has made specious arguments. Let us consider the profile view of a sculpture from classical Greece.

Greek bust

You will notice three noteworthy things about sculptures such as above.  The facial features tend to be fine, the upper part of the nose is notably projecting (high simotic index) but the lower part of the nose is not correspondingly prominent, and the mouth/jaw is regressed (low alveolar index).  If you look up the paper by Hanihara that I cited, you will note that both the Roman and classical Greek skull samples have a higher simotic index and lower alveolar index than modern Southern Italians and modern Greeks (who are in the Middle Eastern range), respectively, and the Roman and classical Greek skull samples are in the modern Northern European range, even exceeding the extent of Nordicization seen in some modern Northern European populations.  Similarly, when you look at soft tissue features, the lower part of the nose of modern Greeks is more prominent, on average, than in Modern Northern Europeans, and Greek noses are longer as in Middle Eastern noses:

Farkas, L.G., et al., International anthropometric study of facial morphology in various ethnic groups/races. J Craniofac Surg, 2005. 16(4): p. 615-46.

Thus, what you see in the Middle East, namely a more prominent lower part of the nose and a lower simotic index, thereby leading to a higher frequency of hooked noses compared to Northern Europeans, is also a tendency in modern Greeks.

Like I have mentioned previously, the Brace et al. paper shows that modern Southern Italians and modern Greeks cluster with Middle Eastern populations before they join the Central and Northern European cluster.  This paper also shows that modern Southern European skulls are closer to the robust prehistoric skulls in Eurasia than modern Northern European skulls, which is consistent with the common observation that modern Northern Europeans have finer facial features than modern Southern Europeans, but Dienekes actually believes that modern Greeks have finer facial features than Northern Europeans and that blondeness evolved in Northern Europe because the presumably closer to Cro-Magnid Northern Europeans, with their harsher/more robust facial features, selected for a trait to de-emphasize their robust/coarse facial features!  Better read the Brace et al. paper for what they have to say about Cro-Magnons and modern Europeans.   

Given the fact that most variation in craniofacial features in humans is within populations, and especially so if different European populations are compared, it would be easy to find a bunch of Greeks and average their facial features to show similarity to the Greek sculptures, and your link features Dienekes having done so for front view rather than the more racially informative side view, but proper scientific investigation shows a very different story from Dienekes’ claims.


288

Posted by Desmond Jones on Fri, 02 Jun 2006 16:09 | #

Yarus, Don’t be too hard on GW, afterall he puts up with the likes of me! smile It appears you agree that fundamentally he’s on the right track even though he appears stuck on Phil Peterson’s thesis regarding a tradition of English yobbishness descended from those feisty Elizabethan pirates. (Although one wonders how the deeply religious Drake would view public fornication in a Cardiff fountain). He’s still kind enough to spread a little sunshine on my dark world. cool smile

Charles Murray (Bell Curve) and others have examined the growing British white underclass here (pdf) and these are old numbers. More recently, Wales and North of England illegitimacy rates are over 50%, much higher than US rates.

Underlying the differences between the underclass and the rest of the NCDS sample are inherited differences in cognitive ability,
something that Murray does not discuss in his two books on the
underclass but is the central theme of The Bell Curve. Even when compared with the below average scoring working class, the underclass are significantly less intelligent. Looking at lone-parenthood amongst underclass females, further
support for the important role of cognitive ability is obtained.
Kiernan’s study, also using NCDS data, found that if a girl’s
educational attainment was in the lowest quartile she was nearly
seven times more likely to become a teenage mother than if her
attainment was in the upper quartile. Kiernan’s finding lead her to conclude that improved investment in education may be a crucial component in preventing early parenthood. However, much of the educational ‘attainment’ score may be the result of innate cognitive ability rather than the result of the educational system. This can be supported on two grounds; Table 3 (p .175) shows the mean ability level at age 11 of women below 24 years of age, comparing all in the NCDS sample who married before the child’s birth with those members of the underclass unmarried before the child’s birth. The ten point difference in the score (out of 80) suggests a highly significant difference in ability. The second ground for support comes from Murray’s own work. In The Bell Curve Herrnstein and Murray note that although intelligence in itself cannot explain the explosion in illegitimacy, there is ‘a direct and strong relationship between ...
low intelligence and the likelihood that the child will be born out of wedlock’. They hypothesise that the relationship exists because less intelligent women are less likely to think ahead, to think in advance about birth control or consider a wise time to have a child.


289

Posted by J Richards on Fri, 02 Jun 2006 16:11 | #

Yarus,

Regarding the Northern Italian issue, Dienekes has read too much into one study of haplogroup I and ignored a great deal of evidence showing notable differences between Northern and Southern Italians, and the significant Northern European character of Northern Italians:

Cavalli-Sforza has documented historic and molecular evidence for the much more Northern European character of Northern Italians in his book on the history and geography of genes.

The prevalence of the c282Y mutation is much higher in Northern Europeans and Northern Italians compared to Southern Italians and Middle Eastern populations, and this mutation has a similar prevalence among Northern Europeans and Northern Italians:

Salvioni A, Mariani R, Oberkanins C, Moritz A, Mauri V, Pelucchi S, Riva A, Arosio C, Cerutti P, Piperno A. Prevalence of C282Y and E168X HFE mutations in an Italian population of Northern European ancestry. Haematologica. 2003 Mar;88(3):250-5.

Candore G, Mantovani V, Balistreri CR, Lio D, Colonna-Romano G, Cerreta V, Carru C, Deiana L, Pes G, Menardi G, Perotti L, Miotti V, Bevilacqua E, Amoroso A, Caruso C. Frequency of the HFE gene mutations in five Italian populations. Blood Cells Mol Dis. 2002 Nov-Dec;29(3):267-73.

A comparison of mtDNA haplogroups between young male controls and male centenarians revealed significant differences in some haplogroup frequencies among Northern Italians but not Southern Italians:

De Benedictis G, Rose G, Carrieri G, De Luca M, Falcone E, Passarino G, Bonafe M, Monti D, Baggio G, Bertolini S, Mari D, Mattace R, Franceschi C. Mitochondrial DNA inherited variants are associated with successful aging and longevity in humans. FASEB J. 1999 Sep;13(12):1532-6.

 

The prevalence of right-handedness is lower in blonds:

Schachter SC, Ransil BJ, Geschwind N. Associations of handedness with hair color and learning disabilities. Neuropsychologia. 1987;25(1B):269-76.

The prevalence of right-handedness is lower in Northern Italians than in Central Italians, and the prevalence of right-handedness is lower in Central Italians than in Southern Italians:

Pia Viggiano M, Borelli P, Vannucci M, Rocchetti G. Hand preference in Italian students. Laterality. 2001 Jul;6(3):283-6.

Even if you invoke culture in explaining the handedness difference, given that Northern Europeans tend to be more tolerant of left-handedness, if Northern Italian culture is similar to Northern European culture on this count, then it should not be surprising if this is because Northern Italians are significantly of Germanic stock. 

Take a look at the distribution of the Y haplogroup P* (xR1a) in Italy, from a study by Giacomo et al.

Italian P* (xR1a) variation

Before you think that there is anything clinal about the P* (xR1a) haplogroup in Italy, take a look at the autocorrelation index, whereby there is a sharp decrease in genetic similarity for samples separated by >800 km, i.e., Northern vs. Southern Italy. 

autocorrelation index

Based on 10 Y haplogroups, look at the large genetic difference between Northern and Southern Italians (Fct = 8.15%).

molecular variance

Now, the P* (xR1a) haplogroup is the signature of the Paleolithic inhabitants of the entire European continent, and the Brace et al. paper has already shown that the vast majority of Northern and Central Europeans, and to a lesser extent Southern Europeans, are the descendents of the Paleolithic inhabitants of Europe.  An STR haplotype within the P* (xR1a) haplogroup is a characteristic feature shared by Celtic-speaking populations and the Basques, and in this context, the most frequent YCAII and DYS413 STR alleles observed in Hg P* (xR1a) from the Trentino and Tuscany populations in Northern Italy were identical to the ones observed in 73% of Basques in the study by Giacomo et al.

The data in the three images above is from:

Di Giacomo F, Luca F, Anagnou N, Ciavarella G, Corbo RM, Cresta M, Cucci F, Di Stasi L, Agostiano V, Giparaki M, Loutradis A, Mammi’ C, Michalodimitrakis EN, Pßapola F, Pedicini G, Plata E, Terrenato L, Tofanelli S, Malaspina P, Novelletto A. Clinal patterns of human Y chromosomal diversity in continental Italy and Greece are dominated by drift and founder effects. Mol Phylogenet Evol. 2003 Sep;28(3):387-95.

               

Thus, whereas I would not read much into any single study above, these studies, taken together with a lot of other evidence, show Dienekes’ claim to be absurd, but Dienekes is simply going to ignore these studies.

As far as the Renaissance goes, the important Italian families that rose to power during this period included the likes of the Visconti family in Milan, the De Medici family of Florence, the Borgias of Romagna, the Della Scalas in Verona and Vicenza, and the Carraras in Padua.  You can see the map below for the locations of these regions (red arrows); most are clearly in Northern Italy.

Italy Renaissance map

As far as your claim about intellectually productive Arab societies goes, the Wikipedia link that you have cited is poor.  I recommend that you read a thorough debunking of Muslim claims for their intellectual contributions, written by Ibn Warraq (pseudonym) in his book, “Why I am not a Muslim.”  The Muslims had saved classical Greek knowledge from being destroyed by the Church when it burned the library at Alexandria, but added little to it.  Among the Arab contributors, some were atheists and others were disproportionately Christians and Jews, and the Islamic religion itself was not responsible for any noteworthy intellectual achievements.

You have also asked that if Northern European types were responsible for the Roman and classical Greek civilizations, then how come they did not build comparable civilizations up North around the same time?  The answer is that there were few people living up north thousands of years ago.  Even today, Scandinavian nations comprise of about 25 million people only, some of whom are non-Nordic.  However, the average Northern European probably lived a higher quality life in Northern Europe 2000-3000 years ago than the average person in Rome or Greece did.  And, even when the Vikings were reputed to be Barbarians, they had the engineering prowess to come up with the best ships.

Intelligence does not favor all populations equally, but this should not form the basis for racial supremacism or exclusionary policies.  Donald Templer, who recently published a study showing a -0.92 correlation between predominant skin color of a population and its average IQ will be soon publishing another study about variation within continents, and this correlation within Europe is -0.63 and within East Asia it is -0.55.  Stating this is not espousing Nordicism, and neither do IQ advantages favoring one group suggest that no members of other groups are capable of outstanding intellectual achievements; it is just the case that outstanding intellectual achievements will disproportionately be the products of some specific groups (Ashkenazim Jews, Northern Europeans, and to a lesser extent, NE Asians).

Besides, I don’t think that this site has to do anything to bring Southern Europeans to the “cause;” most of them would not want their countries to be flooded with non-whites.

I will return to address the rest of your comments a few days from now.


290

Posted by ToC on Fri, 02 Jun 2006 16:30 | #

Thus, the placement of the Chinese in the 2006 ACM competition or the top topcoder rankings, in spite of their notable average math advantage over Europeans, is shockingly low.

Well, we won last year.


291

Posted by Guessedworker on Fri, 02 Jun 2006 16:33 | #

Hey, ToC, welcome back.  Where have you been?


292

Posted by J Richards on Fri, 02 Jun 2006 17:32 | #

Toc,

Nice to have you back, but the long-term results of the ACM competitions show unambiguous white domination.

Top teams in the International ACM competitions

1982 - Baylor University (5 whites)
1985 - Stanford University (3 whites, 1 South Asian)
1986 – Caltech (4 whites, 1 South Asian)
1987 - Stanford University (2 whites, 1 Middle Eastern, 1 NE Asian)
1988 – Caltech (4 whites)
1989 – UCLA (4 whites)
1990 - University of Otago, New Zealand (4 whites)
1991 – Stanford (4 whites)
1992 - University of Melbourne, Australia (3 whites)
1993 – Harvard (2 whites, 1 NE Asian)
1994 – University of Waterloo (2 whites, 2 NE Asian)
1995 - Albert-Ludwigs-Universitat Freiburg, Germany (3 whites)
1996 – UC-Berkeley (3 whites, 1 South Asian)
1997 – Harvey Mudd College (5 whites)
1998 – Charles University, Prague (4 whites).
1999 – University of Waterloo (3 whites, 2 NE Asian).
2000 -  St. Petersburg State University (5 whites)
2001 - St. Petersburg State University (4 whites)
2002 - Shanghai JiaoTong University (4 NE Asian)
2003 – Warsaw University (all white)
2004 – St. Petersburg Institute of Fine Mechanics and Optics (4 whites)
2005 - Shanghai Jiao Tong University (4 NE Asian)
2006 - Saratov State University (4 whites)


293

Posted by ToC on Fri, 02 Jun 2006 18:28 | #

Hey GW,

I’ve been disintegrating the social sciences foundation of multiculturalism (and in a permanent, irreversible fashion), among other things. Why? I do not worship false idols: 

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/05/30/world/asia/30beijing.html?hp&ex=1149048000&en=53f9d17a1c96e31b&ei=5094&partner=homepage


JR,

Regarding the IQ distributions of NE Asians and Caucasians, couldn’t someone obtain the raw data from the authors cited in Lynn’s recent book and do a metaanalysis? The results would be more or less definitive, and probaby good for a paper.


294

Posted by Nio Zilda on Fri, 02 Jun 2006 23:11 | #

Someone, in disparaging ‘Nordicist’ interpretations of the Italian Renaissance, mentioned that the focal point of said Renaissance was Florence. Actually, many if not most of the prominent Florentine families of the early & high Renaissance had Germanic surnames. For instance, Dante’s surname was Alighieri, which I suppose comes from a personal name like Aldiger or Alfger (if the latter then he was a semi-namesake of Sir Edward Elgar smile ). I don’t know whether by the 14th Century such people would have been of mainly Germanic ancestry, but their surnmanes at least reflect an earlier ethnically based social stratification.


295

Posted by Yarus on Sat, 03 Jun 2006 12:46 | #

J,

I concede the point about there being Germanic admixture in Northern Italy, you have me there. However, there were many important Renaissance figures (other than rulers) who displayed Mediterranean features, such as Michelangelo.

I find Dienekes’ pro-Mediterranean stance a bit much sometimes, for example saying that Northern Europeans are uglier than Southerns on average. However, he does know his Greek history better than most, and you obviously haven’t bothered to read his page, successfully refuting the idea of there being a Nordic Greek upper class responsible for all the important philosophy. How come virtually every single Greek piece of artwork shows people with dark eyes and jet black hair, even in supposedly ‘Nordic’ Mycenaean artwork? How come the decorations of Mycenaen swords show darkish skinned men with large noses and black hair? How come the famous ideal ‘Greek nose’ actually dates back to pre-Indo-European artwork? How come Greek authors (who weren’t commoners) often spoke of the Northern people, i.e. Scythians and Celts, as being fundamentally different to themselves in skin colour, stature, hair colour/texture and facial features?

Dienekes actually did address the statue issue in that link; he showed a Greek man’s profile who had the ‘Greek nose’, and next to that picture was an ancient male statue. Both of these guys didn’t look Nordic at all.

As you said, facial traits vary more within breeding populations than between populations. Seeing as most Greek sculptors wished to capture perfection in their work, they would create statues depicting figures with much greater beauty than the regular population. Statues of real Greek people, as I mentioned in a previous post, look different than the ideal Greek, and display more Southern European characteristics. The statue you showed, somehow ‘proving’ that the average ancient Greek was more Northern European than today, would hardly be representative of the average ancient Greek, even the average upper class ancient Greek.

Dienekes managed to find numerous photos of above-average Greek males, and indeed ancient Greek sculptors managed to find above-average ancient Greek males to pose for sculptures, at least until they were skilled enough to sculpt without a model. I really don’t see what’s wrong with this.

As I keep saying, I can’t read the Brace paper because I don’t have Adobe on this computer and there isn’t another computer available. I don’t understand why you cite this study to prove a Northern European ancient Greek/Roman population and ignore most other studies arriving to conclusions of continuity between ancient and modern Greece (Rome is another matter).

The population density argument to explain away the lack of early Norse/Germanic/Celtic civilization doesn’t cut it. I wasn’t referring to the frozen North; of course you couldn’t build a huge civilization where there’s hardly any sunlight for half of the year. I meant places like Britain, Ireland, Germany and France. These places were extremely fertile and teeming with resources, including ores. There were huge amounts of Celtic villages and towns, and they were even connected using primitive yet innovative wooden roads. They also had ample access to precious metals.

But no huge civilization to rival Rome! No cities or capitals emerged, and no writing script was developed until later on. Infact the Germanic tribes, who lived in the lush forested lands of Germania, didn’t even have towns. Obviously a cultural explaination is needed.

I agree the Norse longboat was awesome and enabled them to kick some arse, but technically it was inferior to the Chinese junk, which emerged as a sea-faring vessel around the same time.

Simply dismissing Dienekes as a “Greek propagandist” isn’t going to refute his claims. Perhaps you are a Nordic propagandist? You do, after all, have a Romantic picture of Norse warriors as your profile picture. Even if both of you have your biases, claiming that Northern European Greeks invented science seems a bit farfetched. I don’t think Dienekes is claiming Greek credit for most modern scientific discoveries.

Perhaps there should be a huge debate between you and Dienekes to settle this. That would rock, pardon the teenage vernacular…

I’ll address the Russian/Chinese post later, for I am le tired.


296

Posted by martin on Sat, 03 Jun 2006 17:33 | #

Posters are going on about the greater beauty of white women and are using models and actresses as evidence.  But where I live all the white women weigh about 14 stone and look pretty awful. They don’t look after themselves at all. I know its an environmental factor, but who can blame a white man for preferring a slim Oriental.


297

Posted by Yarus on Sun, 04 Jun 2006 10:22 | #

Ok, I’m gonna have another go at this…

J,

For along time Russia was rather backward in comparison to Western Europe. Whereas the West had benefited from the Renaissance, Russia was still a Medieval culture in most respects. It was only until the time of Peter the Great that the doors of Western knowledge were blown open to Russia, but it took quite a while for the country to catch up to the West, in both methods of thinking and appliance of technology. If one were living in, say, the UK 70 years after Russia had absorbed Western knowledge, one could easily say that those Russians are dreadfully uncreative and steal from us noble Westerners. The same thing is happening in China today, I think.

It’s innaccurate of you to say both countries were in similar environments to each other in the 20th century. The forms of communism were very different, for one thing, and the culture was immensely different. Westernisation was still taking place in China - and arguably still is today as well - but Russia was very much Westernized.

And let us not use terminology such as ‘stolen’ when referring to the accumulation of knowledge, technology and the knowledge to build such technology, sheesh. Did Westerners not ‘steal’ paper, modern numerals, crossbows, stirrups, fenestrated rudders and even the first rockets etc. etc.?

The huge population of urban Chinese hasn’t passed me by, but just what makes you think that most of these residents are going to be wealthy and educated? Are such cities at the same level of wealth as cities in Western nations? Unlikely.

I am aware of the impracticality of advanced math. I’m also aware that culturally China and Japan tend to be more practical and less individualistic, which possibly could lead to less students being taught such subjects. The educational practices of East and West are likely to be very different; many Chinese schools utilize rote memorizing as a way of teaching pupils, for example. While this is for the most part impossible at university, it may discourage divergent thinking among the populace, at least to levels lower than people in the West.

Looking at those programming competition stats, the amount of East Asians winning each year on average seems to have increased quite a bit since the competition began. Similarly, the average amount of Nobel Prizes (other than in literature) won by Japan per year seems to have increased in recent years. This could reflect better methods of education and less restraint of individualism.

You mention androgens, and I thank you for doing so for that’s an extremely interesting topic and I should’ve brought that up sooner. As you know, an expert can usually determine the gender of a person’s brain through either sampling some of the neurons or analyzing the person’s behaviour, but it’s not as simple as “huurrr, I’m a macho man!!” or “oooh, I’m a flowery lady”. For instance, a beefy jock type man could be great at socializing but not be good academically, while a skinny quiet guy who’s not too good at being popular may be the one to turn to with your advanced calculus homework (hypothetically they are both white). The former has more testosterone flowing through him, but his brain isn’t as male as the latter. Lemme explain…

The more male a brain is, the better it is at systemizing than empathizing, in other words thinking in terms of things rather than people. As you go further along the male scale (I am so sorry…>_<), you get into mild autism territory, i.e. Asperger’s. This type of person isn’t the best to invite to a uni dorm party but is usually quite a bit above average academically. If the brain is even more male, it’s autistic, which can be disadvantageous but occasionally produces autistic savants.

On the other hand, if the brain is female, it’s better at empathy and socializing, but worse with systematic stuff. Women and campy men (those evil, EVIL gays rolleyes) tend to be great with being social and being good with appearences, i.e. fashion, hair-styling etc, but stereotypically not so good with fixing the car.

Such differences are evident in child hood. Boys, usually with male brains, will more than likely play with toy trucks cars, and if they use human figurines like Action Men, they will make up awesome adventurous storylines with explosions and fighting and laser beams etc. All of that is evidence of a brain that systemizes alot. Girls, usually with female brains, will use dolls and stuff to play ‘Family’, or organize fake social situations, i.e. tea parties. When I was a young ‘un, around 5 years old, for some strange reason I gave a truck for a girl to play with. She talked to it as if it were a child, essentially using it as a doll. This is all evidence for a brain that empathizes alot.
I do not think it’s as simple as “more testoster systemization”. The people with the most male brains aren’t always the most male in the traditional sense, infact they tend to be a bit weedy, hence the smart-but-socially-clueless nerd stereotype. Thus, the theory of more super-geniuses correllating with more masculine types in a population is to me an oversimplification.

I think it’s the amount of testosterone exposed to the fetus at a certain time, as apposed to the amount of testosterone exposed all together, that causes a brain to become abnormally male and high IQ.

If males with very high IQ within a breeding population happen to be more masculine physically than the average male of the population, then your theory may have some ground. Until then, I’m not certain.

I highly recommend reading material by Simon Baron Cohen, who is an expert on all this.

....Oh! And about the Romans…

Well, yeah, the Latins came from North of the Alps, but it’s theorized they didn’t come from very far north; a Central-Eastern European point of origin is the most likely place, not a Northern European place.

Similarly, the Etruscans, the indigenous population of Northern and Central Italy, had a great role to play in the early stages of Rome. Two of the last three kings were said to have been of Etruscan or semi-Etruscan lineage, and the language of Latin itself was greatly influenced by Etruscan, in addition to the IE proto-Latin. Etruscan architecture was also very influential in bringing about the classic Roman stlye, as was Greek.

The main ethnicity of the first Romans is by no means clear, and the early IE Italic tribes were in no way the sole creators of Rome. Both the Etruscans and Latins intermixed early on, both in the cultural sense and in the sexual sense.

Similarly, I’ve seen many examples of Roman sculpture, and depictions of Germanic tribesmen do indeed look Northern/Central European. But then I look at statues of Roman emperors and soldiers, and the two peoples clearly look different physically. Many Roman authors described their fellow citizens as different in physical appearence to the Germans of the period, and their artwork clearly reinforces such writings.


298

Posted by Yarus on Wed, 07 Jun 2006 21:58 | #

Hmm….

Come to think of it, looking at the evidence that you have cited - which is impressive in it’s size - supposedly proving the Germanic ancestry of Northern Italians, it’s not as solid as I first thought.

The C282Y mutation is most commonly thought of as Celtic in origin, not Scandanavian. Even though levels of the mutation are quite abundant in Viking Land, they aren’t as high as in countries such as Ireland, which are Celtic to the core.

As you know, the Celtic peoples covered most of Western Europe in ancient times, while the ancestors of the Germanic tribes were still confined to Sweden and Northern Germany. Celtic peoples even populated the Northern-most parts of Italy.

The Celts were indeed ancestors of the paleolithic population of Europe, and the Greeks and other ‘Meds’ were not.

All of your evidence is good, but in all likelyhood it proves an ancient Celtic lineage in Northern Italy rather than a Germanic one, thus I don’t think the ‘Lombardic rejuvenation’ theory makes that much sense anymore. Do you honestly suppose influential Renaissance men like Raphael (one on the left) look Germanic?

I’ve also come to learn that Southern Italy, especially Sicily, has large Greek ancestry, from the time of the Ancient Greek colonists (who were mainly Dorian…heheheh). Click, y’all. Does this not prove a definate Southern European character of the Ancient Greeks?

While it has mainly been Central/Northern European countries that have helped shape the West in most recent times, we should give credit to those of more swarthy persuasion for the Greek and Roman civilizations, without which we would more than likely be conquered by the Chinese by now due to our backwardness. Of course, we could’ve advanced to somesort of civilization resembling Gondor/Rohan out of LotR, which is a weak plus. However: no dwarves. :(

I look forward to your reply.


299

Posted by Yarus on Sun, 11 Jun 2006 11:14 | #

Perhaps I shouldn’t of been so eager to attribute the autistic spectrum as purely a result of androgens, there may very well be environmental factors at play here.

Still looking forward to your reply, Mr Richards.


300

Posted by Michelle on Tue, 20 Jun 2006 20:56 | #

Ummm, I am latino but my health is excellent! I never get sick or anything, you said health is much worse besides those south asians and north western europeans.


301

Posted by Dee on Fri, 23 Jun 2006 00:02 | #

In response to the claim that Black men find unattractive white women more attractive than unattractive black women.  What a crock!  First off, black men see sleeping with white women as a way to get back at the white race.  Second, Black men see white women as easy and gullible, thus, they can use them moreso than they can use black women…So, get over yourself.

btw..looks like you get the pictures of “beautiful” white women off of porno sites


302

Posted by http://robertlindsay.blogspot.com/2006/06/few- on Mon, 26 Jun 2006 03:26 | #

For a fascinating look at some of those who think that way, and some who disagree with them, check out this thread on the White Nationalist Majority Rights blog titled, Does Race Mixing Increase Physical Attractiveness? The poster believes that it does not, and feels that he can prove it. The post…


303

Posted by J Richards on Thu, 06 Jul 2006 22:51 | #

Michelle,

It is good that you are healthy.  Nobody is saying that race mixing invariably results in poor health; the odds of poor health are increased though.

————————-

Dee,

You believe that black men view white women as easier to get?  Are you insane?  Black men typically know that most white women wouldn’t have anything to do with black men, but obese and unattractive white women whom no white man would want to deal with are a different matter.  Trust me, many white men are fed up with the rampant criminality of black men, yet wouldn’t even think of sleeping with black women to get back at black men.  Similarly, black men primarily fantasize about white women because they like their looks, not because they want to get back at the white man, and would prefer a 250-pound white woman to a 350-pound black woman any day.  Besides, it was necessary to look up some lewd pictures to obtain photos of nostril shapes.


304

Posted by J Richards on Thu, 06 Jul 2006 23:00 | #

Yarus,

Sorry for taking so long to get back to you.  You have raised many points, and it will take some lengthy comments to address them.  Let us start with the ancient Greeks. 

Dienekes Pontikos has written:

The most complete study of Greek skeletal material from Neolithic to modern times was carried out by American anthropologist J. Lawrence Angel [6] who found that in the early age racial variability in Greece was 7% above average, indicating that the Greeks had multiple origins within the Europid racial family. Angel noted that from the earliest times to the present “racial continuity in Greece is striking.”

Well, Angel classified ancient Greek skulls into 6 groups:

Basic white – sturdy, large and long heads, somewhat low and receding bony foreheads, massive browridges, angular features, almost trapezoid faces lacking height, rectangular orbits; short, straight and coarse noses; robust jaws, strong chin and teeth, back of the head projecting.  A little above medium stature, strong, and estimated to be dark-brown haired and swarthy.  Similar to Chalcolithic (3rd millennium) Palestinians, Siculans, Chalcolithic Sardinians, Neolithic-type British, and comparable to Atlanto-Mediterraneans in Mesopotamia.

Classic Mediterranean – light bones, almost fragile; low and almost vertical rounded foreheads; small skull, barely long in side view, and pentagonoid in outline in both vertical view and view from the back; slender, gracile faces; squared orbits, thin noses that are smooth and low at the point where the nose meets the forehead, small and straight foreheads, face triangularly tapers down to pinched jaws with a shallow and pointed chin, weakly protruding jaws and an overbite.  Just below medium stature, gracile, slender-necked, and estimated to be brunet, with black or dark hair.  Similar to ancient Libyans, modern Sicilians, modern Spanish, and upper Egyptians of prehistoric and early dynasties.

Nordic-Iranian – long and high heads with smooth ovoid-ellipsoid contour, back of the head especially projecting (long skull in side view), sharply-cut muscle impressions, strong browridges, somewhat tilted and wide foreheads, long and rectangular faces, narrow cheeks with large but retreating cheekbones; big, salient and aquiline noses; long-arched palates, muscular jaws wide at the angles, cleft chins lacking prominence, rugged and deep-chinned jaw.  Tall and muscular, strong-necked, and estimated to be tawny-haired blue- or green-eyed blonds as well as brunets.  Similar to Anglo-Saxons, Frankish Bajuvars and Reihengrabers, medieval Irish monks, and Hissar III (Bronze age) North Iranian proto-Nordics.   

Dinaric-Mediterranean  – short and relatively high pinched and flatly sloping foreheads, back of the head does not protrude, big and drooping houndlike faces with an elongated hexagonal outline, flared cheekbones, long and thin noses pulled down almost parallel with the foreheads, high palates, long and deep jaws.  Medium tall, long-necked and estimated to be mainly brunet.  Similar to lower Egyptian (3rd and 2nd millennium B.C.) dinaricised Mediterraneans, modern northwest Balkan Dinarics (Serbs, Croats, Solvenes), and modern Greeks of Anatolia and European Turkey.

Mixed Alpine  – large heads that are neither long nor short and neither broad nor narrow, very large and wide foreheads with little slope, wide and sloping orbits, low faces with an inverted trapezoid outline and a retreating profile, high-rooted but insignificant noses, shallow and relatively delicate jaws despite respectable size. Not especially short but probably heavy-bodied, and estimated to have a brunet majority with some mixed blonds.  Similar to Etrusco-Roman Tarquinians, Merovingian Franks, Bessarabian Scythians, Carniola Illyrians, Basques, Teneriffe Guanche. 

Alpine  – short heads bulging at the sides, short and ovoid- to wedge-shaped vaults, full foreheads that are narrow relative to bulging sidewalls, back of the head flattened, non-salient concave nose with a low root, short palate, prominent chin; low, flat and straight face with a rounded hexagonal outline; non-retreating cheekbones.  Short, stocky build and estimated to have been dominantly brunet.  Similar to Bronze age east Cypriotes, Central European Alpines as in foothill Bavarians, Carinthian villagers, and medieval citizens of Hythe in Kent.

Ref:
Angel, J. L. Skeletal material from Attica. Hesperia, 1945;14(4):279-363.
Angle, J. L. Social biology of Greek culture growth. American Anthropologist, 1946;48(4 part 1):493-533.

Here is the prevalence of these types of skulls through various periods in ancient Greece (From Angel, J.L. American Anthropologist, 1946;48(4 part 1):493-533):

change in frequency of cranial types through time in ancient Greece

Notice that in the classical Greek period, approximately one-fourth were of the Nordic-Iranian type.  Now, the six types of skulls described by Angel are the six basic tendencies in skull shape variability, and the skulls in reality are sometimes mixes of different groups.  Thus, in classical Greece and earlier times, the Nordic-Iranian skulls are mostly Nordic skulls as in Anglo-Saxon, Keltic Nordic and corded types, but toward the later periods, i.e., the Roman and Byzantine periods, many of these skulls lean away from modern Nordics and toward a large, hook-nosed Iranian form, and Dienekes Pontikos tells us that no more than a few percent of modern Greeks can be classified as Nordic types.

Next, let us consider some Greek figures that Dienekes Pontikos has not shown on the pages that you have linked to, and see which of the 6 types of skulls described by Angel these figures overall best approximate.

Apollo Belvedere, based on the bronze Greek original from 350-325 B.C.

Apollo Belvedere

Aphrodite, Kaufmann head (150 B.C.).

Aphrodite, Kaufmann head

Sophocles, Athenian (490s – 406 B.C.)

Sophocles

Pericles, Athenian (495 – 429 B.C.)

Pericles

Euripides (480-406 B.C.)

Euripides

Xenophon (430-354 B.C.)

Xenophon

Demosthenes (386-322 B.C.)

Demosthenes

Antiochus III the Great (241-187 B.C.)

Antiochus III

And like the aristocratic individuals considered above, we shouldn’t forget the royalty from neighboring Macedonia.

Alexander the Great bust from Hellenistic Greece (bust from 2nd to 1st century B.C.).

Alexander the Great

Top generals of Alexander the Great: first row, Seleucus Nicator; second row, Lysimachus; third row, Cassander; fourth row, Ptolemy.

Generals of Alexander the Great: Seleucus Nicator, Lysimachus, Cassander, Ptolemy

There are other examples, of course, and I don’t think I need to say which of the 6 types of skulls in Angel’s classification these samples fall into.

The more interesting data is something that Dienekes is unlikely to admit to.  Angel examined the remains of the Mycenaean shaft grave royalty and found none of them to be classic Mediterranean types; 38% of them were Nordic types and the rest were Dinaroid-Mixed Alpine types, i.e., the royalty was descended from the Indo-Europeans that had migrated to the region:

Angel, J. L. Human skeletons from grave circles at Mycenae. In G. E. Mylonas (ed.), Ho Taphikos Kyklos B ton Mykenon, Athens: Athenais Archaiologikes Etaireias, 1973; Vol. 1:379-397.

 

Dienekes does cite the study above, but this is what he writes:

Moreover, the burials at the Royal Graves of Mycenae, c. 1600BC [12] show a variety of stature and head form representing multiple subracial types. Thus, it is safe to assume that from earliest times, the Greek aristocracy didn’t belong to a particular physical type. The main difference between aristocrats and commoners was the slightly larger size of the former, which he explains as due to better diet and social selection for positions of leadership in warfare.

You can see here that the aristocracy in classical Greece was disproportionately Nordic.  Dienekes Pontikos is obviously aware of the Nordic busts above and many more like them, but has chosen to ignore them on the page where he addresses the racial composition of the Hellenes.  Take a look at what he has shown as examples of ancient Greek types.

Dienekes’ examples of ancient Greeks

Dienekes calls Pericles a Mediterranean, even though Angel specified the classic Mediterranean type as having both a low nasal root (less prominent upper nasal region) than the Nordic type, a weaker chin and a somewhat weakly protruding jaw, none of which characterize the bust of Pericles.  Dienekes ignores the Nordic Aristotle, and shows the broad-faced Plato.  I do not know where he got the bust of Plato from, but the following bust of Plato from Musei Capitolini, Roma, does not show him to be broad-faced, though he certainly doesn’t have a narrow face.

Plato


305

Posted by J Richards on Thu, 06 Jul 2006 23:05 | #

Yarus,

Take a look at the following woman and guess her ancestry.

Katerina Georgiadou

The woman shown above is a Greek woman, Katerina Georgiadou.  Dienekes has featured her on his page showing pictures of attractive Greek women.  If you go through the women shown on this page, you will note plenty of masculine-looking women, but the more interesting examples of the Greek women that he shows are depicted in the following collage.

Greek women

Dienekes has gone to great lengths to deny Nordic presence in classical Greece, but he features a Nordic type in his collection of attractive Greek women, and heavily oversamples women with looks characteristic of the populations north of Greece.  What is one to make of Dienekes?

Like Dienekes, Angel was well aware of “Nordicist interpretations” of the achievements of classical Greece, and strongly disliked them.  His studies cited above were undertaken by him to counter the Nordicists, but unlike Dienekes, he acknowledged significant Nordic presence in classical Greece.  However, Angel was quick to attempt to explain the achievements of classical Greece in terms of three factors.  The first factor was presumably the destruction wrought by the invading tribes, which prompted people to rebuild society, presumably with a strong determination to build something better than before.  Now, it is true that a setback sometimes drives people to excel themselves, but Angel ignored the most obvious explanation, namely that the victorious invaders would have formed the aristocracy and assigned the conquered people to work the menial jobs, freeing themselves to pursue issues such as philosophy, artistic design, mathematical proof, etc.  The second factor proposed by Angel was the challenge posed by having to interact with different ethnic groups, the mental gymnastics of which resulted in some invigorating energy.  This is an absurd notion.  The third factor proposed by Angel was hybrid vigor resulting from the mixing of different European populations.  To this day there is no evidence of hybrid vigor in humans resulting from the mixing of different populations.  If the different populations are separate races, then the offspring have worse health; corroborating evidence in this regard is found from some loss of morphological integration in the skull resulting from race mixing, and there is more to this issue that I will address later.  I would not expect the mixing of different geographic populations within Europe to increase the likelihood of negative health effects, but I am not aware of any evidence for increased positive outcomes.  Besides, if hybrid vigor is indeed a factor in explaining the achievements of classical Greece, then how come since the decline of this civilization, Greece has gone downhill and remained at the bottom of European inventiveness and innovativeness?

For instance, I will list four statistics, in order, about some nations; number of Nobel laureates, number of Nobel laureates in science, number of Nobel laureates in economics and population size: Norway (9, 1, 3, 4.6 million), Sweden (18, 6, 0, 9 million), Finland (3, 2, 0, 5.2 million), Denmark (14, 9, 0, 5.4 million), Greece (2, 0, 0, 10.7 million).     

In short, Angel certainly didn’t undermine “Nordicist interpretations” of the achievements of classical Greece.

You have mentioned seeing dark hair pigmentation in paintings from ancient Greece.  There are indeed many such examples, but there are also paintings showing hair coloration most extensively characteristic of Nordics, as in some examples below.

Dionysos from Pella, Macedonia, 4th century B.C.

Dionysos from Pella, Macedonia

Deer hunt from Pella, Macedonia, 4th century B.C.

Deer hunt from Pella, Macedonia

Lion hunt from Pella, Macedonia, 4th century B.C.

Lion hunt from Pella, Macedonia

Close ups of the Deer hunt and Lion hunt mosaics from Pella, Macedonia.

Mosaics from Pella, Macedonia

Red-haired Peplos Kore from Athens (530 B.C.).

Peplos Kore

Ecstatic Maenad, 5th century B.C.

Ecstatic Maenad

Tondo sick reveler in Kylix by the Brygos Painter, 5th century B.C.

Tondo sick reveler in Kylix by the Brygos Painter

5th century B.C. Lekythos.

5th century B.C. Lekythos

Painting on a Grecian pot, 4th century B.C.

Painting on a Grecian pot, 4th century B.C.

More light-haired individuals from classical Greece.

Light-haired individuals in classical Greek art.

Obviously, ancient Greece did have a significant Nordic element, and liar Dienekes’ arguments in this regard are simply not worth lending any credence to.


306

Posted by J Richards on Thu, 06 Jul 2006 23:13 | #

Yarus,

I will now address the northern Italy issue. 

You mention a probable Celtic origin of the C282Y mutation rather than Scandinavian and then argue that the evidence concerning this mutation proves an ancient Celtic lineage in Northern Italy rather than a Germanic one, which in turn undermines the Germanic rejuvenation idea.  To start with, the paper that you cited mentions a prevalence of 6.88% among the Celtic NW Europeans and 6.4% among Scandinavians, averaged over several studies, and these figures are not statistically different in the paper.  Besides, the Celtic and light-haired Nordic populations are closely related.  Thus, your assertion is neither proven nor even suggested by the data.  How is it not possible for Germanic tribes migrating down south to have been responsible for the high prevalence of the C282Y mutation in Northern Italy?

You have attempted to undermine the notion of a predominantly Northern European contribution to the Italian Renaissance by citing the looks of Michelangelo and Raphael.  Regarding Raphael, take a look at 4 of his portraits on this page, which includes his self-portrait that you linked to.  In his painting by Pintorocchio, he is shown as having blond hair as a child; in his self-sketch of his boyhood, Raphael sketched light hair on himself; in his self-portrait of his young adulthood, Raphael painted facial features that could easily be Northern European and a lighter shade of brown hair than in his painting depicting an older self, which is the one you linked to.  Now, several Northern Europeans have blond hair as children, which turns brown in adulthood, even dark brown as the person approaches middle age.  Therefore, there is no guarantee that Raphael was of overwhelmingly non-Northern-European stock. 

Besides, speaking of anecdotal examples, here is a self-portrait of the light-haired Sandro Botticelli, the person responsible for the artwork you see at the top of the left column.           

Sandro Botticelli

And here is one of the greatest scientific geniuses of all time, Galileo.

Galileo

Systematic evidence would be more useful here.  Woltmann attempted to determine the physical appearance of key Renaissance figures from their paintings, busts and historical descriptions, and he reported that in 1) 125 men whose eye color could be assessed, 102 had blue, blue-grey or blue-green eyes; 18 had brown or brown-grey eyes; and 5 had eyes of mixed color; 2) in 108 men whose hair color could be assessed, 68 had blond or red hair; 26 had brown hair; and 14 had black hair; and 3) the noble families of Northern Italy produced plenty of blond individuals:

Woltmann, L. (1905) Die Germanen und die Renaissance in Italien (Leipzig: Thüringische Verlagsanstalt).

I have no idea how reliable Woltmann’s data are, but I see no reason to doubt the idea that the Italian Renaissance was primarily a product of individuals of Northern European stock, which is not to say that non-Nordics were not involved at all.
Next, it is time to address the Etruscans, from whom the Romans borrowed some cultural elements.  One cannot assume that the ancient Etruscans were a uniformly dark people.  Artistic depictions of the Etruscans dating to the 6th-3rd century B.C. show some light-haired individuals:

Some Etruscans

The ancient Etruscans were a heterogeneous people that included Alpine, Dinaric, Phalian and Nordic elements in addition to the Mediterranean types; related citation:

Angel, J. L. Book Review: Ciba Foundation Symposium on Medical Biology and Etruscan Origins. American Antiquity. 1960;25(4):612-613.

In addition, the best genetic evidence so far shows that modern Tuscans are not the descendents of the ancient Etruscans:

Belle EM, Ramakrishnan U, Mountain JL, Barbujani G. Serial coalescent simulations suggest a weak genealogical relationship between Etruscans and modern Tuscans. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2006 May 23;103(21):8012-7. Epub 2006 May 15.

Similarly, there is plenty of evidence showing that the Roman Patricians were of Northern ancestry, comprising of mostly Nordic types, and included some Nordic-Alpine and Phalian elements.  Therefore, once again, the elite/aristocracy was disproportionately Nordic.


307

Posted by J Richards on Thu, 06 Jul 2006 23:19 | #

Yarus,

In light of all the evidence above, it is time to address the following statement by you.

While it has mainly been Central/Northern European countries that have helped shape the West in most recent times, we should give credit to those of more swarthy persuasion for the Greek and Roman civilizations, without which we would more than likely be conquered by the Chinese by now due to our backwardness. Of course, we could’ve advanced to somesort of civilization resembling Gondor/Rohan out of LotR, which is a weak plus. However: no dwarves.

The “we” above presumably refers to Northern Europeans.  Two things need to be said about your statement.  Firstly, it takes more brain power to handle Schrodinger’s equation than to handle Pythagoras’ theorem, i.e., those that can handle Schrodinger’s equation can easily handle Pythagoras’ theorem but the reverse is not necessarily true.  Therefore, if Northern Europeans have proven their intellectual prowess by being almost entirely responsible for modern civilization, then their ancestors within recorded history were surely intelligent enough to produce on their own the philosophical, scientific and technical achievements of earlier civilizations.  Therefore, the statement that without the early contributions of a presumably swarthy southern people, modern Northern Europeans would be living in some backward society is absurd.  Secondly, where is the evidence that swarthy people were entirely behind the achievements of classical Greece and Rome?  The evidence—and what is cited above is but a sampler—points to the overwhelming contribution of people from the north of Southern European, especially Nordic types, to the high points of the Roman and Greek civilizations.  This, of course, leads to your previous question about what the Northern Europeans had achieved in Northern Europe a few thousand years ago.  You appear satisfied with the explanation that there were very few inhabitants in Scandinavia in the past, but have asked what about Britain?

Well, the achievements of the ancient Northern Europeans have increasingly come to light in the past couple of years.  The Celts had better helmets, better shields and better chariots than the Romans, and they were more adept at using the chariots.  An Iron Age road at Corlea in Ireland has recently been dated to 148 B.C., and wooden roads built in the same way and around the same time have been found in other parts of Northern Europe.  The first important Roman road was the Appian Way, built in 312BC, but the “Upton Track” wooden road in south Wales dates to the 5th century B.C.  The ancient Celts were also excellent metal craftsmen, and they used their skills to build sophisticated arable farms using iron ploughshares (4th century B.C.) and a harvesting machine similar to a comb on wheels that beat off the ears of corn and deposited them in a container like the grass box of a lawnmower.

The earliest sewage system has been found in Skara Brae, predating that at the palace of Knossos by about 1,500 years.  Take a look at the sophistication of Bronze Age Danes here and here.  The Nebra disk in Saxony-Anhalt, about 3,600 years old, is probably the oldest concrete representation of the cosmos.  And, one shouldn’t forget the technical prowess required to erect massive megaliths in Northern Europe.

Northern Europeans were far from a backward people thousands of years ago, and their Nordic relatives were disproportionately behind the high points of a number of the noteworthy achievements in Southern Europe.  On the other hand, several achievements of classical Greece were the first of their kind, and it may be asked why the Nordics elsewhere did not first come up with these achievements.  Well, the achievements of classical Greece were not built from scratch; they were built upon pre-existing achievements.  The Mediterranean region was certainly ideally poised to come up with early noteworthy achievements given its large numbers of white people and multiple ethnic groups, allowing people to borrow something useful from various cultures, something that would not be possible for more isolated populations.  In addition, with a large variety of people, it would be easy for some groups to dominate others, thereby resulting in the aristocracy or ruling class having plenty of free time to pursue philosophy and science.  Nordics in Northern Europe were an independently living people a few thousand years ago and did not have the advantage of slaves doing their menial jobs.

You have mentioned Ibn Fadhlan’s account of a Norse slave-girl accompanying her dead lord to be burnt in a ship burial as a good indicator of barbaric Norse practices.  There is no indication how prevalent this practice was, and was it even true?  Ibn Fadhlan described the Vikings as the dirtiest creatures of God, people with no shame in voiding their bowels and bladder, people who washed their heads and faces daily in the dirtiest and filthiest possible manner, people who did not wash their hands after eating, people who did not wash themselves when polluted by the emission of semen, and people who were like asses gone astray.  Is this load of bull from Ibn Fadhlan to be believed?

I do not know why you call the Viking longships inferior to the Chinese junk.  The combination of width, stability, lightweight, speed and agility in the longships was unmatched; the longships were outstanding in multiple features whereas the Chinese junks were primarily meant for seafaring but were also sometimes used during warfare.  The Vikings also built large versions of longships for seafaring.

I have no idea how you have managed to come up with the bizarre statement that I have used the Brace et al. paper to argue for a Northern European ancient Greek/Roman population.  I cited the Brace et al. paper to cite evidence for a higher frequency of fine facial features in modern Northern and Central Europeans compared to modern Southern Europeans.

Regarding my calling Dienekes a Greek propagandist, I should have been more accurate in calling him a propagandist for dark Greeks.  I have addressed the points above in response to your accusing me of espousing Nordicism, whereas Dienekes put up his lies and distortions a long time ago on his own initiative, and apparently has no intentions of changing.  Having a picture of Norse warriors as my avatar hardly makes me some kind of Nordic propagandist.


308

Posted by J Richards on Thu, 06 Jul 2006 23:30 | #

Yarus,

Regarding Russia, Russia was indeed lagging behind the West prior to Peter the Great, but a lot of this undoubtedly had to do with the devastation wrought about by the Mongol invaders.  White Russians had the intellectual capability of other whites, and they showed this capability by eventually catching with the West and outshining many Western nations in the 20th century.
I have not implied that the Chinese and the Russians had the same environment in the 20th century.  What I said was that Communism did not devastate Russia any less than it did China.  The number of deaths per capita from Communism was greater in Russia.

When I mentioned the Chinese stealing Western technology, I wasn’t implying borrowing knowledge/technology.  China is extensively involved in espionage, and has literally stolen Western military technology (see here, here, here and here for some examples).  The West has not stolen its technology.  As far as I know, Johannes Gutenberg came up with the printing press on his own, and certainly didn’t “steal” Chinese technology.  Similarly, the West did not steal the technology behind the crossbow and rockets from China as in the Chinese recently spying in the West and stealing classified military information.  Anyway, when it comes to launching rockets into space, the Chinese, along with other northeast Asians, have notably lagged behind the West, especially Russia.

Regarding the huge urban Chinese population, I have not implied that all Chinese urban dwellers are wealthy and well-educated.  On the other hand, Russia is a fraction of the Chinese population, a fourth of Russians live in villages and many urban-dwelling Russians live in destitution.  Additionally, people with higher IQs also tend to come from upper class backgrounds, and in both Russia and China, it cannot be assumed that a large number of highly intelligent individuals are mired in poverty.  Further, intelligent students from middle class backgrounds will typically find their way to decent educational institutions.  Therefore, your excuses for explaining the Chinese deficit in the ACM placings and equivalent, notwithstanding their superior average IQ, especially math IQ, are extremely poor.  A less individualistic culture in China and Japan could lead to fewer students being taught advanced math?  What is this?  A stronger emphasis on rote learning discouraging divergent thinking among the Chinese?  I am sorry, but society can force people to behave in a given manner, but it cannot force people to think along given “conformist” lines unless most people do not have the intelligence to figure out things for themselves.  More intelligent people will be less easily manipulated into thinking along the lines others want them to.  Besides, societal pressures to conform to some thoughts and behaviors but not others will almost never have anything to do with the highly abstract and often impractical nature of advanced math.  Other than the Chinese, the Japanese are a First World nation, well in excess of a 100 million people, and only about 10 million less than the Russians.  They did not make it in the top 10 in the 2006 ACM competition, and generally do not place well in equivalent competitions.

Your conclusions about NE Asians having improved their placement in the ACM competitions and winning more Nobel Prizes of late are not warranted from the data.  For instance, of the 9 Nobel prizes won by Japan in science, 4 of them have been during 2000-2002.  This could have been a random spike for all one knows, and it is premature to assume any increasing trend.  NE Asians are bound to improve in recent decades compared to the mid-20th century, but they are nowhere in the neighborhood of whites at present.  You have also mentioned that Nobel Prizes are awarded for lifetime work, and hence one will see relatively more NE Asians in coming years.  Well, Nobel prizes may be awarded for relatively recent work or older work; it varies, and even if there is a relative increase in the number of NE Asian Nobel prize winners in the future, it would hardly be impressive unless they exceed whites, which is what one would normally expect from their average IQ advantage.

Regarding what I said about testosterone, you have jumped to ridiculous interpretations as usual.  I have not talked about male and female brains and neither do I believe in such simplistic ideas.  I have not implied anything along the lines of more testosterone equals more systemization or more super-geniuses correlate with more masculine types.  There is evidence for sex hormones influencing cognitive abilities, racial differences in exposure to sex hormones, and sex hormones are implicated in sexual selection.  How these possibly contribute to the IQ advantage of whites in the extremely high IQ range is something that I will address in the future, in a separate entry.

Regarding India, you make the absurd point about the allegation that the upper castes have generally become duller with time as a result of absorbing the darker natives being inconsistent with the frequency and potency of mathematical discovery increasing with time till the Islamic invasions.  You did not cite any source to show the latter.  Besides, given that people build upon the achievements of ancestral humans, should it be surprising if the pace of mathematical discovery increases over a period?  Noteworthy contributions are the product of a select few, usually of upper class background, and even if the absorption of the darker natives increases with time, if the population is large enough, there could still be enough lighter upper class individuals to advance math over a period by adding to prior achievements.

You have mentioned some of the achievements of the Dravidian Cholas, claiming them to be the aboriginal natives of India.  Well, humans in India came from elsewhere.  The very first types were undoubtedly Negroid/Australoid in looks.  It is unclear what the Dravidian elite look like before they settled in India, and it is quite likely that the Dravidians being an earlier arrival into India than the Aryans, they miscegenated with the Negroid- or Australoid-looking natives to a greater extent, thereby shifting their physical appearance toward these dark types much more than the Northern caste groups.  Therefore, it is possibly incorrect to ascribe the achievements of the Dravidian elite in the past to the dark Dravidians of today.

You have said that the Brahmin caste of Southern India looks less white than the commoners of North-Western India, yet they have higher intelligence.  In a separate entry of mine, a South Asian pointed out that there were a number of light-skinned Brahmin groups in Southern India that stand in marked contrast to the natives there and could easily pass off as northern Indian Brahmins.  I have also heard of dark Brahmins from southern India that are smarter than others, but is there any proof other than the fact that India’s silicon valley is in the South?  India has only won 3 Nobel prizes in science, and 2 of these have gone to individuals from the South and one to a Northerner.  Additionally, none of the Nobel Prizes won by Indians in literature have gone to the southerners.  These data points hardly lend themselves to any generalization, but what proof is there that southern Brahmins have higher IQs than Northern Brahmins?  And even if the darker Southern Brahmins have higher IQs than lighter Brahmins from the North, then so what?  The contribution of India’s intellectuals to worthwhile knowledge is miniscule, this contribution has disproportionately come from the upper caste people who are genetically closer to Europeans than lower caste people, and in the past, some such individuals were undoubtedly white or close.

It is another of your absurd interpretations that I somehow believe that the source of higher intelligence must be Nordic in origin.  The Ashkenazim undoubtedly have higher IQs than Nordics, but this appears to have resulted from selection pressures among the Ashkenazim rather than being a Nordic contribution.  A dark population could surely indigenously develop a higher IQ than a lighter adjacent population, but the -0.92 correlation between predominant skin color of a population and its average IQ, computed in a global sampling, should be kept in mind.  In summary, if there is evidence that the dark natives of a region were not behind the origin of a civilization that once flourished there, and that this civilization was predominantly of Nordic origin, then stating this is neither espousing Nordicism nor implying the straw man that all civilizations must somehow be the product of Nordic architects.


309

Posted by J. Black on Fri, 07 Jul 2006 10:13 | #

YOU PEOPLE SUCK, WHILE YOU ARE IN HERE ARGUING ABOUT BEAUTIFUL WOMEN, NONE OF YOU EVEN HAVE HAD A CONVERSATION WITH ONE. KEEP COPYING AND PASTING PICTURES YOU LUST (EDIT) AFTER; YOU WILL DO ALL DO WELL TO BE SPERM DONORS! PATHETIC RACIST, LEFTIST, APOLOGIST, TRAIABLIST, HOMOPHOBIC, NIHILISTIC, NAZI, POWER HUNGRY, LONELY, DEGENERATES.


310

Posted by Guessedworker on Fri, 07 Jul 2006 11:09 | #

You forgot WHITE, Jamal.


311

Posted by Aisha Nakhuda on Sat, 15 Jul 2006 16:17 | #

On the other hand, whites who undergo cosmetic facial surgery never try to acquire the facial features of black Africans or flat-faced Asians; rather, they attempt to acquire classic Northern European facial traits.

Hmm. Assumption rather than fact.

Well sorry to burst your Nordic bubble, some whites who undergo cosmetic facial surgery do desire to acquire the facial features of Black Africans or ‘flat-faced’ Asians.
Think big lips. A ‘Nordic’ feature indeed(!)

Another thing, please do yourself a favour and stop posting clearly pornographic pictures of white women.
Particularly those with ‘piggy noses’. Unless of course they please your aesthetic senses then keep posting.

Beauty comes in different colours; each race adding its unique touch to the individual. Deal with it.


312

Posted by J Richards on Sat, 15 Jul 2006 20:04 | #

Aisha,

Within any racial group, more feminine women have thicker than average lips.  Therefore, some thin-lipped Nordic women who thicken their lips are trying to make themselves more seductive to men, not attempting to acquire the lip thickness of non-white women.  The thicker lips seen among non-whites, especially blacks, are generally not appreciated by whites.

Once again, it was necessary to look up some lewd pictures to obtain photos of nostril shapes.  I don’t understand what you mean by ‘piggy noses.’  Beauty may come in different colors, but the non-white elements had best stay outside the white gene pool.


313

Posted by priz on Fri, 25 Aug 2006 08:02 | #

THERE MAY BE WHITE WOMEN WHO ARE HOTTER THAN MS. MOHAN(but definately not the plain janes in the pics provided by Richards ),............IN THE SAME TOKEN I MUST ADMIT THERE AS HEAPS OF “NON-WHITE” WOMEN WHO ARE HOTTER THAN BOTH Ms MOHAN AND THAN OTHER WHITE WOMEN AS WELL…..I beleive its more to do with the person’s beauty than the race’s in general…........
And as for those of you worried about nordic “white” america getting “mixed”......have you spared a thought for the actual original inhabitants of americe the - native Indians? there are pretty much wiped out by the whites…and now you are getting all worked about the purity of your lineage…LOL!!!! If you are so concerned about preserving your race and immigrants from other nations what are you doing in AMERICA???....y dont you go back to where your ancestors originally came from?????....


314

Posted by J Richards on Fri, 25 Aug 2006 14:23 | #

Priz,

Some of the white women shown in the original entry are supposed to illustrate nostril shape and fineness of nasal bones, and have not been selected for a great level of attractiveness.  For better looking white women, see this thread.

Most American Indians that died after Columbus’ arrival died as a result of infectious diseases, and at least one of the infectious agents was indigenous to the Americas.  It is also now known that many of the earliest prehistoric fossils/artifacts found in the Americas are not those of Native Americans, i.e., they are not necessarily the first people to migrate to the Americas.

White Americans may consider going back to Europe if every non-white in Europe leaves the continent for good.


315

Posted by priz on Sat, 26 Aug 2006 00:31 | #

I am not debating that there are no good looking white women. I definitly am debating your notion that white females in general are superior to the non-whites….HELL NO!!!!!!!!
The native americans could have died of infectious diseases,.....but that does not take away from the fact that the were invaded upon and killed by foreigners who have now made America their own….And if you are going into fossils and looking into who the first inhabitans were in a continent…..then, there definitly is scientific study and proof to support evidence that the humans originated and evolved from Africa…hence nullifying all the theories you have put forward…so what are you then to argue about?
And for the record it was the white americans who ventured out into other continents first with the colonisation…america, India,Australia etc….They were the ones to bring in the blacks into the America for slavery as well. So guess what you guys started the trend of going into other peoples territories and making it your own. ....Atleast the immigrants didnot come in and persecute,invade and kill your forefathers!!!!


316

Posted by priz on Sat, 26 Aug 2006 00:34 | #

“but the non-white elements had best stay outside the white gene pool.”

Should have thought of that when you guys ventures into non-white territories….........


317

Posted by J Richards on Sat, 26 Aug 2006 15:36 | #

Priz,

Ever heard of the white man’s burden?  Whites have long been paying for the sins of some white people in the past, but things have gone too far; two wrongs do not make a right, and too many whites have suffered from criminal victimization by non-whites, affirmative action, etc.  Whites whose ancestors within the last couple of generations had nothing to do with colonizing non-whites have also suffered.  Besides, guilt is not inherited.  Should I be paying for what a distant ancestor did 300 years ago? 

As far as non-whites not victimizing whites in the past goes, this is a mistaken belief.  Muslims invaded parts of Europe in the middle ages and enslaved many Europeans.  In addition, now that there is evidence in the form of European-Ainu-type fossils such as Kennewick man, the Spirit Cave mummy, Peñon woman, etc., one can no longer argue with certainty that Native Americans were indeed the first people to colonize the Americas; the first people could very well have been European, who were exterminated by incoming Asiatic-type people, who in turn suffered a major population decline after Columbus’s arrival, mostly due to diseases.  See also this thread about European people in Mongolia in the Bronze age and whites in the Tarim Basin in China, a people that disappeared, and also learn about the Mongol attacks that devastated parts of Europe in the middle ages.

How does the ultimate origin of all human populations today in Africa undermine my arguments?  All humans have a common origin, but this was quite a while ago, and several population differences have accumulated since then.


318

Posted by priz on Sun, 27 Aug 2006 04:25 | #

I AGREE…...It would Definately be ridiculous to expect one to carry the guilt of ones forefathers…just as ridiculous as your notion on the superiority of the nordics goes….

Common origin was a whiile ago…..? exactly my point…whos to say how far back one can or cant go in this debate ? So why do you want to go further back into history and dig to find out who occupated america long long before the native americans? If you must do it then why dont you go back all the way????? why are you digging into history just as far back as it meets your convinience?

OMG!! You just seem to be obsessed with this idea of nordics.This discussion does not interest or stimulate my intelligence anymore…There is no point in me looking at this thread further…wont be visiting this site again.

Your quite obviously a passionate person….why dont you channelise it in the right direction? Just remember there are a lot more things you could contribute your time,intelligence and efforts to which could bring about the betterment of humanity in general…rather than arguing over the false notion that nordics are better looking or the superior race…..what is it going to acheive?

What are you doing man!!!...Do you realise you are actually creating a devide between people from different backgrounds??? This is exactly how feelings of hatread and animosity germinate..people would definately find it offensive that you seem to think one race is superior to the other!You are never going to prove anything…. how do you define beauty?Your idea of beauty could be completely different from another persons’(as clearly seen by the comments posted by previous viewers about the pics of the women u considered attractive!!)

How can one dictate that inter cultural or racial mixed( or whatever you want to call it) parentage should be shunned upon?Let people live their lives and make their own choices….its not your decision to take….face it!!!

Good luck anyway…:)


319

Posted by J Richards on Mon, 28 Aug 2006 23:58 | #

Priz,

The earliest people that occupied the Americas would be recognizable as human, but the most recent common ancestral population of modern humans would barely be recognizable as a human population, and this population is not relevant to your initial point about whites having recently invaded the Americas.

Your point that amity is preferable to enmity is appreciated, but the topic that started this entry is Armand Marie Leroi’s idea, which needs to be critiqued.  There is nothing in this entry that suggests that people with mixed ancestry should be shunned.  Besides, this entry is not about Nordics; the references to Nordics have come about in response to various comments.  This entry is about whether the beauty of white women could be enhanced by non-white admixture.  I should have made an effort to select very attractive women for the pictures of nostrils and fine nasal bones, which have been a source of criticism, as well as selected better looking women, but these choices do not undermine my contention that white beauty cannot be enhanced by non-white admixture.  I will probably add more pictures to the original entry to avoid having the same shortcomings repeated in newer comments.


320

Posted by Caroline on Wed, 30 Aug 2006 00:18 | #

I’m mixed w/ a bunch of european ancestry.  I have a nose that doesn’t slope inward from my forehead.  It reminds of of a few of those greek pics.  What part of Europe is that from?  I’m irish, german, and french.


321

Posted by J Richards on Wed, 30 Aug 2006 23:59 | #

Caroline,

The Greek figures show forehead-nose continuity and very projecting upper nasal regions.  Forehead-nose continuity is not typical of any European population, but the upper nasal region (nasal bones) is most projecting in Northern Europeans, which allows some Northern Europeans to have the forehead-nose profile of the Greek figures.  Southern Europeans have a less projecting upper nasal region and a more projecting lower nasal region compared to Northern Europeans, and when they manifest forehead-nose continuity in profile view, the appearance is typically not what you see in the ancient Greek figures.

From a racial standpoint, one can speak of a north-south distinction in Europe, with the north group comprising of populations north of southern Europe.  Based on your description, your membership appears to be in the north group.


322

Posted by CALIFORNIAGIRL on Sun, 03 Sep 2006 20:18 | #

i think many of u r wrong about the nordic race being wiped out by race-mixing. ive seen MANY bi-racial kids with blonde/red/light brown hair,blue/grey/green eyes, and nordic facial features especially when the father is the white parent. i dont think mixing w/ mexican creates a darker population, u wouldnt believe how many blue eyed blonde half mexicans there are, and i very rarely see a half mexican that can pass for mexican. the asians though seem to be very dominant over white genes in terms of hair/ eye color from white ive seen of asian/white mixed breeds. also, even though blonde hair/blue eyes is supposedly recessive, most offspring of a nordic and non-nordic white look nordic. also, race mixing does increase physical attractiveness, look at the brazillians and puerto ricans for example. u posted obviously average looking white women.


323

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Tue, 05 Sep 2006 01:27 | #

From Steve Sailer’s new column, up tonight at Vdare.com:

My working hypothesis about attractiveness: multiracial people tend to be no more and no less good looking than the weighted average of their ancestors. But their greater genetic variety leads many people to assume they are more attractive on the whole.  I will explain what I think are the reasons for this in an upcoming VDARE.COM essay.”

This accords with J. Richards’ view, in that a weighted average of ancestors that includes members of a less-attractive race will yield lower attractiveness than one that doesn’t include members of a less-attractive race.


324

Posted by Jeugenics on Tue, 05 Sep 2006 02:13 | #

in that a weighted average of ancestors that includes members of a less-attractive race will yield lower attractiveness than one that doesn’t include members of a less-attractive race.

Hitler also recognized this relationship in Mein Kampf, though in more general terms of the entire phenotype range. I’m sure biologists can be found stating the truism even earlier.


325

Posted by Téa on Tue, 05 Sep 2006 23:07 | #

On the other hand, whites who undergo cosmetic facial surgery never try to acquire the facial features of black Africans or flat-faced Asians

I guess that you forgot about the white woman going for lip injections to get the full lips that most blacks and asians have.  Oh, I almost forgot…what about white women getting tans be them direct sun or spray on or fake and bake ones? What about them getting fake hips and butts that most black women have by nature.  I guess there are a few features in other races that most white women want because they are considered to be beautiful.


326

Posted by T. Flavius Vespasianus on Wed, 06 Sep 2006 00:05 | #

J. Richards wrote:

The Greek figures show forehead-nose continuity and very projecting upper nasal regions.  Forehead-nose continuity is not typical of any European population, but the upper nasal region (nasal bones) is most projecting in Northern Europeans, which allows some Northern Europeans to have the forehead-nose profile of the Greek figures.  Southern Europeans have a less projecting upper nasal region and a more projecting lower nasal region compared to Northern Europeans, and when they manifest forehead-nose continuity in profile view, the appearance is typically not what you see in the ancient Greek figures.

http://dienekes.angeltowns.net/articles/hellenes/

“Greek art furnishes important information about the racial type of the ancient Hellenes. Coon in [4] observed that the beauty ideal of a straight nose and a lithe body was borrowed from Minoan Crete which was undisputably peopled by Mediterraneans [5,11]. The characteristic nose-forehead continuity of idealistic depictions of gods and heroes is more typical of Mediterraneans than Nordics [5], although it was rare for ancient Greeks [6] as it is for modern ones [10]. Angel [6] observes though, that his Dinaric-Mediterranean (Type F) morphological type approaches this ideal, in contrast to the Nordic-Iranian (Type D) in which the nasal bone projects at a sharp angle with the frontal bone. Indeed, Bertil Lundman, who claimed to have studied more than 20,000 individuals anthropologically [49], remarked that “the morphology of the Northlander must be assumed to be sufficiently known; it is necessary to stress only that a high nose bridge with a so-called Greek profile always points to foreign admixture.” Thus, the Greek profile is seen as evidence of the “Northern” character of the Ancient Greeks, yet a real expert on northern physical anthropology acknowledges that it is foreign to the Northern morphological type.”

[4] Coon, C.S., 1939, The Races of Europe, New York (Macmillan)
[5] Baker, J.R., 1974, Race, Oxford University Press
[6] Angel, J. Lawrence, 1944, A racial analysis of the ancient Greeks: An essay on the use of morphological types, American Journal of Physical Anthropology
[11] Poulianos, Aris N., 1999, 2nd ed., The Origin of the Cretans, Kyromanos, Thessaloniki
[49] Lundman, B.J., 1962, The Racial History of Scandinavia: An Outline, Mankind Quarterly, 3, pp. 89-97.

http://www4.stormfront.org/whitehistory/earlson/hfk/reoehchap2a.htm

“The cast of features in the Nordic race has often a characteristically bold effect owing to the threefold break in the line of the profile: first at the flattish, backward-bent forehead, then at the high-bridged nose, straight or bending outwards, and lastly at the firm, sharp-cut chin.”


327

Posted by T. Flavius Vespasianus on Wed, 06 Sep 2006 00:13 | #

Classical Mediterranean type (type B)

Iron Age Nordic types (Type D1)


Source:    Skeletal Material from Attica
J. Lawrence Angel
Hesperia > Vol. 14, No. 4, The American Excavations in the Athenian Agora: Twenty-Seventh Report (Oct., 1945), pp. 279-363


328

Posted by T. Flavius Vespasianus on Wed, 06 Sep 2006 00:27 | #

Greek from Ipati:

Award-winning Nordic profiles from the 1930s.


http://www.white-history.com/earlson/kop/manner.htm

http://www.white-history.com/earlson/kop/frauen.htm


329

Posted by Huge Heifer on Wed, 06 Sep 2006 05:26 | #

Flavius, you have not posted any pictures of Greek women waving their naked butts into our faces.

Therefore, I cannot accept any of your points.


330

Posted by T. Flavius Vespasianus on Wed, 06 Sep 2006 23:57 | #

J. Richards wrote:

The ancient Etruscans were a heterogeneous people that included Alpine, Dinaric, Phalian and Nordic elements in addition to the Mediterranean types; related citation:

  Angel, J. L. Book Review: Ciba Foundation Symposium on Medical Biology and Etruscan Origins. American Antiquity. 1960;25(4):612-613.

A fabrication. Here is the cited review.

 


331

Posted by J Richards on Sun, 10 Sep 2006 05:06 | #

T. Flavius Vespasianus,

You have cited a strange mix of sources: Dienekes Pontikos, Stormfront, Karl Earlson and Arthur Kemp.  This mix is curious in that Dienekes has reasons to dislike the others and vice versa.  After all, Stormfront maintains a Dienekes Pontikos exposed section, which addresses Dienekes’ numerous lies and distortions, and Arthur Kemp has specifically addressed The 12 lies of Pontikos, which documents Dienekes’ distortion of Kemp’s writings.

What Dienekes writes cannot be trusted unless one looks up the original sources themselves, but even if he has correctly represented the sources, one cannot be sure that Dienekes has not selectively cited sources.

Dienekes addresses forehead-nose continuity, but ignores other important points such as the more projecting upper noses (higher nose bridges) of the Nordics and also the Greek figures, as documented both by Angel and also Hanihara (see below).  Dienekes notes that the Dinaric-Mediterranean type came closest to forehead-nose continuity, but the rest of the description of this type, documented above, makes it clear that the Greek art figures are surely not based on it.

Some of the data from Hanihara.

Simotic subtense – roughly the projection of the nasal bones (nasals), from least nasal breadth to nasal bridge; higher values imply more absolutely projecting nasals.

Simotic index – obtained by dividing the simotic subtense by the least nasal breadth; higher values imply nasals that appear to be more projecting.  This index is useful since if one maintains absolute projection of the nose constant, then broader nasals in front view will make the nose appear relatively less projecting.

F-N ratio – obtained by dividing the maximum cranial length by the nasion-occipital length.  A value of 100.0 implies forehead-nose continuity, and higher values imply increasingly greater projection of the forehead beyond the point where the nose meets the forehead (nasion).

The figures in brackets are standard deviations.

Simotic subtense and index, nasoglabellar profile in some European populations

Ref: Hanihara, T. Frontal and facial flatness of major human populations. Am J Phys Anthropol. 2000 Jan;111(1):105-34.

   
In the table above, what you observe is that the nasals of both the classical Greeks and the ancient Italians were both absolutely more projecting and appeared to be more projecting than their modern counterparts, and the ancients were also closer to forehead-nose continuity.  I have addressed an English and a Norwegian sample because they had the most prominent appearing nasals in the study though the absolute projection of their nasals tended to be lower than that seen among the classical Greeks and ancient Italians, but still higher than that seen among modern Greeks and Italians.  I also included the Cyprus and Palestinian samples because although the absolute projection of their nasals is comparable to that the English and Norwegians, their nasals do not appear to be as projecting.  The forehead-nose continuity of the English and Norwegians is roughly comparable to that of modern Greeks and Italians.  The F-N ratio was not normally distributed, and hence I cannot calculate what proportion in each group would have forehead-nose continuity, but, from the F-N values and the simotic measurements, it would be obviously ridiculous for anyone to claim that “a high nose bridge with a so-called Greek profile [among Nordics] always points to foreign admixture,” assuming Bertil Lundman really wrote this.  It is not at all difficult to come across Nordics with forehead-nose continuity, often in conjunction with prominent nasals and other facial features close to the Greek figures, though the more feminine women with forehead-nose continuity will not approximate the Greek figures as well as more masculine women with the same condition.

For instance, consider the following example.

Nordic(s) with a high nasal bridge

The woman shown above also has chiseled features, unlike the Greek woman that you have shown, and is a stronger candidate for inspiring artists.  She is not the only one of her kind.

Nordic(s) with a high nasal bridge

Nordic(s) with a high nasal bridge

Nordic(s) with a high nasal bridge

Nordic(s) with a high nasal bridge

Nordic(s) with a high nasal bridge

The point of the above images is that Greek artists looking for inspiration would easily have found plenty of Nordics with a high nasal bridge and forehead-nose continuity or something close, and also chiseled features.  The Greek art figures in question, such as Apollo Belvedere and Aphrodite (Kaufmann head), are seen as idealized/slightly modified Nordic types rather than idealized/slightly modified non-Nordic types.

If you wish to undermine the ideas here that infuriate Dienekes, namely substantial Nordic presence in classical Greece, and the disproportionate overrepresentation of Nordics among the aristocracy and thereby people who made classical Greece famous, then you have do a much better job.

You have claimed that I fabricated the claim about “related citation” when I mentioned the heterogeneous composition of the ancient Etruscans.  Well, here is the relevant passage from the article that you have been kind enough to post:

The lock which this or a similar key must fit appeared as simple in plan: Etruscan culture, like Greek, has diverse “oriental” elements from the whole Near East (R.M. Cook, A. Piganiol, L. Banti).  But in design it was exceedingly complex, since the demographic background of the Etruscan cities involves great ecological diversity, with local growth from Neolithic and Bronze Age, direct continuity out of a Villanovan Iron Age culture with its Hungarian, Hallstatt, and Greek and other Mediterranean connections (H. Hencken, G. Foti, R. Bloch, U. Ciotti, A. Neppi Modona) and hence a truly checkered history both before and after the Renaissance (D.A. Bullough).  In fact, the evidence for multiple migrations, such as those of the Kelts, “barbarian” Roman slaves, later Ostrogoths, Byzantine garrisons, and Lombards, is so striking in post-Etruscan times than any key to the Etruscans must generalize from the people of each village or valley.  Likewise the probability of separate origins for Etruscan language, culture traits, and populations, with an upper limit of the 7th (or 8th) century B.C. (J.B. Ward Perkins, H. Hencken) and the slender later continuity even in religion and language (T. Bolelli) fits this local individuality.

Therefore, how am I unjustified in citing the article, specifically this passage in the article, as “related citation”?  I did not use “citation” or “reference” since I did not cite primary sources regarding skeletal and other evidence, but “related citation” is appropriate.  If I had anticipated you critiquing me on this issue, I would have cited some primary sources about the heterogeneity, and two of these are:

Facchini, Fiorenzo. Villanovians and Etruscans in the Bologna Area: Anthropological Features and Problems. In Schwidetzky et al. (eds.), Physical Anthropology of European Populations. The Hague: Mouton, 1980.

Gerhardt, K. (1954) “Bemerkungen zur Anthropotypologie der Etrusker.” Homo, V, 180-185.


332

Posted by T. Flavius Vespasianus on Sun, 10 Sep 2006 06:42 | #

On one corner we have 5 anthropologists: Coon, Angel, Gunther, Lundman, Baker

Coon = classical ideal was borrowed from Mediterranean Minoans
Angel = forehead-nose continuity found in Dinaric-Mediterraneans
Gunther = Nordic profile exhibits three characteristic breaks, one of which is between the nose and the forehead
Lundman = Greek profile points to foreign admixture in the Northlander
Baker = Nose-forehead continuity is more typical of Mediterraneans than Nordics

Angel’s chosen pictures to illustrate Mediterraneans and Iron-Age Nordics speak for themselves. Notice nose-forehead continuity of the Mediterranean, and salient jutting nose of the Iron Age Nordic.


Angel on Nordic-Iranian nose: “markedly salient in profile, with a strongly jutting spine”.
Baker on Mediterranid vs. Nordid nose: “the forehead is slightly steeper, and tends to run with less interruption into the slope of the nose, which does not project quite so much, and is somewhat wider (though still leptorrhine). The continuity of the forehead with the nose was much admired by the classical sculptors, who exaggerated to produce the so-called ‘Greek profile’.


333

Posted by Raj Chanani on Fri, 15 Sep 2006 14:52 | #

I think race mixing just creates hybrids or half breeds.  Eventually it results in a new and distinct race.  It is sort of like this,

Take a Dennys and mix it with an IHOP and the result is a Norm’s or Coco’s.

For instance a Tigon or a Liger.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tigon


334

Posted by Foley on Tue, 03 Oct 2006 09:20 | #

Saira Mohan has beautiful eyes. And also her lips are quite ravishing. But thats about it. Her nose is not pretty at all. Her nostrils are a let down. If you look carefully, Saira’s nostrils are quite ugly.

Sorry if it was offensive, but that is just my opinions and also view of of some of my friends.

We think Saira has been let down by her nose. If she were to get a nose job, I think that she would have a perfect face. But at the moment, as it stands, I’m affraid she is not that beautiful. Newsweek got it wrong.


335

Posted by Dude on Fri, 13 Oct 2006 12:20 | #

Pure Races
=======
African - Congo, Nigeria, Kenya
Desi - India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka
European - Germany, England, Italy, Russia
Oriental - China, Japan, Korea

New Derived Races
=============
Arabic - Iran, Syria, Turkey, Egypt
American - United States, Canada
Asean - Indonesia, Vietnam, Thailand, Laos
Hispanic - Brazil, Mexico, Columbia, Peru


336

Posted by Nashaad on Thu, 01 Feb 2007 16:34 | #

You guys should really find something better to do.. Why because it’s really quite simple:

Here goes:

Finding ladies *Attractive* is part biology, part upbringing, part culture, part personal “clicks” on certain type .. (for example ..“has your ex girlfriend’s eyes, or those umm legs that specifically turn you on”).

Having lived in the US, UK, Canada and in the Indian Subcontinent and having met people with very different opinions, and having dated Nordic ladies, Native American, Persian and also North indian Punjabi ladies I have a fair idea of all their traits in general. I think women are women smile I can’t judge a woman’s attractiveness in terms of skin colour or eyes or hair colour or only.

They do have other features raspberry raspberry raspberry. I think to judge them from just those perspectives or say have a benchmark where the “Nordic” lady is number one and the rest rank against them is silly.

If you go to an Indian village where even the person is shorter than Nordics, most men will find the ladies unattractive and manly because they are too tall, and often too big (americans not europeans mostly are have a few more pounds). The ladies themselves want to be fairer - true - but not in order to look Nordic. Being fair implies they come from a “better off” household and to some extent show their upper caste (not so much in the modern society anymore). On top of that there are a million other things they would find “manly” - including some of the sharper features of Nordic women. In addition they tend to find Pakistani ladies with basically white skin and sharper features to be not too sharp agressive - not *sweet* and “accepting” and what not - cant find better words at this point.

There is a trend for sharper features and lighter skin but not necessarily (not at all in fact) the complete Nordic feature set raspberry - they dont really want to be Nordic per say.

I dont necessarily agree with any of these ideas, but my point here really is that if you had a Miss India pageant even without any PC (there isnt any there anyway) and had Nordic ladies in the pageant they wouldn’t stand a chance. In China the Indians or Noric ladies wouldn’t probably win - in Japan pretty much only Japs would win and so on.. So basically its a matter of culture largely.

People would be biased towards *one of their own*. This means Chinese like Chinese, Indians like Indians, Africans like Africans and Arabs like Arabs in general in their own countries respectively. Every society is racist about members of other societies. You see them in some places, in others you dont. They are often hidden by PC, and education, manners etc.

However in “more mixed” societies or places like Montreal or California this effect is less and multicultural, multiraced mingling is more common and accepted.

Then you are looking at what is basically a “free society” where anyone can become a pageant, hence you have the miss whatever pageants going on and people from India, Venezuela win who have some Nordic features and some Mongoloid features and some well .. features of their own. I think this is fair enough because Nordic ladies do win often too. And at the same time there are a majority of people who are NOT Nordic. So I don’t see anything wrong in calling the pageants’ winners.

This is because the awards are international and as much as I understand its not your fault there are 1 B Indians and many more Chinese who would gladly see an Indian or Chinese win, and since these are not Nordic pageants, and World pageants - well you gotta live with it.

Besides I’td be shallow because the pageants are gifted in many ways and the competition isn’t solely about looks.

And as far as the common Joe is concerned a man cannot honestly say Nordic ladies are by far better looking than Indians, or Chinese are better than Africans and so on…because he isnt sitting with an international panel of judges and really relies on his personal taste, upbringing, biological drives, situation at that moment, the media across which the ladies are portrayed, .. if they hit their personal spot somewhere .. billions of things.

Since you cannot possibly

1)find EVERY lady from every race,
2)classify her into a single race or even define her to be fully Nordic or not
3)find all the men in the world
4)have all the men meet all these ladies and
5)vote on this site..
6)and not rig with the votes
7)and get the votes periodically and average them ....

You can’t really come to any conclusion. Comparing random celebrities doesn’t really work lol.

Cheers!


337

Posted by Thomas Smith on Sun, 04 Feb 2007 11:40 | #

Reference: Original article;


Thanks for the joke…. dont know about everyone else, but it made me chuckle.

Just laughable. You poor bastard.


338

Posted by Guessedworker on Sun, 04 Feb 2007 12:16 | #

Are you a miscegenator then, Thomas?  Or are you simply incapable of taking your own people’s genetic integrity seriously?


339

Posted by James on Mon, 05 Feb 2007 05:00 | #

I was researching information on plastic surgery for a college debate and I came across this site.

I just want to say that whoever posted this article is a bigot who only finds white women attractive. His picture posting and comments don’t make any sense. I see he posted some attractive blondes, and in my opinion, some not so attractive blondes. I think that girl on the cover of Newsweek is gorgeous. I’m also going to say that I’ve seen many blonde women in my life, and not all of them have noses that look like the ones on the women you posted either. Some have wide noses, big noses, small noses, button noses. There is such a variation of features in every race. If you think that this certain “Nordic” look is the ideal, so be it, but I don’t think it’s right for you to promote your white supremacy ideals over people. There are beautiful women in every race. I’ve seen some very beautiful blondes, very sexy Latinas, gorgeous Indian girls, etc. and of these I’ve also seen some very average to not so attractive women.

Your article proved nothing to me except that unfortunately there are still some white supremists out there.


340

Posted by Guessedworker on Mon, 05 Feb 2007 06:01 | #

James,

Bigotry is the opinion now being ramped by various liberal-white and Jewish commentators that we Europeans, including Nordics of course, are “improved” in a variety of ways through mixing with other races.  One measure of said improvement is the beauty of our women.  If you are fully European by race for what reason would you conflate a defence of European distinctiveness with “racial supremacism”, other than by dint of you being collonised by liberal opinion?

Wake up.  We are under attack.  We will not survive far into the next century if you uncritically accept the common nostrums of this very dangerous political age.  Be more independent and think hard about your real interests and obligations.


341

Posted by ban on Fri, 09 Feb 2007 19:22 | #

In my case I kinda developed a phobia on blonde hair I can’t bee near by someone that has pink skin and yellow skin.. I have no idea about the psychological causes of that. I don’t don’t have anythig deep againts blonde or red hair people but I found them ugly and non atractive at all and actually spacially i feel they are like raw meet and the blonde hair looks like urine


342

Posted by nick on Sun, 18 Feb 2007 15:15 | #

It strikes me funny that you posted faces of women who obviously appeared in porno shots.


343

Posted by RedBaron on Thu, 22 Mar 2007 22:31 | #

I don’t think you can define what women can be the most beautiful in the world… it all depends on what you think….

That “most beautiful women” in the world you have there in that magazine is not that impressive.

According to me, the type of women I find the most attractive is latina women….I’m white and that’s what I like….google Mindy Vega, Sofia Vergara, Jennifer Lopez, Jessica Alba and so on..


344

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Thu, 22 Mar 2007 23:07 | #

“In my case I kinda developed a phobia on blonde hair I can’t bee near by someone that has pink skin and yellow skin.. I have no idea about the psychological causes of that. I don’t don’t have anythig deep againts blonde or red hair people but I found them ugly and non atractive at all and actually spacially i feel they are like raw meet and the blonde hair looks like urine”  (—Ban)

You need to get out of countries where there are white people, Ban.  (If you’ll agree to a one-way-no-possibility-of-ever-coming-back ticket I’ll gladly advance you the airfare ... BYYYYEEEEEEEEE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!  Everyone wave good-bye to Ban!!!!!!!!)


345

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Thu, 22 Mar 2007 23:11 | #

“According to me, the type of women I find the most attractive is latina women….I’m white and that’s what I like….google Mindy Vega, Sofia Vergara, Jennifer Lopez, Jessica Alba and so on..”  (—RedBaron)

Ever considered moving to Mexico or Rio, RedBaron?  (If not, please do so now ...)


346

Posted by JD on Thu, 22 Mar 2007 23:50 | #

I agree with Nashaad, that people in general may tend to find their race more attractive than others. That is what J Richards needs to understand. Blacks will find other blacks attractive, something most other races may not. I believe most races tend to find Europeans attractive but they find their own racial types attractive too.

    What I am trying to say is that, we tend to see the world differently. Thus J. Richards, these people (like me) of other races will not agree with you because their brains are probably wired differently and thus cannot get your point of view.

  The question is do white-other race mixed people look more attractive than their white parents? In a few cases maybe, but in most cases, obviously not. I find Saira Mohan quite attractive personally, but I do believe if her mother had married a non-ugly white man, her daughter would have been more attractive than Siara, from a white perspective at least. Even though I am Desi (Indian) who finds women from virtually all races attractive, (never found a pure aboriginal Australoid/Papuan woman attractive till now though) this is what I believe.

  Armand Marie Leroi is very flawed in her reasoning. It is in the interest of pure Europeans in terms of attractiveness, health, intelligence etc… to keep themselves separate from other races. This is also true of other races, especially N.E. Asians. I am getting this strange feeling that it is in the interest of some people to prevent that happening. I know if that is to happen I will not get to date hot white and East Asian chicks but it is good from their collective racial perspective.


347

Posted by JD on Thu, 22 Mar 2007 23:58 | #

Man that chiseled blond chick posted by J Richards on Sunday, September 10, 2006 at 09:06 AM, you know the pic above
“The woman shown above also has chiseled features, unlike the Greek woman that you have shown, and is a stronger candidate for inspiring artists.  She is not the only one of her kind. ”
is truly truly attractive.  Who the hell is she?


348

Posted by SHOOPIN' DAT WOOP on Mon, 09 Apr 2007 19:27 | #

i cant believe this thread is still active


349

Posted by W.LindsayWheeler on Mon, 09 Apr 2007 20:02 | #

I noticed above that T. Flavius Vespasianus stated or quoted somebody about the Minoans of Crete.

The Minoans are NOT Indo-Europeans.  They are a Semitic people.

The Indo-Europeans (Mycenean Greeks) migrated into Crete c. 1700 B.C. and the Doric Greeks invaded in 1200 B.C.

Don’t ever consider Minoans—-European—-they are Semitic.


350

Posted by Ivan on Thu, 12 Apr 2007 17:20 | #

I think you are wrong about giving certain traits specifically to the European race. I am a walking example of this. I am 100% Mexican. My mother’s side has native Taraumaran on her genes and my dad has too, yet we also have middle eastern and southern Spanish blood. None of us have had plastic surgery and I have light blue eyes with a square, thin nose. My brother has brown hair and very thin nose as well and so does my dad and mom. Some of these traits belong to Caucasian Mediterranean race, and others to native American from Mexico. No one ever talks about that race and you can’t say that square upright noses belong ONLY to the white race. Here is a picture of me:


351

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Thu, 12 Apr 2007 18:06 | #

All right Ivan, but just stay on your side of the Rio Grande OK?  If we want to live among Mexicans we know exactly where to go.  Thanks and have a nice day.


352

Posted by uuu on Sat, 21 Apr 2007 20:54 | #

Saira Mohan still looks white, they should put a negroid or mongoloid with caucasoid together to hype the race mixing


353

Posted by uuu on Sat, 21 Apr 2007 21:06 | #

terribly agree with” Fred Scrooby” here,  and on several other topics!! .


this the topic :
“the evolution of blond hair and blue eyes among nordics”
a one called malcom made some good points too….


354

Posted by uuu on Sat, 21 Apr 2007 22:29 | #

“I guess that you forgot about the white woman going for lip injections to get the full lips that most blacks and asians have.  Oh, I almost forgot…what about white women getting tans be them direct sun or spray on or fake and bake ones? What about them getting fake hips and butts that most black women have by nature.  I guess there are a few features in other races that most white women want because they are considered to be beautiful”

that is because they’ve been brainwashed. at last they will regret..
they will believe dark=ugly, flat =ugly


355

Posted by ok on Sat, 21 Apr 2007 22:47 | #

“I find Saira Mohan quite attractive personally, but I do believe if her mother had married a non-ugly white man, her daughter would have been more attractive than Siara”

exactly, she is pretty , why do people deny it?? but her beauty is taken from her white mother, not indian father..

contrarily , that could prove white are more beautiful

if her father is white , she is still pretty, or more..but if her mother is indian, she beomes less pretty, or ugly,maybe.

thoughI do believe indians are superior to blacks by appearance


356

Posted by ok on Sat, 21 Apr 2007 22:55 | #

Does race mixing increase physical attractiveness?

so my answer is , yes it indeed increases physical attractiveness, for asians blacks,  but it decreases for whites


357

Posted by Mark Squires (blonde, blue eyes) on Sun, 22 Apr 2007 10:32 | #

Alarmed by some of the things you’ve said? Yes.
Imformed by some poorly veiled ill feeling? Yes.
Influenced by your writings? No.
Offended by some of the trouts that wander around coventry? indeed.

Having experienced relationship with women, whom are widely considered beautiful, of varying ethnicity. I can say that attractiveness is in the eye of the beholder and not in the logic of genetics. The most beautiful woman I ever meet was half Welsh and half Iranian, and I cannot wait to meet the girl that will top her.


358

Posted by uuu on Tue, 01 May 2007 04:30 | #

“The most beautiful woman I ever meet was half Welsh and half Iranian”

iranians were original aryans


359

Posted by Sanjay on Thu, 24 May 2007 16:24 | #

I was searching for Saira Mohan, when I came across this page. You guys don’t understand that by arguing in this page you are actually making them feel useful. Just ignore it:- an article that uses pictures of sex-workers from porn sites and out-dated info from 18th centurt racialists has no credibility.

Incase you guys haven’t noticed, people of Scandanavian ancestry have a huge skin problem, they can’t tolerate the sun unlike all other types of people. And most of them have terrible pink spots, blackheads, and blotches over their whole body. One of my high-school girlfriends was a pretty freckled red-head, but had really nasty uneven skin.

Thesedays white women are trying to get darker through sun-bathing, get bigger breasts and buttocks through surgery, and get thicker lips - LIKE AFRICAN AMERICANS, while white men are trying to get bigger penises like African American men too. So somehow the phyical ideal has become African American, in a sub-conscious way. Mind you African Americans are actually White Americans’ racial cousins, because they have 33 % white ancestry thanks to white guys manipuling that booty.

I don’t know about you people, but I find Italian, Latina, North Indian, and African American women the most attractive in the world. And all those groups above are heavily mongrelized relative to Central Africans, North Asians, and Scandanavians.

There are beautiful women from all sorts of communities. Whether you find one particular race (even if it’s not your own race) is your personal business and no one should be jobless enough to try and change it. But this webpage has cited a lot of racialists and other cranks - definetely a low quality article.


360

Posted by David Gravatt on Mon, 25 Jun 2007 14:37 | #

The lot of you are mostly racist and angered that non-whites are taking over your jobs and now are starting to dominate the beauty and fashion world.  Many of you pro Caucasians find the ordinary pale, pasty, washed out, blonde girls with freckles and thin pink lips superior in attractiveness than any other ethnicities.  Most of America finds pure whites “boring” or “nothing special”  Some of the most beautiful women are of mixed ancestry or non white.  Adriana Lima is a mixed fashion model with African, Indian, portugese, French, and Native American ancestry.  Now is she in any way considered masculine or unattractive? I think not!  Aishwarya Rai is an Asian Indian global beauty.  She was a miss world winner, and is considered by Julia Roberts and Time Magazine as one of the most beautiful and influential people in the world.  Halle Berry (white/black),  and even Cameron Diaz (hispanic, white) are all beauties.  If many of you think other cultures bring in masculine facial feautres, while European genes promote feminen beauty, you are wrong.  Angelina Jolie has a very masculine face (massive jaw, big chin, massive forhead, large cheekbones, large head) she is of pure caucasian descent, but has many masculine characteristsics.  So get your facts right racists!


361

Posted by Guessedworker on Mon, 25 Jun 2007 15:43 | #

You are the racist, David.  Deal with your hatred of European peoples in your own heart - where it belongs - and not by projecting it on to them.


362

Posted by Lurker on Mon, 25 Jun 2007 19:23 | #

So, David, we must bow down before Julia Roberts and Time Magazine. If youre going to make an appeal to authority Im afraid you are going to have to try a bit harder than that.


363

Posted by ZACK on Sat, 28 Jul 2007 07:28 | #

You are WRONG WHEN IT COMES TO NORTHERN EUROPEAN WOMEN AND SOUTHERN EUROPEAN, ARAB, MID EAST INDIAN, PAKISTANI, NORTH AFRICAN WOMEN!

MEDITERANEAN WOMEN, ARAB, MID EAST INDIAN, PAKISTANI, NORTH AFRICAN WOMEN BLOW NORTHERN EUROPEAN WOMEN OUT OF THE WATER IMO!

FOR INSTANCE A NICOLE KIDMAN COMPARED TO A MONCIA BELLUCCI NO QUESTIONS ASKED MONICA!!!!

A NAMOI WATTS COMPARED TO MARIA GRAZIA CUCINOTTA
LMAO ! NO COMPARISSON

A GWNEYTH PALTROW COMPARED TO SALMA HAYEK ROFLMAO! NO FRIGGEN COMPARISON!

A CLAUDIA SCHIFFER COMPARED TO SAIRA MOHAN ROFLMAO !!!!!!!

NORTHERN EUROPEAN NORDICS IMO ARE DISGUSTING AND EVEN UGLY MANY TIMES!

THEY LACK CURVES AND ARE TOO THIN. THAT OR THEY ARE EITHER FAT YET CURVLESS

THEY ARE TO FRIGGEN PALE.

THEY ARE STUCK COLD BITCHES IMO

BAD FACIAL FEATURES IMO. HARSHER, BONIER! NOT WARM OR LOVING FEATURES!

THEY LACK FEMMINITY IMO

THEY’RE FEATURES IMO AREN’T AS HARMONIOUS, FEMMINIE, SOFT, WARM!

MEDITERANEAN WOMEN, ARAB, PERSIAN, AFGHAN INDIAN, PAKISTANI, NORTH AFRICAN

1. ARE CURVACEOUS, NOT TOOTHPICKS, YET SLENDER AT THE SAME TIME BUT NOT SKINNY AT ALL.

2. HAVE PIGMENT AND COLOR MELANIN

3.  HAVE MORE HARMONIOUS FEATURES, ALMOND EYES, FULL LIPS, SLENDER OVID FACES, BETTER CHEEKBONES, FACIAL STRUCTURE

4. THEY ARE WARM, KNOW HOW TO COOK, CLEAN AND ARE KIND, KNOW HOW TO TREAT THEIR MAN WELL!

5. HAVE, SHOW FEMMINITY!


I THINK NORDIC, NORTHERN EUROPEAN IMAO ARE SOME OF THE UGLIEST WOMAN !

ALL THE MOST BEAUTIFUL WOMEN IN THE WORLD ARE MEDITERANEAN SOUTHERN EURO IN DESCENT OR MAYBE NOT COMPLETLEY SOUTHERN EURO BUT MOSTLY, CRUVACEOUS BRUNETTES!

SALMA HAYEK, MONICA BELLUCCI, MARIA GRAZIA CUCINOTTA, ELIZABETH TAYLOR, AISHAWRAYA RAI, SAIRA MOHAN ALL GOT MOST BEAUTIFUL WOMEN, SEXIEST WOMAN EVER, MOST PERFECT FACE EXC TITLES BEFORE AT DIFFERENT TIMES! THEY ARE PRAISED FOR THEY’RE HOTNESS, BEAUTIFULL AND GUYS LIKE ME GO CRAZY OVER THEM!

BUT NONE OF THOSE TITLES HAS EVER BEEN GIVEN TO NICOLE KIDMAN, NAOMI WATTS, GWYNETH PALTROW!

SOOO

THIS PROVES YOUR THERORY JRichards WROOOOOOOOOOOOOOONG!


364

Posted by Peter on Tue, 14 Aug 2007 21:17 | #

Firstly i must say i haven’t read every message in this post but i wanted to comment on some of J Richard’s thoughts

“Indeed, who in his rational mind would believe that the beauty of white women—such as depicted in Figure 7—could be increased via the absorption of non-whites among whites?  It would be difficult to obtain a fine-featured Caucasoid if any of the white women shown in Figures 5 and 7 bred with a Hindoo.  On the other hand, the aesthetic consequences of breeding with flat-faced Asians or black Africans requires no comment”

I somewhat disagree with this, White and Indian Mixes can produce fine featured women and i am going to post pics from another post

Lisa Ray who is Half Polish and Half Indian


Now before you start saying she wears contacts, dyes her hair and bleaches her skin. She does have dark hair and her eyes are green (naturally). I believe she has fine features. Another girl from your own post - Katrina Kaif who is Half British and Half Indian (who you mentioned looks European)

I believe she has fine features and hazel eyes.

Furthermore i believe race mixing can produce good looking individuals. Although i believe Latino/white and Indian/white offspring would look more Caucasian. I can’t say the same for Black African or East Asian and white mixes.
Happy reading J Richards smile


365

Posted by Alyssa on Thu, 23 Aug 2007 19:40 | #

DUDE! Your “Figure 5 - 7” women are TOTALLY from porn mags! Bahahahahah!
They’re not even hot… omg, man I was DYING reading your little essay, hilarity.
Anyways, in terms of the article, I scarcely finished it before 7:00 (almost time for jeopardy!)
Not sure if all the points are congruent, but whatever, your opinion.

Hottest women: Angelina Jolie (mixed, you KNOW you have to concede on that), Catherine Zeta Jones, Audrey Hepburn, Kristen Kreuk, Liz Taylor, Ava Gardner, Courtney Cox, Josi Maran, Debbie Harry, Jessica Simpson (sometimes, when she was younger) and Jessica Alba. All these women be hot. Which ones are mixed? They’re on there. I leave you to figure out the blended one wink


P.S. Figure 7 Upper right is a total pooch/hoseface and should not be seen naked. *shudders* Ew, cheap amateur porn…


366

Posted by Peter on Wed, 05 Sep 2007 22:44 | #

“If you wish to undermine the ideas here that infuriate Dienekes, namely substantial Nordic presence in classical Greece, and the disproportionate overrepresentation of Nordics among the aristocracy and thereby people who made classical Greece famous, then you have do a much better job.” ~ J Richards
Mind if i add something J Richards?

Racial Type of the Ancient Hellenes
by Dienekes Pontikos
Last Update: 5 March 2007

Greek women through the ages: Minoan, Cycladic, Mycenaean, Classical, Modern
Introduction

This essay attempts a critical evaluation of the extant evidence about the racial type of the Ancient Greeks. It is in part an anthropological study in its own right, and in part a response to those, especially of the Nordicist school, who claim that the Ancient Greeks were physically different from the modern ones. If it sometimes appears that too much effort is spent in convincing the reader of simple enough points, it is because of my desire not to let any of the arguments of people holding different views unchallenged.
Anthropological Evidence

Early anthropologists commonly believed that the Hellenes belonged principally to the Mediterranean(a) race. This was the view shared by Sergi [1] and Ripley [2]. In a more recent study of the problem of Race, John R. Baker in [5] says that later studies “do not appear to have disproved” these views. Buxton in [3] shares this general view, although he observes that brachycephals(b) were a part of the Greek population from the beginning and that the Greeks were a mix of Alpine(c) and Mediterranean people from a “comparatively early date.” The American anthropologist Coon in [4] agrees when he asserts that the Greeks are an Alpine/Mediterranean mix, with a weak Nordic(d) component, being “remarkably similar” to their ancient ancestors.

The most complete study of Greek skeletal material from Neolithic to modern times was carried out by American anthropologist J. Lawrence Angel [6] who found that in the early age racial variability in Greece was 7% above average, indicating that the Greeks had multiple origins within the Europid racial family. Angel noted that from the earliest times to the present “racial continuity in Greece is striking.” Buxton [30] who had earlier studied Greek skeletal material and measured modern Greeks, especially in Cyprus, finds that the modern Greeks “possess physical characteristics not differing essentially from those of the former [ancient Greeks].”

The most extensive study of modern Greeks has been carried by the Greek anthropologist Aris N. Poulianos [10,11]. Poulianos’ study included the collection and study of more than seventy anthropometric measurements from a large sample of thousands of Greeks from different parts of the country. His main conclusions are that both Greeks and their neighboring populations are basically a mixture of Aegeans (a Mediterranean type local to the area) and Epirotics (Dinarics(e)) and are descended from the ancient inhabitants of the lands in which they live. The presence of individuals which approximate the Nordic subrace is minimal, and does not exceed 4-6% even in the most depigmented groups of Greece. More frequent are individuals which approximate the Alpine race of Central Europe. These reach up to 20-30% of some groups and are often blended with more southern racial types. Poulianos’ conclusions of Greek continuity are not simply the wishful thinking of a modern Greek. In a critical review of his book [53], J. Lawrence Angel states that “Poulianos is correct in pointing out ... that there is complete continuity genetically from ancient to modern times.”

Nikolaos Xirotiris [37], more recently, surveyed Greek skeletal material and a number of genetical and anthropometrical studies on modern Greeks. His discoveries were that like in antiquity, the Greek terrain which favors isolation, has led to the formation of local types by micro-evolution. He too concludes racial continuity in Greece, not finding traces of any significant alteration of the Greek racial complex, from prehistory, through classical and medieval, to modern times.

The American anthropologist Roland Dixon studied the funeral masks of Spartans and found them to be Alpine [23]. Italian anthropologist Raffaello Battaglia found the death masks of the Shaft Grave Mycenaeans to represent Dinaric physiognomies [35]. J. Lawrence Angel expressed similar opinions in that he believed that northern intruders in Greece were always of “Dinaroid-Alpine central trend” [19] added to the earlier Mediterranean/Alpine blend. Racial elements were not separate but combined to produce Greek civilization [19]. Finally, a more recent statistical comparison [18] of ancient and modern Greek skulls resulted in the discovery of “a remarkable similarity in craniofacial morphology between modern and ancient Greeks.”

Examples of Ancient Greek types: “Mediterranean”: Pericles, 5th c. BC statesman, narrow-faced and fine-featured; “Alpine”: Plato, 4th c. BC philosopher, broad-faced and broad-headed; “Dinaric”: Aristippos, 4th c. BC philosopher, short and high-headed, salient nose

Baker [5] discusses the origin of blondism and says “It is often supposed that blondness is an indication of Nordid ancestry. Taken by itself, it is nothing of the kind.” Hence, it can be safely assumed that the existence of blond individuals in the Classical world does not require an explanation of Northern ancestry, as German anthropologist Hans Guenther [15] and the Nordicist school presumed. This view was shared by Buxton in [3] where he states “In regard to the Achaeans we have shown that there appears to be no good ground for suspecting the presence of Nordics.” F.G. Debets expresses a similar opinion [32] when he states that “In the Bronze Age, we generally find the same types as in the modern population, with different distribution. We cannot speak of miscegenation with the Nordic race.” With regard to the modern Greeks Buxton says [30] “the evidence of blue eyes is certainly insufficient to establish their [Nordics’] presence as a significant element in the population.” Carleton Coon [14] also cautions against ascribing blonde elements in Mediterranean populations to “some invasion of Goths or Scyths, or the miscegenation of Crusaders,” noting that “one of the characteristics of the Mediterranean race is a minority tendency to blondism.” Coon warns that “we cannot be sure that all prehistoric skeletal material which seems Nordic in an osteological sense was associated with blond soft parts” [4]. The same view is echoed by Angel [6] who states with respect to the Nordic-Iranian morphological type that “There is no reason to suppose that the Nordic-Iranian type in Greece was as blond as are Nordics in northern latitudes.” Moreover The Alpine race (prevalent in much of continental Europe) has an even greater occurrence of blondism and frequently gray eyes [2]. W. W. Howells of Harvard University also notes [48] that “Not all ‘Nordics’ are blond, and not all blonds are ‘Nordic,’ by any means.” American anthropologist Earnest Hooton [40] cautions that the existence of occasional blonds in Greek literature “does not justify inflation into pseudo-histories of conquering ‘Nordic’ tribes invading the Greek peninsula.” American anthropologist W. M. Krogman put it simply [36]: “Nordics today have not cornered the market on blondism!”

Coon [4], based on a sample of 113 Greeks measured in Boston linked the presence of the weak blond component (<5%) present in Greeks with Nordic origin, mainly due to its linkage with an absence of eyebrow concurrency. No such correlation emerges in Poulianos’ [10] sample from different regions, which exceeds 3,000 individuals. Note also, that the blondest Greek group (Macedonia) has a cephalic index of 83.08, higher than the Greek average. Like in Italy [4], blondism in Greece is slightly correlated with broader heads. The opposite would be expected if it was Nordic in origin.

In conclusion, it is most likely that the minority blonde element in Greece is not necessarily associated with historical migrations. It is also true that the introduction of northern strains to the Greek population in various times from pre-history to recent times may have introduced more blond elements.

Examples of Modern Greek types: These modern Greeks were classified by J. Lawrence Angel [38] as belonging to each of the six morphological types of the Ancient Greeks. First row: Basic White, Classic Mediterranean; Second row: Nordic-Iranian, Dinaric-Mediterranean; Third row: Mixed Alpine, Alpine
Literary Evidence

It is sometimes mentioned that ancient literature provides evidence for the significant existence of Nordics in ancient Hellas. It does nothing of the kind. There are numerous references to brunets in ancient mythology and literature, e.g., the Muses, Poseidon, Alcmena, Theseus, Zeus, Dionysos and Odysseus are described as possessing either dark hair or dark eyes. Hercules, the Greeks’ favorite hero is described as dark (melanan), hook-nosed (grupon) by Dicaearchus (Clement of Alexandria, “Protreptic to the Greeks” 2.30.7). Hercules was also proverbially melampugos (having a black behind) as indicative of his bravery, as opposed to pugargos (having a white behind), a coward [29]. The Greek poetess Sappho (an aristocrat from the isle of Lesbos in the 7th c. BC) reveals that both she and her mother were dark (Fr. 98a, line 11). Philoktetes and Aias were also both brunet-skinned and black-haired (Malalas, Chronogr. 104, 3-8). We must also not neglect to mention the detailed analysis of classicist Denys Page [26] who, in agreement with the ancient testimony of Callimachus (Fr. 299.1) demonstrates that the epithet elikôpes, collectively used for the Homeric Achaeans, probably meant “dark-eyed,” rather than “with rolling eyes” as it was erroneously thought. Eleanor Irwin, who wrote the definitive work on color terms in Greek poetry [29] agrees with this opinion, and so does Noel Robertson who summarizes [45] current opinion as follows: “it is clear that the meaning ‘black’ is well-founded, whereas ‘rolling’ or ‘twisting’ rests on a misunderstanding of various compounds.” Finally, some personages (e.g., Theseus and Dionysos) are portrayed in Greek literature sometimes as blond (Euripides) and sometimes as brunet (Hesiod), indicating that there was not a uniform belief about their pigmentation. The second most popular Greek hero, Theseus, founder of Athens was dark-eyed (Bacchylides 17.16-19).

Greek Men: Greek from Tinos, circa 1911; Greek sculpture of “Diadoumenos,” circa 430BC; Old Cretan Man; Poseidon of Artemision

A certain measure of naivete can excuse claims of the alleged blondeness of the ancient Greeks. Sometimes, the common-sense explanation of literary descriptions is conveniently discounted, and a generalization from sporadic references to blondes in ancient literature is performed without much thought. In an oft-used example, Orestes’ hair is described as fair, in Sophocles’ Electra as a dramatic device aiding Electra’s recognition of her brother from a lock of his hair on her father Agamemnon’s tomb. Clearly, if Orestes was depicted as brunet, the common Greek color, it would be impossible for Electra to identify him. Similarly, Demeter, the goddess of the corn is described as light-haired (xanthe) and so is Apollo, the god of light and the sun. Poseidon, the sea god is dark-haired (kuanochaites), as is Hades, god of the underworld, while Eos, the Dawn goddess is rosy-fingered (rhododaktylos).

There are all but four mortals in the Iliad who are described as xanthoi. From this scanty evidence, the generalization “the Achaeans were blonde” is arrived by the Nordicists. Does the absence of descriptions of brunets signify that there were no brunets in the southernmost extremity of Europe in Mycenaean times? Clearly, such a thesis overlooks the common use of color terms as distinctive attributes of their possessors. It is more reasonable to think that Menelaos and Achilleus are described as xanthoi, while hundreds of other heroes are not as indicative that these two possessed a trait which was otherwise uncommon, i.e., light pigmentation of hair. The same can be said for light eyes as well, and e.g., Athena’s light eyes caused the scorn of Hera and Aphrodite in a text by Hyginus who presumably did not have such eyes (Hyginus, Fabulae, Marsyas).


367

Posted by Peter on Wed, 05 Sep 2007 22:47 | #

CONTD…

We must also dispel the notion that xanthos always refers to yellow hair, or that purros refers to purely red hair. For the former, we note that Aristophanes used xanthizein to describe roasting meat, which of course does not turn yellow. Additionally, Strabo uses xanthotrichein and leukotrichein (making hair xanthon and making hair “white”) indicating that xanthon was a darker shade than extremely fair hair. George Cedrenus uses it to describe the eyes of the Virgin (xanthommaton); eyes are rarely yellow, unless jaundiced, which seems unlikely in this case. In modern Greek it may be used to describe any color short of black [22]. In ancient Greek, according to Barbara Fowler [28] was any color short of black or dark brown, while Wace [22] believes that it may have been at most auburn. Color terms are notoriously relative; xanthos may only be taken to mean the fair end of the Greek hair continuum, not blond. This impression is enhanced by the descriptions of northern European hair as polios (gray, usually of old people) or leukon (white) to be found in Greek literature (Diodorus Siculus, Adamantius Judaeus).

As for purros it is noteworthy that the common Greek words for fiery red eruthros is not employed for hair, while purros is given by Aelius Herodianus (Partitiones 115, 10) for the color of eyes. Human eyes are never red, or so-called strawberry blond, but they are often of a brown tint mixed with red. It is certain that at least in some cases, reddish brown is intended, while in others, as e.g., in describing German hair, reddish blond may be appropriate, given the known pigmentation of Germans. It must also be remembered that no ethnic taxon of man is recorded as being primarily red-headed. Therefore, purros means having a red tinge, it does not mean redhead.

It would be worthwhile to quote here in full, the opinion of British anthropologist John Beddoe [34]. Beddoe studied thousands of Britons and continental Europeans, and comparing his designations with that of other observers, came to realize the relativity of color terms:

  Thus almost all French anthropologists say that the majority of persons in the north of France are blond; whereas almost all Englishmen would say they were dark, each set of observers setting up as a standard what they are accustomed to see around them when at home. What is darkish brown to most Englishmen would be chestnut in the nomenclature of most Parisians, and perhaps even blond in that of Auvergne or Provence; an ancient Roman might probably have called it sufflavus or even flavus.

Greek Gods: Apollo (Athenian kylix, 480-470BC); Zeus (Olympia, 470BC); Demeter (3rd c. BC)

Artistic Evidence

Greek art furnishes important information about the racial type of the ancient Hellenes. Coon in [4] observed that the beauty ideal of a straight nose and a lithe body was borrowed from Minoan Crete which was undisputably peopled by Mediterraneans [5,11]. The characteristic nose-forehead continuity of idealistic depictions of gods and heroes is more typical of Mediterraneans than Nordics [5], although it was rare for ancient Greeks [6] as it is for modern ones [10]. Angel [6] observes though, that his Dinaric-Mediterranean (Type F) morphological type approaches this ideal, in contrast to the Nordic-Iranian (Type D) in which the nasal bone projects at a sharp angle with the frontal bone. Indeed, Bertil Lundman, who claimed to have studied more than 20,000 individuals anthropologically [49], remarked that “the morphology of the Northlander must be assumed to be sufficiently known; it is necessary to stress only that a high nose bridge with a so-called Greek profile always points to foreign admixture.” Thus, the Greek profile is seen as evidence of the “Northern” character of the Ancient Greeks, yet a real expert on northern physical anthropology acknowledges that it is foreign to the Northern morphological type.

Statues sometimes show traces of pigmentation; this includes different pigment types and is not uniform, representing the different hair colors among Greeks. Manzelli in a study of polychromatic Archaic Greek statuary [43] records an incidence of only 2% of yellow hair.(f) Manzelli also records that eye colors were black, “red,” and brown in the majority of surviving examples, with only a single example having green eyes. Mary Stieber [47] who studied the appearance of archaic statues of young women called korai also concludes that despite the presence of light hair in some examples, “it remains a fact that yellow hair is a rarity; for this reason alone it is tempting to infer that the percentage of its occurrence in female statues on the Acropolis is largely a reflection of its occurrence in real life.” Buxton in [3] records an interesting fact observed by Sergi [1], Ripley [2], and Deniker [27] and the Greek anthropologist Klon Stephanos. A quote from Ripley (p.410) “these ideal heads [of the statues] are distinctly brachycephalic.” Importantly, various populations in modern Hellas who are suspected by some (for historical and linguistic reasons) to represent a relatively pure Hellenic type, the Sphakiots and Maniates are also brachycephalic. Ancient Greeks were, however, on average mesocephalic [6].

The German art historian, Winckelmann [16] discusses extensively the Greek beauty ideal. The low forehead, luxurious curly hair, straight nose in continuity to the nose, large eyes and ovoid faces described by the author are typical of Southern Europe, contrasting with the small eyes, high forehead, angular features and straight hair typical of more northern climes. Winckelmann observes the similarity of modern Greeks, particularly from the islands to the classical forms, relating in particular that the Greek women of Chios are the “most beautiful of the human race.”

Winckelmann’s impressions are supported by a modern study by Farkas et al. [51], according to which 20% of modern Greek males have a forehead (tragion to nasion) that is lower than the normal range of white Americans, who are mostly of northwestern European descent; The lowness of the forehead was also typical of ancient Greeks [6]. The same study discovered that 50% of Greek males and 16.7% of Greek females have an eye fissure length greater than the normal range of white Americans.

Greek pottery cannot be used directly for determining pigmentation, because most of it is bi-chromatic. It is interesting though, that in the more realistic red-figure vases, the hair is almost always painted black, creating a great contrast with the body which is white (numerous examples in [24]). In white background lekythoi, realistic colors are used. Extreme blondness, typical of Nordic individuals is almost completely absent while many examples have hair that is black or a dark brown. Reddish brown is also present. Martin F. Kilmer, in [7: p.131, n.4] in discussing an Etruscan vase showing a blond woman says that this is “not a common Greek feature.” Thus, while examples of blonde hair in Greek art are not unknown (e.g., the Blonde Ephebe of the Acropolis, whose hair is deep yellow [21]), they are not common.

Theater masks also sometimes provide information about human pigmentation; this may be especially important since in theater different character types are given stereotypical features. For example, a 4th c. BC mask of a hetaira or courtesan had colour that “seems to have been black for the brows and eyelashes and red for the hair,” while “Good Athenian girls had black hair.” [46] As will be shown below, this agrees with the ancient literary evidence which disparages hair lightening as unfit for wise women.

Examples from Greek Art: An Athenian woman; A Greek man from Tarentum; A Greek woman from Paestum; A Greek man from Paestum

Unlike statuary and pottery, most Ancient Greek painting has not survived. Fortunately, Greek originals were copied by the Romans, and several frescoes with themes from life and mythology have survived in Pompeii and Herculaneum. These were buried under tons of volcanic ashes and have been brought back, almost intact, by modern archaeology. In all scenes, men and women are given the familiar features known from the plastic arts, and are painted with vivid colors. Eyes are uniformly brown, and hair ranges from a lightish brown to black. The frescoes of Pompeii are particularly valuable because they show a virtual roster of ancient Greek heroes, indicating how these were imagined by the Greek mind.

Greek Heroes from Pompeii: Perseus, Jason, Theseus, Hercules, Achilles
Evidence for the appearance of Greeks and Non-Greeks

The Greek authors themselves never made a direct statement concerning their own racial type. It was however recognized that the Greeks were darker than the northern people whose paleness and blondness is contrasted in numerous authors with the swarthiness of the Egyptians and Ethiopians. The Hellenes believed that they represented the Golden Mean in terms of appearance. It is safe to assume that they were generally darker than Northern Europeans and lighter than Egyptians. Even the Thracians to their north are usually depicted in Greek pottery with “the same dark hair and the same facial features as the Greeks” [9], although in some cases they are depicted as fair as well. This agrees with Poulianos’ [10] pronouncement that the Thracians like the modern Bulgarians belonged mainly to the Aegean anthropological type. [9] also gives the telling example of a neck amphora on exhibit at the Getty Museum in which the Homeric scene of the Achaean raid on the Trojan camp by Odysseus and Diomedes is portrayed. The Greek heroes have dark hair, while the Thracian allies of the Trojans have light hair.

In a very interesting part of his Histories (4.108-109), Herodotus describes a Scythian tribe, the Budini as “ruddy,” or “red-haired” purron and “blue/gray-eyed” glaukoi. In their land, exists a city, Gelon, inhabited by the Geloni. While the Budini are nomads, the Geloni are farmers, speak a language that is half-Greek and half-Scythian and worship Greek gods. According to Herodotus, they are Greek colonists who left their sea ports to live inland among the Budini. Interestingly, Herodotus states that the Geloni are like the fair Budini in “neither form nor coloring” [ouden ten ideen homoioi oude to chroma].

We must also mention the early testimony of Xenophanes of Colophon (6th c. BC, Fr. 13-14) who shows that people fashion the gods after their own image, and, after ironically saying “if oxen had gods they would be like oxen,” again uses the stock example of the purroi and glaukoi Thracians, contrasted with the pug-nosed (simoi) and dark (melanes) Ethiopians to show that people fashion their gods after their own image. How odd this must have seemed to his Greek audience if it included a considerable number of Thracian-like individuals!

It would be interesting to quote here in full a passage from the Greek medical writer Galen (Galen, “Mixtures”) which contrasts the hair color of different ancient people. Note that “red” in this passage is Greek purros, a word with ambiguous meaning.

  So much for the formation of the hair; we should now pass on to the features of all the incidental features of the mixtures, as regards the differences of hair according to age, place, and nature of the body. The hair of Egyptians, Arabs, Indians, and of general all peoples who inhabit hot, dry places, has poor growth and is black, dry, curly and brittle. That of the inhabitants of cold, wet places, conversely - Illyrians, Germans, Dalmatians, Sauromatians, and the Scythian types of people in general- has reasonably good growth and is thin, straight, and red. Those who live in some well-balanced land which is between these in quality have hair with extremely good growth, which is strong, fairly black, moderately thick, and neither completely curly nor completely straight. The differences due to age are analogous to these: with regard to the qualities of strength, thickness, size, and colour, infants’ hair is similar to the Germans’, hair in the prime of life to the Ethiopians’, and that of ephebes and children to the hair of people of well-balanced lands.


368

Posted by Peter on Wed, 05 Sep 2007 22:48 | #

CONTD…

  It is clear from the preceding passage, that Greeks, who inhabited the “well-balanced lands” possessed mostly hair that was lighter in infancy and “fairly black” in adult life. It is interesting to note that according to Coon [4], 80% of modern Greeks have dark brown hair. The contrast between fair northerners, dark southerners and intermediate Greeks is echoed in too many places in Greek literature to note, an additional example is in Claudius Ptolemaeus Math., Apotelesmatica. Bk 4 ch. 10. Besides color, Galen also mentions that the canon of the Greek sculptor Polyclitus, which governed the proportions of the human body (Galenus Med., De sanitate tuenda libri vi. Kühn volume 6 page 127 line 1) is found mostly in Greek lands:

  In our country, as in others of good climate, one may see many bodies similar [to the canon], but in Scythians, Egyptians and Arabs, not even in a dream can one expect to find such a body.

We have already mentioned the testimony of Winckelmann [16] who found classical physiques in modern times in Greek-colonized Southern Italy. We will add that of another German, J.G. Kohl [25] who “found the most beautiful faces and physiques, reminiscent of works by Praxiteles” in 19th c. Greece.
Adamantius Judaeus

An oft-quoted passage from the 4th c. AD Jewish writer Adamantius Judaeus is used to “prove” that the original Greeks were tall, pale, blond and light-eyed. Let us not question, for the sake of argument, the knowledge of Adamantius as to the physical type of early Greek speakers already twenty five centuries in his past. Reproducing the passage in the original Greek reveals that the Greeks were moderately tall men (autarkôs megaloi andres), broader, i.e., not linear-bodied (euruteroi), with moderately firm flesh (sarkos krasin echontes metrian eupagesteran), lighter-skinned (leukoteroi tên chroan), with a medium-sized head (kephalên mesên to megethos), a strong neck(trachêlon eurôston), slightly-curly brown hair (trichôma hupoxanthon hapalôteron oulon praôs), a square face, i.e., with a broad jaw and not long (prosôpon tetragônon), narrow lips (cheilê lepta), straight nose (rhina orthên), liquid, “glad,” quick eyes full of light (ophthalmous hugrous charopous gorgous phôs polu echontas en heautois).

Let us examine this passage critically. Now, it is certain, that if the early “Hellenes” came from northern Greece, being the “descendants of Hellen and his sons” of Thessaly and Pindos, that they would be lighter in terms of pigmentation than the southern Greeks with whom they blended. Even today, in Greece, the inhabitants of the Pindos mountain range, and of northern Greece in general, tend to be lighter-skinned [4, 10]. Adamantius also tells us that they are moderately, not very tall, as he despises both very tall and very low stature. The same principle, common in the Greek physiognomists applies to their medium sized heads, and their brown hair, not very xanthê, whitish (agan xanthê kai hupoleukos, hopoia Skuthôn kai Keltôn) as that of Scythians and Celts which for him implies stupidity, awkwardness and savageness (amathian kai skaiotêta kai agriotêta). Of the color of the eyes of these Greeks he does not say, most notably he does not say that they were glaukoi, i.e., gray-blue, although he does say that this color is found among northern people along with white hair (leukoi tas komas) and slack flesh (sarki lagarâi), and tall stature (eumêkeis).

Adamantius thus distinguishes Greeks from northern (and southern) people in almost every anthropological attribute. They are darker-haired, their eyes are not said to be blue-gray, their flesh is firm (thin skin which wrinkles finely is typical of northern Europe), they are tall, but not very tall, and they are also broader, with medium-sized heads, slightly curly not straight hair, etc. It is thus certain, that the Greek race described by Adamantius is not that of northerners (Scythians, Celts) who as we know are themselves only partly of Nordic race.

To finally establish this fact, we turn to anthropology and try to find correlations between Adamantius’ description and Greeks. According to Coon [4], Greeks are quite tall for Europeans, as tall as northern Frenchmen, but not as tall as Scandinavians. They are relatively broad and stocky with well-developed musculature, much like their prehistoric ancestors [13]. 90% of them have some sort of brown hair from dark to light inclining to blond. In the Near East, black hair is predominant, while in northern Europe the flaxen shades are more important. 50% have pinkish white skin and the remainder have olive white and light brown skin; few have the ruddy skin despised by Adamantius. The great breadth of the jaw is noted both by Coon as a “a Greek specialty” for the modern Greeks and by Angel [6] for ancient ones. Angel considered it as “the most striking feature of the Greek face”. A modern study by Farkas et al. [51] confirms this observation, noting that 53.3% of Greek males and 26.7% of Greek females have a jaw that is wider than the normal range of North American whites. The head size of Greeks is medium, not as large as e.g., Norwegians or Irishmen, but not as small as Near-Eastern people and Africans. Their hair is wavier than northern people, but not as curly as Near-Eastern ones. The nose is straight in the majority but we concede that the beauty of their eyes cannot be quantified or proven. In all other repsects, the Greeks are a close match for Adamantius’ Greeks.
Class Differences in Physique?

It is sometimes maintained that the Greek citizens were of a different physical type than their slaves. This is inaccurate. Greek slaves were either of Greek origin or from neighboring lands. Some slaves from more distant lands probably existed as well, both relatively fairer (Scythians) and darker (Syrians). But on the whole, in Classical Athens at the height of its power, citizens were indistinguishable physically from metics and slaves, according to the Old Oligarch’s “Constitution of the Athenians” (written between 446-424BC) [8]:

  If the law permitted a free man to strike a slave or freedman, he would often find that he had mistaken an Athenian for a slave and struck him, for, so far as clothing and general appearance are concerned, the common people [ho demos] look just the same as the slaves and metics.

Examples from Mycenaean Greek Art: Chariot scene; Female figure

Some have even argued that thousands of Middle-Easterners were granted Athenian citizenship during the Peloponesian War (post-411BC) because of the shortage of manpower caused by that conflict. Such a suggestion is little more than an invention of its authors, for the only exhaustive study, by the Hungarian scholar Gyorgy Nemeth [17] on the foreign-born residents (“metics”) up to 400BC in Athens which studied all such people whose identity is known from literature, tombstones and a variety of other sources reveals that most of them were from the Delian League (hence Greeks), or from Greek city-states close to Athens (Megara, Corinth), while the most distant point of origin was Syracuse in Sicily.

A similar argument suggests that the “original” Greeks were fair, but they mixed with the darker inhabitants of Greece. The first people known to be Greek were the Mycenaeans. British archaeologist Oliver Dickinson noted that in Mycenaean art, virtually all people are drawn with dark hair and eyes [42] like ancient and modern Greeks:

  Frescoes normally show eyes and hair as dark (one girl in the Xeste 3 fresco has reddish hair), skin conventionally as red-brown on males and white on females, as in Egypt. All are comparable with the colouring used on later Greek statues and paintings, and suggest that the early populations were similar in complexion and colouring to the ancient, and indeed the modern, Greeks, whom they might equally have resembled in variety of physical type.

Moreover, the burials at the Royal Graves of Mycenae, c. 1600BC [12] show a variety of stature and head form representing multiple subracial types. Thus, it is safe to assume that from earliest times, the Greek aristocracy didn’t belong to a particular physical type. The main difference between aristocrats and commoners was the slightly larger size of the former, which he explains as due to better diet and social selection for positions of leadership in warfare. That the Mycenaean aristocrats were racially similar to the common Greeks was also confirmed by a more recent multi-dimensional analysis of several East Mediterranean skeletal samples by Musgrave and Evans [41]. They found that “these Bronze Age Greeks from Attica and the Argolid [Mycenaean aristocrats] belonged to a single, homogeneous population.”


369

Posted by Peter on Wed, 05 Sep 2007 22:50 | #

CONTD…


The burials at Lerna [13] from the 3rd millennium onwards may represent a fusion of Greek and non-Greek speakers. Likewise, single tombs or clan tombs contain multiple racial types, discrediting the notion of a racially distinct aristocratic caste. Angel who sought to study the biological component of Greek achievement, by observing this heterogeneity rightfully, dismissed the claim of German Nordicist Hans F K Guenther [20] as “absurd” [19], warning against “such bogeys as ‘Nordic Superiority’” [31] underlying them. German anthropologist Ilse Schwidetzky [33] also warns that “associating cultural decline with denordization is an extremely rash and petty conclusion.” Angel [19] observes that criminals, who must have been drawn from the lower social strata and regular Athenians do not differ in physique. The American historian Chester G. Starr summarized the “evidence” of the Nordicist theory thus [50]:

 


Nowhere in historic times is there any valid evidence that the upper classes of one area differed in culture from those of another because of racial background, nor within any one people did the upper and lower classes have basically different cultural inheritances. Modern assertions that the masters preserved a Nordic outlook and so were more capable of culture are pure nonsense, bred of modern racial prejudice, not of the ancient evidence.

More Literary Evidence

Aristotle in his Physics defines graying as the process by which hair turns from dark to grey, furnishing some evidence that the Hellenes had usually a dark hair color. The author of Aristotelis Physiognomica claims that both excessive paleness and excessive swarthiness are indicative of cowardice. Aristotle in the Eudemian Ethics mentions that “some men are blue eyed (glaukoi) and others black eyed (melanommatoi) because a particular part of them is of a particular quality” without assigning any moral superiority on either of the types. In the same passage, he continues that the blue-eyed man (glaukos) does not see clearly, an error which illustrates that he did not believe in a superiority of blue-eyed individuals. Indeed, the Greeks in general were somewhat repulsed by blue eyes, because of their rarity and association with disease (cataract and glaucoma), as [39], a complete study of all the uses of the adjective (glaukos) shows:

  Instinctive fear of blindness must be very strong among all sighted human beings, so their immediate reaction to such an eye will manifest itself in a repulsive frisson. Men will wish to ward off a similar fate from themselves. Healthy eyes of that colour therefore have something unnatural about them, and their relative infrequence in Greece proper (and, indeed, in Crete), will have aroused a similar instinctive hostility. Fear of the unknown and of the unusual would contribute to the notion that possessors of such eyes must be malign; hence the long association of blue and the Evil Eye which has lasted in Greece and the surrounding area until modern times. Not surprisingly, these feelings of hostility would be strengthened by knowledge that foreigners from the cold North - those dangerous, incursive, un-Greek people - had blue eyes.

The author of Aristotle’s On Colours mentions that infants are born with light-colored hair but their hair turns to black as they grow up. Hence, unlike Nordics who retain (to some degree) the paedomorphic trait of blondness, Hellenes appear to possess mostly dark hair in adult life.

Greek Women: Girl from Ipati, Greece, circa 1930; Head of a female Lapith from the scene of the Battle of the Centaurs on the temple of Zeus at Olympia (Photos by Nelly’s, Benaki Museum); Minoan and modern Greek Woman

There are a number of references in the Greek authors in the practice of women dyeing their hair blond (e.g., in Euripides) or using artificial means (white lead) to lighten their complexion. This is taken by some as a pursuit of a “Nordic ideal.” When we read in Athenaeus’ Deipnosophists that:

  Another woman has eyebrows too light: they paint them with lamp-black. Still another, as it happens, is too dark: she plasters herself over with white lead. One has a complexion too white: she rubs on rouge.

Are we to infer that lamp-black eyebrows are valued because of a “Nordic ideal?” Women have always lightened their hair because light hair is associated with youth among Caucasoid people, whose hair darkens in adult life. Indeed, the evidence suggests that Greeks were naturally dark-haired, otherwise they would not require hair lightening products. When Menander says (4th c.BC) speaks to an Athenian audience, saying that “the wise woman will not lighten her hair” is there any doubt that the practice was not seen favorably in that society? Similarly, Euripides (5th c. BC, Fr. 322) disparages hair lightening: “Eros is idle, and was born from idlers. It loves mirrors and dyeing hair [xanthismata], but avoids efforts.” And what of the use of the curling iron, as Nordics have relatively straighter hair than the people of Southern Europe and the Middle East? In this vein, one must remember that Aphrodite is described as xanthe in some authors, but is commonly depicted as brunette in Greek art, while Phryne, the famed courtesan whose beauty was renowned in antiquity, earned her nickname (phryne=toad [52]) from her dark complexion: the same Phryne chosen by Praxiteles as a model for a statue of the goddess.

Another argument proposed by Nordicists is that because the Greeks used the word iris, usually used for the rainbow, to describe the iris of the eye, it follows that they could not be a dark-eyed people. This argument fails for three reasons. First, light eyes are not uncommon in Greece at all. They are not the norm, but they are not unusual. Most Greeks have dark eyes, but a considerable number has mixed eye shades, while pure light eyes occur in varying frequency between 2 to 10% [10]. Second, the word iris was only introduced into the Greek language in the late 2nd c. AD (Julius Pollux Gramm., Onomasticon Bk 2 sect. 70 line 3). It is thus not a product of the early Greeks who supposedly saw light eyes all around them and named their irises after the rainbow. Third, the much earlier name for the iris of the eye was “the black” (to melan) according to Aristotle’s 4th c. BC testimony (Historia Animalium, 419b, 21).

Plato, in the Republic mentions that statues’ eyes should be painted black so that they will have the appearance of eyes, and not some exotic color. He continues that by painting eyes in proportion (i.e., black) and all other parts of the body in proportion, then the result is “beautiful.” Hence, it will appear that Plato did not find any fault with dark eyes, he believed them to be beautiful and proposed that statues be painted naturally, i.e., with black eyes.

In the Republic, Plato presents direct evidence that blondness might be admired for its beauty, but “dark” [melanas] men are of manly aspect:

  One, because his nose is tip tilted, you will praise as piquant, the beak of another you pronounce right royal, the intermediate type you say strikes the harmonious mean,the swarthy are of manly aspect, the white are children of the gods divinely fair, and as for honey hued, do you suppose the very word is anything but the euphemistic invention of some lover who can feel no distaste for sallowness when it accompanies the blooming time of youth?

From this passage it is clear that Plato (who was an Athenian aristocrat and belonged one of the more conservative Athenian families) once again iterates the doctrine of the Mean: The most beautiful ones are the possessors of straight noses (neither concave nor convex) and the possessors of honey-colored skin, neither too pale nor swarthy. Incidentally, the type he seems to prefer is indeed the Greek type par excellence, and the most common type in modern Hellas as well.
Conclusions
We summarize our conclusions:

  *

    Physical anthropology indicates racial continuity in Greece, with main Dinaric-Alpine-Mediterranean racial elements. Racial type of aristocrats, commoners and criminals is the same.
  *

    Greek literature furnishes evidence of brunet and fair individuals, as today, without ascribing any superiority to either type.
  *

    Greek art shows a predominance of brunet types, with a small minority of fair ones, rarely as fair as northern Europeans and with the same physique as their brunet counterparts.
  *

    Greek descriptions of themselves and others indicate that they were intermediate in pigmentation to northern and southern barbarians, as they are today.


370

Posted by Peter on Wed, 05 Sep 2007 22:54 | #

CONTD…


Endnotes

(a) The Mediterranean type is characterized by dark hair and eyes, skin that tans easily, a long skull, a relatively narrow face and nose and a lean body build. This type is believed to be associated with the creators of the first civilizations in the Fertile Crescent of the Near East. It admits to many subtypes, due to its wide geographical range, from the Atlantic Ocean to the borders of India.
(b) Brachycephalic is used to denote people with broad, rather than long skulls. Its opposite is Dolichocephalic, while the intermediate is called Mesocephalic.
(c) The Alpine type is frequent in much of Central Europe and is found throughout the European continent and Western/Central Asia. Alpines have broad skulls, brown hair and eyes that are sometimes dark, sometimes light. Their face tends to be broad, and their body build more stocky than Mediterraneans.
(d) The Nordic type is common in Northern Europe. It is similar to the Mediterranean type in appearance, but has blonde straight hair, light eyes and a usually narrower face and a higher forehead. The inhabitants of Sweden and Holland are usually Nordic.
(e) The Dinaric type has a long face, long beaky nose and a short skull. It is thus, brachycephalic, but differs from the Alpine type in its facial form and also in its body build which is tall and lean.
(f) Day [44] alleges that Manzelli miscalculates and that yellow hair is actually 7% of the total. In either case, the figure is very low, and perhaps strikingly close to the 4-6% figure of “Nordic-like” individuals in modern Greece [10].
References

  1. Sergi, G. 1901, The Mediterranean Race: a study of the origin of European peoples, London (Scott)
  2. Ripley, W. Z., 1900, The Races of Europe, a sociological study, Kegan Paul, Trench, Trubner
  3. Buxton. L.H.D., 1920, The Inhabitants of the Eastern Mediterranean, Biometrika, Vol. 13, Issue 1, 92-112
  4. Coon, C.S., 1939, The Races of Europe, New York (Macmillan)
  5. Baker, J.R., 1974, Race, Oxford University Press
  6. Angel, J. Lawrence, 1944, A racial analysis of the ancient Greeks: An essay on the use of morphological types, American Journal of Physical Anthropology
  7. Kilmer, Martin F., 1993, Greek Erotica, London, Duckworth
  8. Hughes, et al., trans. 1968, The Old Oligarch, 1.10, Harrow
  9. Cohen, Beth, ed., 2000, Not the Classical Ideal: Athens and the Construction of the Other in Greek Art, Leiden
  10. Poulianos, Aris N., 1961, The Origin of the Greeks, Ph.D. thesis, University of Moscow, supervised by F.G.Debets
  11. Poulianos, Aris N., 1999, 2nd ed., The Origin of the Cretans, Kyromanos, Thessaloniki
  12. Angel, J. Lawrence, in Mylonas, George E., 1972-1973, Ho taphikos kyklos V ton Mykenon, Ethnike Archaeologike Hetaireia, Athens
  13. Angel, J. Lawrence, 1971, The people of Lerna; analysis of a prehistoric Aegean population, American School of Classical Studies, Athens
  14. Coon, C.S., Revised ed. 1962, Caravan: the story of the Middle East, Holt Reinhart and Winston, New York
  15. Guenther, Hans F. K., 1927, Racial Elements of European History, Methuen & Co., London, translation of
  16. Winckelmann, J.J., 1764, Geschichte der Kunst des Altertums
  17. Nemeth, G., 2001, Metics in Athens, Acta Ant. Hung. 41, 2001, 331-348
  18. Argyropoulos, E. et al., 1989, A comparative cephalometric investigation of the Greek craniofacial pattern through 4,000 years, Angle Orthod 1989 Fall;59(3):195-204
  19. Angel, J. Lawrence, 1946, Social Biology of Greek Culture Growth, American Anthropologist
  20. Guenther, Hans F K, 1929, Rassenkunde Europas Lehmann, Munich
  21. Papathanasopoulos, G., 1977, The Acropolis : monuments and museum, Krene Editions
  22. Cambridge Ancient History, 1928, vol. 2, pp. 22-23
  23. Dixon, R.B., 1923, The Racial History of Man, New York, London, C. Scribner’s Sons
  24. Boardman, J., 1989, Athenian red figure vases : the classical period : a handbook, London : New York, N.Y., Thames and Hudson
  25. Kohl, J.G., 1861, Die Hellenen und die Neugriechen
  26. Page, D.L., 1959, History and the Homeric Iliad, Berkeley : University of California Press
  27. Deniker, J., 1900, Races of Man : An Outline of Anthropology and Ethnography, 2nd ed., The Walter Scott Publishing Co. Ltd., New York (translated from the French)
  28. Fowler, B.H., 1984, The Archaic Esthetic, American Journal of Philology, 105(2), pp. 119-149
  29. Irwin, E., 1974, Colour Terms in Greek Poetry, Hakkert, Toronto
  30. Buxton, L.H.D., 1920, Physical Anthropology of Ancient and Modern Greeks, Nature, v. 106, pp. 183-185
  31. Angel, J.L., 1946, Race, Type, and Ethnic Group in Ancient Greece, Human Biology, 18(1), pp. 1-32
  32. Debets, G.F., 1951, Zasselenie Perednei Azii, In. Etn., vol. 16, Moscow
  33. Schwidetzky, I., 1954, Das Problem des Voelkertodes
  34. Beddoe, J., 1971, The races of Britain: a contribution to the anthropology of Western Europe, [1st ed. reprinted]; with a new introduction by David Elliston Allen, Hutchinson, London
  35. Battaglia R., in Biasutti R., 1967, Le razze ei popoli della terra, UTET, Turin
  36. Krogman, W.M., 1940, The peoples of early Iran and their ethnic affiliations, American Journal of Physical Anthropology
  37. Xirotiris, N., 1979, Rassengeschichte von Griechenland. pp. 157-183. In Schwidetzky, I. (ed.), Rassengeschichte der Menschheit. Volume 6. R. Oldenbourg Verlag, Munich.
  38. Angel, J.L., 1945, Skeletal Material from Attica, Hesperia, 14(4), pp. 279-363
  39. Maxwell-Stuart, P.G., 1981, Studies in Greek colour terminology, vol.1 “Glaukos”, Leiden : Brill
  40. Hooton, E.A., 1946, Up from the Ape, The MacMillan Company, New York
  41. Musgrave, J.H., Evans S.P., 1981, By strangers honor’d: a statistical study of ancient crania from Crete, mainland Greece, Cyprus, Israel and Egypt, Journal of Mediterranean Anthropology and Archaeology, 1(1), pp. 50-107
  42. Dickinson, O., 1994, The Aegean Bronze Age (Cambridge World Archaeology), Cambridge University Press
  43. Manzelli, V., 1994, La policromia nella statuaria greca arcaica, Studia archeologica 69, Rome
  44. Day, J.V., 2000, Indo-European Origins: the Anthropological Evidence, Institute for the Study of Man, Washington D.C.
  45. Robertson, N., 2003, The Religious Criterion in Greek Ethnicity: The Dorians and the Festival Carneia, American Journal of Ancient History, New Series 1(2), p. 20.
  46. Green, R., Handley E., 1995, Images of the Greek Theatre, British Museum Press, London, p. 75.
  47. Stieber, M., 2004, The Poetics of Appearance in the Attic Korai, University of Texas Press, Austin, p. 68.
  48. Howells, W.W., 1967, Mankind in the Making, Doubleday & Co., Garden City, New York, p. 288.
  49. Lundman, B.J., 1962, The Racial History of Scandinavia: An Outline, Mankind Quarterly, 3, pp. 89-97.
  50. Starr, C.G., 1991, Origins of Greek Civilization, W. W. Norton & Company, London, p. 132.
  51. Farkas, L.G. et al., 2005, International anthropometric study of facial morphology in various ethnic groups/races, J Craniofac Surg. 16(4):615-46.
  52. Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary, lemma for ‘brown’.
  53. Angel, J. Lawrence, 1964, The origin of the hellenes. An ethnogenetic inquiry. Aris N. Poulianos. 160 pp, 5 tables, 9 maps, 32 photographs. 1962. Morphosis Press, Athens. Originally published in 1960 by the Institute of Ethnography of the Academy of Sciences of the U. S. S. R., translated into Greek by the author with special assistance of Nikos Antonopoulos, American Journal of Physical Anthropology, Volume 22, Issue 3, Date: September 1964, Pages: 343-345

This is the link if people want to see pictures as well!
http://dienekes.angeltowns.net/articles/hellenes/

Isn’t it interesting that you posted pictures of the Greek women from the same website but don’t accept the points made in this article? How they regarded blue eyes, What face shape/type of women they thought is beautiful, The point about massive jaws etc…
So much for your Pro-Nordist agenda! Shows how insecure you are. Read the article and then see if you can come up with something else for Nordic supremacy.


371

Posted by Anton on Fri, 16 Nov 2007 19:08 | #

With regards to White Europeans, the best looking women among them are usually Celtic, Slavic, or Tuscan.  I really DONT find scandanvian or even most german women to be all that pretty. Biracial people often ARE very attractive. Racial purity-such as the whitebread cracker scotch-irish hillbillies of appalachia are ugly as well as genetically degenerate. RACIAL PURITY=INBREEDING!!! Havent you learned anything from European Nobility during the last 1000 years?? Now Saira Mohan is not truly “biracial”-since the “hindoo’s ” you speak of are Racially CAUCASIAN-they just have darker hair and skintone. So she isnt “white” but caucasian she certainly IS. If her Indian half were dravidian or mundic then you’d be able to say that shes biracial. But damn, Eurasian women are HOT!!!! And often MUCH prettier than most white chicks wink


372

Posted by Anton on Fri, 16 Nov 2007 19:19 | #

MIGHT I ADD. Ive seen Italians, romanians, and greeks who look nearly identical to Saira Mohan. Ive I didnt know her ethnic background I would’dve Assumed that she’s Italian. Italian women are MUCH BETTER LOOKING on average than most nordic women-EXCEPT Finns of course since they are racially mixed.


373

Posted by Love Beowulf on Mon, 19 Nov 2007 08:04 | #

For me I do not find Indian women and Nordic women are different. Just only different hair color? and may be the skin tone. Overall are the same.
I live in Asia. I’m not Indian. But I know the most best than all of you in this point.  you know there have some woman who fit your theory in every detail but her overall might be very ugly?  while some woman do not has anything fit to your theory but very lovely and pretty in overall.

I live in asia and seen many of moving pictures even on the news. Many of Indian actresses you posted their picture. I saw them without make up. And I’d rather say they are look like Nordic women very much even more prettier. Such as Kareena kapoor I saw her moving picture on the news after she gave a labour. Without any make up. She has very pale white skin and blue eyes.  But you know bollywood like to make up actresses to look more native, many of them already got beautiful eyes but on those stupid pictures, to make the sign of oriental. The make up artist added more primitive sign on actresses face with the tan make up and black eyeliners.  It’s stupid that this site I cann’t post their picture when those Indian actresses without makeup or when they are acting on movies. Because you will see they look different from the pictures J. Richard posted.

Especially, Dia Mirza and Preity Zinta. They have very white skin and beautiful oval face. I seen J. Richard said that Aishwarya is too fat or over weight? Board shoulder?  have you ever seen her face to face?
I’d say for me Aish is not fat or overweight. And not has board shoulders.
From the point of view of the woman like me whom weight only 43 k and tall 168 cm. I think Aish is pretty elegrant. even she is not soft

this some of the pakistan women and Indian. I hope the picture may work on this site.




????????????



374

Posted by Love Beowulf (sunshine) on Mon, 19 Nov 2007 08:20 | #

This picture is Dia Mirza. she is Indian, also miss asian pacific.


and This is Twinkle Khanna

and THis Amisha Patel

This one the Pakistan actress


375

Posted by Love Beowulf (sunshine) on Mon, 19 Nov 2007 08:35 | #

This is my favourit Indian actress. Neelam Khothari. I watched her on movie Funny wedding and I were misunderstood she is not Indian.



376

Posted by JASON on Wed, 05 Dec 2007 23:32 | #

This article is racist and hilarious. This chick is beautiful. I’d anal her, at any rate…


377

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Thu, 06 Dec 2007 00:02 | #

“I’d anal her”  (—JASON)

Given her mannish looks, someone like Jason was bound to come along and make that remark.


378

Posted by GT on Thu, 06 Dec 2007 01:59 | #

I was prepared to risk GW’s wrath and give JASON a link to a shemale site, but then Fred came along and provided a better response.  Thanks, Fred.


379

Posted by Luker on Thu, 06 Dec 2007 05:58 | #

I saw a blonde haired British housewife/mum at the post office this morning (just a few minutes ago) and thought of this thread. She was not especially made up or overdressed yet if she stood next to Saira Mohan, poor old Saira wouldnt get a second look from most men.

Its very nice of Sunshine to keep posting these pictures of Asian girls, yes they are pretty, but for the umpteenth time they are also quite European looking. Surely thats the giveaway, their beauty seems to directly proportional to how European they look.


380

Posted by sunshine on Sat, 08 Dec 2007 15:02 | #

To provide the fact of asia I have to write all of this. I seen the european’s face Indian actress. acted as the main character of Indian movie sometime. As I observe, Bollywood like to take Indian actors or actresses whom have european face play on every movie. but NOT as the main character in the flims.

I brought Indian movie a few days ago, names Fanaa.  surprized to see all characters in this Indian flim are look like european. Such as the father of actress, the actor, the actresses friends etc… but NOT the main actress who looks really primitive Indian for me. In this flim she played as the daugther of rich muslim kashmir family.  I find all of her friends are very pretty. Especially the one names Bobo in the flim. She looks really like french girl. If I didn’t look on internet up she was Iranian decent. I’d missunderstood she was european girl.  another friend of the actress looks like Mandy Moore and another one looks like spanish.  It seem to like this for all Indian movie as I watched.
The girls whom look like european always play as unimportant character on the flim. but the one with primitive Indian face played the famous character.
So it quite difficult for the foreigners. to look it up on internet for european’s face Indian actresses pictures, unless. You’d buy the movie and watch.

This picture is the unimportant character on India flim. you could see she looks like Italian or french. 

 

 

This girl also european’s face Indian actress, also played she unimportant character on India flim.

 

 

 

This one is the main actress. dark skin and look primitive.

 


This girl is in Miss Indian contest. looks almost like european but couldn’t win the contest, awhile the one who is the winner of Miss Indian looks like primitive Indian woman with dark skin.



381

Posted by sunshine on Sat, 08 Dec 2007 17:31 | #

Indian girl



Indian


382

Posted by Amelia on Sun, 09 Dec 2007 04:12 | #

hi, I am an anthropology student, just part time I am not too serious, but its fascinating to me. I am also a particularly beautiful woman. You can choose to believe this or not.  I am of Russian/English descent. My eyes are sea green, my hair is light brown and my skin is whiter than snow. I am also married to an Indian man. I could have picked any man I wanted. I can honestly say, he was and is the only man that I wanted. My husband is gorgeous, he was a male model when he was 18-22, but looks aside, this was not really the deciding factor for me. I have met many handsome men, with-in and with-out my own “race”. I think alot of people on this site, have focused in on the “looks” department of sexual selection, and forgotten something very very important. Most women desire security above all else. And prosperity, the more the better. There is also a certain pride that comes with securing a man who is handsome, rich AND brilliant, AND ambitious.

This is not about being a ” gold digger” or something of the sort. It was never jewelry and fancy dinners I was after. It was about having a happy, healthy life, with as little financial worry as possible, and being able to give everything to my future children, including a good set of genes , a mother with the luxury to stay home with them, a father with self-discipline, and the money to take their education as far as their dreams will reach.


I have dated alot of american white men. Most were wealthy. Some were not. But alot were wealthy because their parents/ grandparents had accumulated wealth. Some of them were self-made-men. (which I totally respected) And I know you have to be quite savvy to be “that” successful in whatever field it is that you choose. But even the most successful business man, lacked the “brilliance” I found in my Indian husband. He has a Phd in an area of science/math, and he got it at 27.

Perhaps I just never got the opportunity to meet a white man of this caliber. I am sure that they do exist. But since my marriage to my man, I have met many other Indian and Asian men who are on the same level as my husband both cognitively and in regard to life ambition and life planning.

Feminine women, especially attractive ones, but even the less attractive ones, figure out early on that marriage to the right man, is the single most important decision of our lives. It will provide both us and our offspring with emotional and financial security and will give us the opportunity to pursue our personal goals and interests.

Marriage to the wrong man, can ruin a womans life. And I am not even speaking about physically or mentally abusive men. I am talking about the unambitious, emasculated men who seem to greatly outnumber the “brilliant” ones ..as far as the white (American) race is concerned.  There are plenty of “hot” white guys, rest assured, (as much as in any other race) but for (wise) women, there are just too many other factors which can tip the scale, against even the best looking guy, if he can not provide her with the necessities-luxuries she needs-desires.

I dont in anyway think that the white race is inferior to the Indian, or any other race. I do however think that our culture is failing us, particularly our men. Many of them (not all) are raised to believe that they can play video games until they are 25, and that college is a place to goof off, not a place to make your destiny. They also seem to take saving money “lightly” because they will inherit when mom and dad die. They also believe that a dinner and a movie should earn them sexual access!! They have lost all sense of manhood, self-respect through responsibility, romantic courtship, respect for elders and protective nature toward women and children!

“looks” are just 5% of what goes into mate selection for women. There are SOO many good-looking men, who are just not worth reproducing with because there are too many risk factors. especially when there are other men, equally good looking and more secure who just happen to be of another race.


And I suppose you think for men the choice may just be that simple.  Or is it???? They want someone beautiful, young and buxom..this is all true..and not to be underrated…..but a sweet nature, and being virtuous and trustworthy are important to men also…at least men of any quality.

you can deny it all you want, but you know in your heart, this is true.


383

Posted by sunshine on Sun, 09 Dec 2007 16:14 | #

Indian actresses



Indian actress

 

 


384

Posted by sunshine on Sun, 09 Dec 2007 16:27 | #

Original Arab princess


 

Original Arab princess, lalla salma


 

 

Arab princess

 

 

Arab princess

 

 

Arab princess

 

 


Indian actress

 


Original Afghanistan girl, moved to stay in India and turned to be actress.


 

 

 


Original Afghan girl



385

Posted by Tommy G on Sun, 09 Dec 2007 18:05 | #

Amelia,

Eat shit and die!


386

Posted by huh? on Mon, 10 Dec 2007 04:40 | #

Maybe I am confused but arent arabs, indians and whites all the same race? the Caucasoid race?? Is it just a matter of skin color/hair color/eye color that is different or is there something else? and some people here are talking about masculinization vs. femininization of the skull..doesnt that have more to do with hormones and very little to do with race anyway??/

personally, to me, it seems that arabs and some indians are actually mixed from all 3 races. white, asian and black.


387

Posted by sunshine on Mon, 10 Dec 2007 05:15 | #

Pakistan model


 

Pakistan actress

 

 

Afghanistan girl

 

 


Indian actress


 

 


Indian actress

 

 


Indian actress

 

 

 


Afghanistan girl

 

 


Indian actress acting on the flim

 

 

Indian actress

 

 

 


Afghanistan girl

 

 

 

 


My favourit Pakistani model


388

Posted by sunshine on Mon, 10 Dec 2007 05:42 | #

afghanistan girl

 

 

 

 

 


Iranian actress


 

 

 


Pakistan girl

 

 

 

 


pakistan model

 

 

 

 

 

Pakistan model


389

Posted by Guessedworker on Mon, 10 Dec 2007 05:52 | #

Amelia,

You have chosen to do your part in the destruction of your own people.  If every woman did what you have done, Europeans would completely cease to exist.  For that reason, the ineffable light-headedness of your sexual judgement is quite terrifying.

Perhaps you should have acquainted yourself at length with your husband’s country and people.  You might not then have looked upon your own kind with such embitterment.

sunshine,

Please stop spamming the thread with pictures of European-looking Indian women.  You are, in any case, making the opposite point to the one you think you are making.


390

Posted by question on Tue, 11 Dec 2007 00:43 | #

question??

why do u keep posting ugly pictures of porn stars when there are plenty
of better examples of hot blondes??

look at this beauty:

.html?path=pgallery&path_key=Wisener, Jayne


391

Posted by question on Tue, 11 Dec 2007 00:46 | #

woops that link did not work

here she is…Jayne Wisener

&imgrefurl=http://www.nancarrow-webdesk.com/warehouse/storage2/2007-w48/img.80027.html&h=400&w=276&sz=12&hl=en&start=3&um=1&tbnid=ju4wPYJ9RmR72M:&tbnh=124&tbnw=86&prev;=/images?q=Jayne+Wisener&svnum=10&um=1&hl=en&sa=N


392

Posted by question on Tue, 11 Dec 2007 00:49 | #


393

Posted by question on Tue, 11 Dec 2007 00:51 | #

finally came through raspberry but anyway MY point was why would you show a degrading picture of a hot nordic girl when there are plenty of non-porn examples…..


394

Posted by q on Tue, 11 Dec 2007 00:59 | #



395

Posted by q on Tue, 11 Dec 2007 01:09 | #

child


396

Posted by q on Tue, 11 Dec 2007 01:23 | #


397

Posted by silver on Tue, 11 Dec 2007 03:06 | #

You have chosen to do your part in the destruction of your own people.  If every woman did what you have done, Europeans would completely cease to exist.  For that reason, the ineffable light-headedness of your sexual judgement is quite terrifying.

GW, why isn’t the point made somewhere on this site that eventual extinction is the inevitable result of mixing?  Obvious as it might be to yourself and others, it is not obvious to everyone.  I doubt many mixers are as indifferent to the extinction of their kind as their behavior at first glance suggests; oftentimes they are simply unaware of the consequences, or if they are, want to have their cake and to eat it too.  Furthermore, my being the visible product of ancestral mixing while at the same time accepting your kind’s right to its genetic integrity is evidence that not all aliens are beyond reason.  (Were it that Fred Scrooby could be as forthright.)


398

Posted by sunshine on Tue, 11 Dec 2007 03:11 | #

The european-looking arab and Indian actresses are prettier than nordic women for me. because they have more beautifull eyes and narrow face. The Nordic women have small eyes like chinese and board face.



399

Posted by silver on Tue, 11 Dec 2007 03:24 | #

The european-looking arab and Indian actresses are prettier than nordic women for me. because they have more beautifull eyes and narrow face. The Nordic women have small eyes like chinese and board face.

Most here would disagree and would find the material you have posted confirmation that you are wrong.

That aside, taken at face-value your motive for posting here would seem to be not to dispute that any such thing as a “most beautiful” race could be determined, rather that nordics are not it, that race being oriental caucasoids.  On a site dedicated to preserving European (though admittedly mostly nordic) genetic interests, such behavior is unbecoming; find another place to flaunt (spam) your aesthetic preferences.  Otherwise, reconsider your motives.


400

Posted by Guessedworker on Tue, 11 Dec 2007 03:55 | #

Silver,

The concentration here on Nordic genetic interests is a product of two things.  First, “Anglophonia” ... which filters out northern Slavs somewhat, without implying any antipathy towards them.  Second, visual distinctiveness ... the fine-boned, blond Nordic female provides a more immediate contrast than does Meditteranean or southern Slav beauty.

Nonetheless, the principle of preserving European genetic interests - as opposed merely to culture or heritage or whatever - is what it is, and holds true for all of us.  (And if J Richards had not developed his interesting but obviously, for some, controversial theme of “fineness”, the making of an argument for preservation based on the local desirability of adaptive traits, with no reference to some objective measure of absolute beauty, would be applicable to any people tribe or people, European or otherwise.)

You are right about the miscegenation issue.  Fred Scrooby has an interesting idea that women are very poor performers when it comes to perceiving race.  In the past, I’ve proposed that this might be rooted in an evolved willingness to mate with non-tribal males if these had been successful in battle against the males of the tribe - that being the only way open to the women to pursue their genetic interests.

I will give some thought to a post on the costs of miscegenation, which can be linked to the side-bar through the existing “Important Issues” facility.

Silver, I tried to mail you a couple of days ago about the Kosovo situation, in case you hads an opinion on it.  My mail was returned by the “demon”.  If you are interested, pleasse contact me through the button on the header.


401

Posted by S.D on Tue, 11 Dec 2007 05:54 | #

I do not want to talk with the people like you that much. All of you have to reconsider your motives, not me
all of you here did it first? by insulting other race.


402

Posted by sunshine D on Tue, 11 Dec 2007 06:47 | #

You are right about the miscegenation issue.  Fred Scrooby has an interesting idea that women are very poor performers when it comes to perceiving race.  In the past, I’ve proposed that this might be rooted in an evolved willingness to mate with non-tribal males if these had been successful in battle against the males of the tribe - that being the only way open to the women to pursue their genetic interests.


I will remember that?  that is the way of people called themselve Aryan? by insulting other people like they are not humans.


403

Posted by silver on Tue, 11 Dec 2007 09:15 | #

Sunshine, there is much more that could be said about beauty than J. Richards has written.  I have found his work revealing and it has helped me gain a deeper appreciation of feminine beauty.  That said, I remain unconvinced that the matter is quite as cut and dried as he has a tendency to think.  GW rightly calls “fineness” a “controversial” theme. In times past I have placed much greater aesthetic value on “exotic” features he devalues as “robust”; that I no longer do is interesting in itself, and a subject worthy of further investigation.  Bear in mind his objective is genetic preservation, and it is entirely possible affects his judgement, causing him to value (or to “read value into”) certain features and consequently to devalue others; it is entirely possible that my own aesthetic revaluation is a result of the same.  It is interesting, too, that while I find myself able to appreciate nordic beauty, and value it above the beauty of others, in a “technical” sense, I nonetheless maintain an (innate?) affinity for the mediterranean type (lack of “fineness” notwithstanding!).

For example:
&w=300

 


404

Posted by Tommy G on Tue, 11 Dec 2007 10:19 | #

>>“It is interesting, too, that while I find myself able to appreciate nordic beauty, and value it above the beauty of others, in a “technical” sense, I nonetheless maintain an (innate?) affinity for the mediterranean type (lack of “fineness” notwithstanding!).”

Silver,

Maybe my eyesight isn’t as good as what it used to be but the picture of the very attractive young women you posted, IMO, has fine features. 

>>“Bear in mind his [my] objective is genetic preservation, and it is entirely possible affects his judgement, causing him to value (or to “read value into”) certain features and consequently to devalue others…”

Speaking for myself, I want to preserve the white-race because it’s preserving me/us. Why should we sacrifice ourselves (some estimate - 150,000 years of genetic evolution) only to disgaurd it by miscegenating with non-whites. For whites, it will obviously result in our de-evolution and eventual genocide. I find it completely unacceptable the Jews (along with their white liberal dupes) have succeeded through a massive propaganda campaign to convince whites that race is only a social construct; therefore, it is their, whites, moral duty to deny one’s own race and miscegenate with non-whites. Disgusting!!!

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Sorry to get redundant here:

“Nobel-prize winning physicist William Shockley, the inventor of the semiconductor, devoted the latter part of his career to the study of eugenics. His work and the work of numerous other respected scientists of the last forty years has proven that race-mixing is nothing but de-evolution which lowers and destroys both races. Those who seek to encourage such genocide are those who are already mongrels, the Communist, antichrist Jews.”

http://www.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=00Bq00


405

Posted by sunshine on Tue, 11 Dec 2007 11:09 | #

To silver, anyway thank for the websit. it’s great.


406

Posted by silver on Tue, 11 Dec 2007 11:12 | #

Tommy, I don’t disagree with what you’ve said there.  I only meant it’s possible J. Richard’s aesthetic valuations are affected by his desire to preserve nordic genotypes (and thus phenotypes).  I hypothesized that this may lead him to see more beauty in certain distinctive nordic features and consequently less value in non-nordic features.  I think there is a limit to how far such reasoning can be taken, however; for instance, strong negroid and australoid features are unlikely to ever “become” attractive no matter the reasoning employed to increase their value.  Though even here an admission is due: in younger (and more ignorant) rap-“music” listening days, I did develop an attraction to certain American negro rappers (females, I mean), and I even briefly dated a South African mulatta (a very attractive one, actually).

About the model, yes I agree she has rather fine features.  That wasn’t the picture I thought I was posting, however!  The one I had in mind was even more distinctively Med; though looking at the one I had in mind again, even she is finer than I originally thought.  I’d have to regoogle in order to post it, but I think this thread has seen enough of that.


407

Posted by sunshine on Tue, 11 Dec 2007 11:31 | #

One thing that you can not find the value of beauty in the white women. their culture and tradition do not make them have value of themselve. I think you have to look more the inside of people more than the outside.


408

Posted by Alex on Tue, 11 Dec 2007 19:20 | #

A lot of nice pics there of Indians Sunshine.  smile

If anyone happens to wonder just how it was that Indians (of India proper) got to be in the Carribean, South Africa, and for a long time Uganda, and the Chinese in California, look no further than that variant of slavery known as ‘cheap labor’, the basis of the ideology of multi-culturalism.

People have historically attempted to avoid war as much as possible as the invasions that war often brings also tends to bring with it (as part of the territory) social chaos, cultural destruction, mass murder, and rapine.  The ‘importation’ of ‘cheap labor’ artificially creates wave after wave of invasion, and due to the huge numbers of persons exploited in this manner,  ultimately far more social destruction than war generally does.  They couldn’t very well tell people the truth of the matter, that due to the extreme greed and self-centerdness of a relative few, that this was taking place.    No, that wouldn’t do.    And those relative few promoting this sure couldn’t have the peoples of the world, whether being preyed upon as a source of cheap labor or on the receiving end, naturally attempting to preserve themselves, as this would get in the way of the obtainment of the incredible profits to be had, effectively calculated in 1863* by the former US treasurer and slave speculator Robert Walker to be four times those of the already lucrative and socially destructive chattel slavery and its trade that these sorts had been engaging in. 

It no doubt seemed a tall order, perhaps even impossible, but if the peoples of the world could be persuaded to somehow embrace their own physical and cultural destruction, the way for the obtainment of these profits would be made sure.  With the development of the cult of multi-culturalism they think they have resolved this dillemma.

Or so they think…       

For almost sixty years, the Nourse Line would primarily engage its oceanic fleet in the transport of cheap labor.   

“The service operated by Nourse Line was a virtual round the world voyage, initially sailing from London for European ports where a general cargo was loaded before heading for Calcutta. After discharging its cargo, a cargo of rice would be back loaded, and her passengers of coolies would embark for the voyage out to the West Indies, Mauritius or Fiji.”


Indian “Coolie” Families

“Having observed the carriage and possible profits to be gained from the carriage of “Coolies” James Nourse entered into negotiations with the Crown Agents for the Colonies, his proposed service was to be between India and Mauritius, the West Indies and Fiji. Once the contracts were secured James Nourse bought India, an iron barque of 912 tons from Cowie & Company of Liverpool and chartered from T.O. Harrison of London, the Adamant in 1865. By way of explanation, a Coolie was of Indian or Chinese nationality, indentured labourers, who were hired for work in foreign lands, the word Coolie is traceable to a tribe from the West of India known as the Koli. Sadly the term became synonymous with cheap labour and they did in fact replace the African slaves whose use was outlawed in British possessions in 1834. In the main James Nourse’s passengers came from north central and northeastern India though some came from the Tamil and Telugu speaking regions of the south. The terms of contract were that they agreed to work for a defined number of years, five, in one of the colonies and in return they earned return passage but were paid extremely low wages, but, perhaps more importantly, were fed and housed. The Chinese Coolies were employed under exactly the same terms and it should come as no surprise to anyone that this form of indentured labour explains why the Indians and Chinese populate virtually every country in the world.”

Indus


Built: 1866 by Denny and David Rankin, Dumbarton.
Launched 13th of July and completed a week later.

“Between 1866 to 1869 the company built four ships, all to James Nourse’s specifications and all with the carriage of Coolies taken into account, Indus by Denny & Rankin, Jumna & Syria by William Pile and Neva by J.G. Lawrie The carriage of Coolies dictated that for each one and a half registered tons equalled the carriage of one Coolie, later it was measured in covered deck space. The medical requirements of those travelling was monitored by a Surgeon Superintendent, they all had food and water allowances overseen by the ships Purser and both Officers were paid by a capitation grant for those successfully completing the voyage. Two further ships were acquired in 1872/3, Stockbridge, which was bought outright, and Jorawur that remained owned by J. Fleming, 42/64’s and D.K Mair 22/64’s.”

Forth


Built: 1894 by Charles Connell & Co, Glasgow.
Tonnage: 1829 grt, 1713 nt.
Yard No 212.

“The service operated by Nourse Line was a virtual round the world voyage initially sailing from London for European ports where a general cargo was loaded before heading for Calcutta. After discharging its cargo, a cargo of rice would be back loaded, and her passengers of coolies would embark for the voyage out to the West Indies, Mauritius or Fiji. The ships that voyaged to either Mauritius or Fiji would normally then travel to Australia to load coal. Those on the West Indian route after discharging their coolies and cargo would proceed up to the east coast of the United States to load grain or case oil for Europe. Prior to the carriage of case oil Kerosene had been transported aboard sailing ships in wooden casks, this proved not only wasteful of space but also dangerous because of leakage. Various American exporters improved the transport of their oil by packing their product into cases, each case contained two five-gallon tins making it infinitely easier for the recipients to handle and store. The next progressive stage was to fit the sailing ships with large storage tanks placed in their holds leading of course to the eventual building of ships for the sole transportation of oil.

Nourse Line in the eighteen eighties increased the size of its fleet by some fifteen vessels, Allanshaw, The Bruce, Hereford, British Peer and Rhone all of which were second hand, the remainder, new, and all but two being built at the Glasgow yard of Russell & Co.”

GANGES


Courtesy Alex Duncan

Built: 1906 by Charles Connell & Co., Ltd., of Glasgow.Tonnage: 3,475 grt, 2,151 nt, 5,200 dwt.
Engine: Single screw, Triple expansion, 426 NHP, 11.5 knots by D. Rowan & Co. of Glasgow.Launched on the 9th of March 1906, completed in the May 1906, Yard No 303.

“By the early twenties the importance of the carriage of Coolies diminished to be replaced by that of cargoes such as rice and gunnies, gunny is a fabric made from strong course jute fibre more commonly known as sacking, however the company still maintained a return voyage facility for those, by now indentured labour, to return home on leave. The company’s Managing Director, Mr C. A. Hampton died in the November of 1922 and was succeeded by Mr C. Hampton. As with all shipping companies the twenties proved to be something of a retrenching period and it wasn’t until 1928 that Nourse Line commenced to replace its somewhat aging fleet. Three ships were completed between 1928/30, Saugor, Jumna and yet another Ganges”

* Walker, utilizing US census data for 1860, compared Massachusetts, which was heavily reliant on ‘cheap labor’ imported at that time from Canada and Europe, with South Carolina, which was heavily reliant on chattel slaves.

http://www.merchantnavyofficers.com/nourse.html


409

Posted by Alex on Tue, 11 Dec 2007 20:16 | #

Nowadays the ‘coolies’ or slaves, often aka ‘immigrants’,  preyed upon and ‘imported’ from devastated portions of Europe, Africa, South and Central America, and or Asia, and where due to their bordering in utter destitution, the crumbs they are paid seems like a lot to them, often now are brought in by jet, and not simply by boat as in yester-year.

To give a person an idea of the numbers, according to the BBC, at the heighth of the Trans-Atlantic [Chattel] Slave Trade in the late 18th and early 19th centuries, 50,000 persons were transported a year.    Much against the British peoples will,  in the year 2006, twelve times that number, ie 600,000, were ‘imported’ into the UK as ‘cheap laborers’.    Similarly in the US, three million ‘cheap laborers’ in the year 2004 alone were ‘imported’ via of a purposely more or less opened border, that is sixty times the numbers transported at the heighth of the chattel slave trade.    The US ‘imports’ more ‘cheap laborers’ than any other country on the face of the Earth, and as with just about everywhere else, this exploitation is much agains the wishes of the vast majority of the people living within the country.

For those who not be aware, the rot that is at the core of the ideology of multi-culturalism…

...the rise of the modern industrial system made wage slavery a more efficient agent of production than chattel slavery. From the 1907 foreward to the book ‘The War-Time Journal of a Georgia Girl’ published in 1908

The War-Time Journal of a Georgia Girl, 1864-1865


410

Posted by Yuezhus on Wed, 12 Dec 2007 12:07 | #

J Richards…from now on known only as Kemp Defender, or KD, for as long as you defend him:

I’m sorry, but you don’t consider Arthur Kemp’s writings, more specifically ‘March of the Titans’ (and I cringe here) to be fraudulent, unhistorical and foolish. This means that despite you having intelligence, shown by your grasp of anthropology, genetics and web coding, you are being a buffoon.

The ancient Greeks were overwhelmingly dark haired and dark eyed. Yes, this applies to the aristocratic class as well, and the fundamentalist attitude of the ancient Greeks towards the aristocracy, endogamy and citizenship is an overblown yet cunning invention on the part of Nordicists, a group you are part of. You attempt an escape from this label by using one definition of ‘Nordicist’: a person who wants Nordics to take over other countries or do some ethnic cleansing. But ‘Nordicist’ can also mean someone who ascribes to Nordic Theory, which you do, even if they respect other people’s sovereignty. Yes, I know you don’t think Nordics created or took over EVERY civilization, but you still think that they took over far more civilizations than they actually did.

Arthur Kemp, however, enthusiastically announces Nordics as the creator of EVERY civilization ever, even the Olmec one!! But of course he is much more honest than that horrid Med, Dienekes, who obviously deserves to be ‘infuriated’ purely by being non-Nordic. When you perform your role as Kemp Defender by giving the impression that Kemp is trustworthy and scholarly, people will automatically think you agree with his views, and by extension, think you a massive Nordicist.

I actually agree that modern Greeks are substantially different from the ancients, partly thanks to the Byzantine and Ottoman Empires, but that doesn’t mean I think they were Nordic. Dienekes is in error if he assumes complete continuity, but he isn’t distorting facts when says the Hellenes often thought of themselves as substantially darker in physical appearance from the blue eyed, pale, light haired Thracians, Dacians, Scythians and Celts.  Their head God, Zeus, in fact, had black hair and dark eyes.

I am aware that the noses of Greek sculpture were often aquiline and well formed. What you need to take into account is how commonly these sculptures were painted with black hair and brown eyes, and that these noses appeared in late Archaic/early Classical sculpture, before individual portraiture became prevalent. A more plausible interpretation would be that the Greeks liked to portray their Gods as having beautiful faces with well formed noses, which are actually easier to sculpt. They may have looked at the better looking among them for inspiration.

Your poor examples of blondism in Greece are extremely misleading, because they are very uncommon. Not only that, but Maenads, the elderly, and Trojans aren’t representative of the average ancient Greek. If you would be so kind as to actually read what Dienekes has to say, you would see that Kemp had cut out two black haired Greek soldiers standing among a subdued blonde-haired Trojan. How can you defend this?

There’s more to say on the matter, like how the ‘Keltic Iron Age type’ is commonly dark haired and swarthy, and may represent the ancient Greeks rather than stereotypical Nordic Scandinavians and fits well within Angels Nordic Iranian D1-D3 parameters, and that phenotypical differentiation between rich and poor Athenian citizens was a clever invention by Nordicists, but that’s for another day.

I would like you to look closely at this Roman painting of Ares and Aphrodite, which may be a copy of a Greek painting from the late Hellenistic age.

Would you equate these people with Scandinavians?

I am a 19 year old English guy, just as you say you’re genetically English living in America. This doesn’t mean I should rely on fiction to solidify my and my extended family’s survival. Why do you do this? It’s not on.

‘Nordic Desert Empire’. Yeah.


411

Posted by braveblondegirl on Wed, 19 Dec 2007 00:56 | #

can someone answer this question. i have noticed on this board that there is alot of blame put on the white females who choose to marry outside their race.

but this is a two way street, which white men were the first to travel down!!!

white slave owners had sex or rather raped the black female slaves producing some of the very first biracial offspring!

and I currently dont know one white man who would pass up the opportunity to date/have sex with an asian chick!

Infact I would go so far to say that alot of the white guys I know would rather have sex with an average asian chick, then even a very beautiful white chick.

I also know alot of white guys who have claim to have a certain type of “fever” which biologically compels them, you know what they say.

so please dont think that A. white women have not noticed this trend or
                        B. this does not affect a white womans choice/thots on mates

God, it makes perfect sense. If the men in clan are seeking mates outside of the clan, then who will the women choose for mates? Are the white women going to simply hang around and take the “leftovers” that the hot asian, biracial, or indian chicks did not want???

or are they going to sacrifice something inorder to get a worthy mate who is albeit outside their race, and maybe not the first choice, but a good choice all the same, if he is sucessful.

I think most women would sacrifice race, inorder to get a good mate. Especially when all the guys she would have chosen from her own race are already banging hot asian chicks or persian chicks or biracial or whatever!

it makes me laugh that these white guys are sitting around yak-yak-yaking about a racial “mixing” problem, when they are the same types who started this trend…HELLO??

call me an uneducated fool but this is something I am observing as I get more into the dating world.

many guys dont even like blondes (*i should know, I am a blonde!) because they feel they are washed out looking. Most models are not blonde anymore, most actresses are mixed, this is just the trend, and there is no one out there who can stop this speeding train. I have also noticed that there is alot of pressure to tan, until you are quite dark, and there is also a trend towards thicker lips.

Come on! Am I the only one brave enough to say it like it is?????????


412

Posted by braveblondegirl on Wed, 19 Dec 2007 01:06 | #

two other things, people, then I am done.

I dont remember the last time a blonde haired blue eyed guy asked me out.


actually I think I was 16 years old!


and the last 2 guys to ask me out were not white. so I think that just as white guys
prefer to be with girls of other races. i think that guys of other races are attracted to
white girls, especially blondes. And im not just talking about the black/blonde phenomena there is alot of arab interest in blonde girls too.

and I also wanted you to see the other side of the story

there is a website   http://www.bitterasianmen.com

which is ALL ABOUT the fact that they (the aisan guys) believe that the white guys are taking most of the asian chicks!!!!

Its a phenomena! lol..but makes me sad because I probably wont be having little blonde babies at this rate. :(


413

Posted by Maguire on Wed, 19 Dec 2007 10:15 | #

Alex,

“To give a person an idea of the numbers”

There was another vast humanoid traffic underway at the same time.  This was the mass transport of Eastern European Khazar Jews to North America.  Hillaire Belloc once described this movement as a ‘well disciplined invasion”.

The shipping line in this case was the “Hamburg-American Line”.  This line came to be owned by Jew Albert Ballin.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albert_Ballin

The scale of this operation is illustrated by the fact that forty-two (42) Hamburg-American passenger liners and passenger-cargo liners were trapped in New York Harbor on the outbreak of World War I.

Ballin was one of Kaiser Willy’s good Jew buddies, along with his Jew prime minister Bethmann-Hollweg.

Life long Zionist and alcoholic Winston S. Churchill once gave a sanitized account of pre-war proceedings in “The World Crisis: Volume I”.  One of Churchill’s Jew pay masters, Ernest Cassel, went to Germany to meet with Jew Ballin and Jew Bethmann Hollweg to discuss limiting the dreadnaught battleship naval arms race.  They ‘failed’ and the rest, as they say, is ‘history’.

Maguire


414

Posted by GT on Wed, 19 Dec 2007 14:42 | #

Silly blondechick,

…but this is a two way street, which white men were the first to travel down!!!  white slave owners had sex or rather raped the black female slaves producing some of the very first biracial offspring!

The comparison is apples to oranges. What Marxist professors “forgot” to tell you is that slavery was profitable, but only to the extent that a large part of the profit was in the increased value of the slaves themselves.  This was important in an agrarian society lacking indoor plumbing and subject to the whims of Mother Nature.  On a typical plantation of more than 20 slaves the capital value of the slaves was greater than the capital value of the land and farm implements.  That is why in 1860 the South and middle states had 60% of the wealthiest men.  A subset of less wealthy slave-owners screwed willing slave women (for whom the reward was enhanced status) simply because the production of biracial offspring was an easy way to increase the slave-owner’s wealth – a motivation little different from that of a contractor hiring cheap Mestizo labor to increase personal wealth in today’s judeoconomy.  From the standpoint of economics, the motivation of yesterday’s slave-owner was rational.

Today’s “have-it-all” white woman’s motivation is economically irrational.  She doesn’t screw niggers to increase personal wealth.  She does it because 1) it’s encouraged by social manipulators from whom she is immediately awarded “social” recognition which appeals to her exhibitionist tendencies and need to acquire cheap, unearned status, and 2) neutered White males allow it.


415

Posted by Alex on Wed, 19 Dec 2007 17:41 | #

Funny that you’d describe that at this time Maguire.  I ran across this only recently in a book published in 1853.

The idea for some time entertained of purchasing Judea, and making Rothschild a Jewish national king, was one of those fantastic confusions of form and substance which could obtain but a very slight hold upon so rational a people…It is confidently asserted that the Jews contrive to get themselves smuggled out of the Russian Empire, for the purpose of emigrating to the American world.


416

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Wed, 19 Dec 2007 18:39 | #

As James Bowery has said, the way to answer the question posed in the entry’s title is to compare the rates which prostitutes of mixed race and of Negro race are able to command with what Euro-race prostitutes get.  Comparing fashion models won’t work because that reflects homo taste in women, not man taste in women.


417

Posted by TmG on Wed, 19 Dec 2007 19:05 | #

Race mixing definitely improves the attractiveness of the offspring of blacks that miscegenate with whites….it improves their intelligence too! It’s no mystery why the black race wants to integrate with whites. Why whites willfully integrate and miscegenate with blacks is the real mystery!


418

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Wed, 19 Dec 2007 19:33 | #

Braveblondgirl, if you’re pretty you should have no problem landing a good-quality, dependable, faithful European-race man for a husband.  If you’re pretty you need only circulate intelligently in society to accomplish it:  if you’re careful to ignore everything women’s lib (women’s lib is what I call “feminism”; I have my reasons), your college teachers, and Cosmo have told you you’ll have them tripping over you, stammering, and eating out of your hand.  Your father, brothers, and grandmothers are the ones to listen to for all advice and tips on the matter.  Listen to them.  Not your mother, sisters, girlfriends, or any females on the planet other than your grandmothers (in very rare instances an aunt will serve, but WATCH OUT).  And never sacrifice your girlhood ideals unless you want a scumbag for a mate.  But they have to be womanly ideals, not the women’s lib variety, otherwise discard them immediately or you’ll end up with a complete asshole.  If you’re plain the same holds in most cases:  you need only learn to apply make-up to your best advantage and you’ll look almost as beautiful as the pretty girls (you should see what plain janes 99% of these Hollywood movie stars are without make-up), keep your figure nice of course and learn how to dress to flatter it if you don’t already know, and be on your guard against women’s lib influences creeping into your personality, especially your comportment around men.  If you want to utterly kill all your chances with the best kind of men, adopt women’s lib for your personal style and attitude:  it’s a guaranteed spinstermaker or will leave you, at best, an unwed mom for life.  I don’t think you want that.

All in all, there’s no reason you should feel compelled to marry a non-white man or give up your dream of having little blond European children.  If you’re plain, the European man you want may not just drop automatically into your lap but with a little work you can still make him fall into it. 

(By the way, the “dumb blonde” jokes aimed at white women were first launched by U.S. Jews out of a combination of 1) ethnoracial jealousy and 2) the lecherous hope that a self-fulfilling prophecy mechanism might disarm the blonde white women they most covet for sex through undermining their self-confidence, making them easier prey.  Disregard “blonde jokes” completely:  they’re not the invention of men who wish you or your race well.  And of course they’re a lie.)


419

Posted by TmG on Wed, 19 Dec 2007 19:56 | #

“Infact I would go so far to say that alot of the white guys I know would rather have sex with an average asian chick, then even a very beautiful white chick.”

Then they’re sick bastards. Asian chicks, meaning: (Orientals, Chinese, Japs, etc.), are nothing more than slightly higher evolved Negroes compared to the superior White race.


420

Posted by ben tillman on Wed, 19 Dec 2007 20:56 | #

Easy on the blonde chick.  She’s right about some of what she says, and education rather than ridicule is the appropriate response for the rest.


421

Posted by Guessedworker on Wed, 19 Dec 2007 21:36 | #

TmG,

You are right about the white guys preferring East Asian females.  As the rest, read J Richard’s post carefully - and learn, please, to express yourself without such unwelcome violence if you wish to post here.


422

Posted by braveblondegirl...is back with alot to say :) on Thu, 20 Dec 2007 03:11 | #

GT…

in my book, screwing (whether by rape or willing ) the slave women to produce biracial children *who were half of the plantation owners as well as half of the slaves* , then him selling or trading or farming out his own kids!!! is much much worse than out right rape due to lust. I mean come on!! Slavery was bad enough, to sell another race, but now they sold thier own kids!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I guess money was God back then, just like it is these days.

I have always heard that they the slave owners took out their extra lust on the slave women because their white wifes were 1. more conservative 2. scared of sex because you could die in childbirth and there was no form of contraception back then.0

This is what I was taught, doesnt mean its true.

And by the way just because someone believes in “racial purity” doesnt mean they think slavery was cool, or that people of other races are inferior or that people of different races should not be friends. I think having friends of different races makes you more well rounded. Doesnt mean I believe in marrying outside your race. I mean I would like to marry a white guy, this does not mean I am a neo-nazi!!!!!!!!!!!!

If some of you guys are worried about me scaring off good white men because of feminist theories,(which I dont care either way about)  then Ill bet some of you guys scare off a bushel load of lovely white girls when you go shoot off about how the white race is superiour and other races are inferior. MY GOD! You know these days even saying that race mixing is bad will get you in trouble, so why would you even go there. You know I can bet that most normal beautiful white girls would like to have a whiteguy of pure blood. But do you think that we are gonna be cool with a guy who brags to us about his purity. Please. we have eyes we know if you are white or no. Telling a girl that you are of pure white blood will convince her of two things. 1. you are pure white alright. 2. you are so stuck on it you are psycho.

some things are better left unsaid, usually because they are obvious!


For Fred Scooby,

I am attractive on the “white” scale of things. That is one of the reasons i was reading this blog. Just trying to understand what is going on in the dating scene these days. Its been tipped on its head.

Now I dont care if I am attractive to other races, and I dont give much thought to whether or not other races are attractive. WHO CARES?  But what is bothering me is that so many white guys, dont want white girls :’(

why??why why why? I dont want to be wanted by all the races, I dont want to win miss global universe, just miss (insert what ever state I am in)


all of my life. and i mean ALL OF MY LIFE, the only women I have been jealous of where the absolute gorgeous white girls. So I grew up wanting to be one, and I have definately mastered makeup/clothes/perfume. I LOVE the way I look. In my home town I can stop traffic! But I moved to a big city. And its not that there are so many other white girls more beautiful than me (there are hardly any! there were more in my small hometown) its that there are so many different racial selections for the men to choose from, and the white boys arent choosing me :’( I mean, some white guys are. But I do have high standards.

One guy that I absolutely thot was so hot was this guy that looked like Guy Peirce, and had the most sky blue eyes was talking to me, and he was half way through med school, OK husband material!!!! He was buying me drinks and we were flirting. Then my friend who is biracial, half black, half white comes up. She also has fake boobies and mine are 100 percent real. She comes up, and of course notices how gorgeous he is and starts blathering to him. Then before I know what is happening she is rubbing on him and he is BUYING DRINKS FOR HER. (I get so choked up just telling this story.)
If we were face to face I would be in tears, just so you people know how this affected me. Anyway she went home with him THAT NIGHT. Then of course he never called her dumb ass back ahhahahaha! But still. I had NOOOOOOOO plans of going home with him that night. I had “plans” in my head of having a relationship with him. I know us girls get ahead of ourselves but he seemed really interested in me, and was asking me if I had been to this restaurant or that one and was saying that we should go out, and it was going fine. Boy meets girl. until SHE showed up!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

yuck. I dont blame her. she was jealous I think. and honestly ITS NOT her fault. Its HIS FAULT. that was last year. I have not seen a man since then that made my heart beet as fast :(

Every guy that hits on me, ends up being hit on by her eventually. Its like the litmus test. I know that they are “really” into me if they DONT sleep with her.

and yes, people have told me to stop going out with such a gorgeous black girl, but I wont stop, because its the mens fault. If they sleep with her now, its better that I know because if I got marreid to them they would just sleep with a black chick later. Im not stupid. She is my litmus test.

This guy basically humiliated me. But he humiliated me “racially” does that make any sense?

Its not like I was with my one friend who is also a hot blonde, with long hair, blue eyes etc. and he picked her. Then I would have hated HER not him, hahahahahahaha!


Since then I have been tanning and I got restylane put in my lips. It gave me a bad complex that I cant admit to anyone, except here on this board. I was so popular back in my hometown. But I want a successful well travelled white guy. Not a guy sitting on a tractor (no offense if you own a tractor) that is why I wont move back home like my mom wants me to.

Anyway its not just me. Its really not. I know Im on a tangent, Ill get off in amoment. My one friend, above mentioned other hot blonde with long hair and blue eyes. SHe got “racially” humiliated (its funny cause the people humiliating us racially are in our own race!_) and she got it ALOT worse than I did. I dont think that she will ever get her confidence and sanity back.

She was with a guy for a long long time, like a few years and they were not living together but it looked like marriage. He even went to her dads house and asked for her hand. Her dad told him that he could have her hand but first he had to be a little more responsible (was from a rich family and did not like to work) he was nice about it and he took it in stride. he wanted to prove himself worthy.

Sounds standard right?

So his parents are multimillionaires and they did it through owning and selling farming estates and some developing and they also own racehorses. So he goes to take these classes to qualify himself to do this and that and get some liscnes to do what his parents do. He wanted to get into the developer part of the business.

So he takes the classes, and my girl friend goes and sees him, brings him some lunch because the classes are long. And he acts all wierd and crazy like he doesnt want her there comming to the classes.

Then time goes buy and he is still taking more classes and my friend notices that he is acting wierd. REALLY wierd. WIERD SEXUALLY.  I dont want to even get into it. Basically he started prefering to masterbate rather than have her do anything to touch him. I mean anything.

Then she looked in his phone and he was texting someone, a female. HER NAME WAS FATIMA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! OKEY DOKAY! SO she is of course balling her eyes out. SO I have been her best friend for a long time, and we came to this city together, and no one is gonna dothis to her OK!!! But I still did not believe it. I told her it must be a teacher from the classes. Because there was no sexuality in the messages, just very bizarre. So then we decided to follow him to the classes, we took my car because he doesnt know what it looks like (and yes I know stalking is illegal!!;P if you got a problem with what I did then feel free to NOT READ ON….)

We went there and waited so many hours for the classes to be done. then we saw him outside with a woman with long BLACK hair and dark skin. We just knew it was the FATIMAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!


so then we waited, they separated and he got in his car. we also went home. Of course he comes to our place (we are roomates) and tries to act all nicey nice with my friend. She is shaken to the core, but as we did not know anything for sure yet I told her to just keep cool until we got to the bottom of this. I still was hoping that it was just a teacher or something. He has NEVER cheated on her and has always been “at her feet” so we decided to give the guy the benefit of the doubt. Besides he said he wanted to marry her and he had the balls to tell her mom and dad!

So then when he left we came up with a plan, to find out who she was. So she decided to distract him on one of the days that he had a class. It wasnt hard because it was his birthday soon and he likes to jet ski so she rented jetskis for an early birthday, surprized him and told him ‘baby its too beautiful a day to be indoors! and he fell for it of course”

So then I went in undercover, to the classes, they were big enough so nobody noticed me, and I sat right next to “THE FATIMA” she was all decked out in a persian outfit, looking like a slut and I wanted to say “yo, where is ur burka?” but instead I said ” hi I missed a couple of classes, can I copy your notes please?” So I sat there and “educated” myself on this woman, for the sake of my BEST friend.

Yes, she was “the Fatima” (did anybody doubt it at this point?) she was from Lebanon. She was a muslim. appearently a not too conservative one.

So she warmed up to me, as I told her WOW Lebanon, so exotic and far away, you must miss your family bla bla bla blba blalblalalla.

So then the class broke and we decided to have lunch in the cafeteria. I mean I had to eat some where might as well eat next to the muslim girl I am so stealthily stalking smile

I was getting really angry and anxious though and it was hard to hide, I wanted to call my firend, and give her the update. but I really did not have any solid evidence yet.

So I blathered on with Fatima and found out that her family is in the Air conditioning business (I knew she was a rich bitch to be taking this class) and it was funny to me that they were in this particular business..because well, they live in the desert, and its just funny. I guess that is how people in the desert get rich right? start an A/C business.

So I finally dropped the bomb and asked her ” So which guy do you think is cutest in this class?”

and she said “oh, well the cutest one isnt hear today!!!!!”

and I said “really….”

and she said, “yea but I will see him tonight! as he has asked me out, I hope he isnt sick today and cancels”

and I said “oh, and what is this boys name?”

and that is when she said the inevitable.

I excused myself to the bathroom then, and called my friend, and the rest is history….

My friend has of course since the break up attempted to cut her wrists, stopped washing her hair for about a month and “dated’”  or as I like to say threw herself at a black guy but other than that she is totally mentally sound.

Her boyfriend would be husband went on to date Fatima, the muslim girl with no burka and no shame, but his parents still phone my friend in a last ditch desperate act to get them back together. But its never gonna happen.

Oh and I asked my friend, why, how, why?? what reason did he ever give??

His reasons in order of appearence:

1. she is the sexiest girl ever to live on earth
2. she is exoticd
3. she can bellydance
4. she speaks 3 languages
5. she has naturally tanned skin

well my friend and i used to think we were the sexiest girls around, and hold us up to MOST white women and we ARE!!! But appearently against the arabs we dont stand a chance.  My friend isnt exotic but she is graceful and feminine. My friend doesnt bellydance but she used to do ballet which is more than most women can say. My friend cant speak 3 languages but she can read and write perfect english which is better than Fatima but too boring for white men appearently. and no she doesnt have naturally tanned skin.

Neither of us do, but you can bet we are tanning the hell out of our bodies now.

 


this guy she was with was white by the way, incase if any one thot other wise

 

I hope you guys think over my posts and tell me what is going on. Telling me that the white guys are sick bastards and that the oreitnals are underdevelped is fine and makes me feel good for about 2 minutes, then the sadness kicks back in, and I realize
that no one on this forum has answered my ORIGINAL question.

by the way. this forum does make me feel better about my thin nasel passaged nonflattened nose, small chin, and non-moon=face-face. so thanks for that, maybe thats what I came here for anyway.

I have thin nostrils YEAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA

now…if only a white guy would think that was attractive :(


423

Posted by braveblondegirl on Thu, 20 Dec 2007 04:10 | #

oh and by the way I have noticed that alot of you hear are phd and pedigreed and that you know your biology and genetics

and I am sure that I appear too “silly” or too young or too” BLONDEEEEEEEE???”

but my questions are real and legitimate, my expeirences and those of my friends are as real as they come, as painful as they come, and as bewildering as they come.


I call myself Brave Blonde GIRL because I believe that I stand for ALOT of other not so brave blonde girls who have the same questions as I do but are either not bold enough to post on a forum like this to guys that they percieve as neonazi or have not had the luck to find a forum like this.


Oh, and by the way, I am not so bold, I am just very very scared and confused. I am so scared infact that it has made me turn a corner and become bold. I am scared that the man I was intended by God to be with is busy doing a

1. asian chick
2. biracial chick or black
3. arab chick named FATIMA
4. anybody but me!!!!!

and by the way, If you met me in person, you would be floored as to how “not prejudiced” I am. I have friends from all over. I dont hate anybody. Not even arabs.

I just want one successful, hot and kindhearted white guy to call my own. Maybe my standards are too high,, and that would be fine, if all the hot sucessful white guys were being taken by other white girls who were hotter than myself. I would only have the mirror to deal with, but I think we all know that THAT IS NOT THE CASE.

I just want to know what is going on.


The dating scene has been tipped on its head by WHITE MEN WHO HAVE A PREFERENCE FOR ANYTHING EXCEPT WHITE!!!!!!!\

and there are Alot OF white women out there who would like some REAL ANSWERS.


and alot of them are reading this forum right now…they just arent posting..


so you can go ahead and call me silly and tell me that as soon as I learn how to do my make up or stop being a feminist (which I aint) I will surely get the white man and blonde babies of my dreams

and the rest of you keep blathering about how underdeveloped other races are…

(really ???so underdeveloped that white men fall all over themselves by the thousands…geez…I wish I was underdevelped!!!)

and those of you not included in the first two groups go hack at it with a scientific method and see if you have a genetic solution for me by the year 2050

cuase by then I will be too old to reproduce, and therefore irrelevant in the great scheme of things!


I am not the only white girl trolling this forum, and I am certainly NOT the only one wondering these same things..I am just the one who is BRAVE enough.


so go head guys..call me silly…..brush me off! ......I DARE YOU!!


just be careful you dont brush off your “would be” future white wife who happens to be following my very interesting posts and waiting for an answer, careful you dont brush her right into the arms of “underdeveloped”...............


424

Posted by braveblondegirl on Thu, 20 Dec 2007 05:06 | #

sorry, got a little angry.

Just want a real answer.

I was angry because this is not the only forum where i have posted my

“what is the attraction between white guys and asian/biracial/black/arab girls”

question.

and the forum I posted on is um, well, not so, um, “white race purity centered”

just a plain ol’ dating forum.

the reasons the white (well, assuming they are white, they could be posing) guys said they prefer (overwhelmingly asians and somewhat black biracals, though one guy said that he liked blonde girls especially brave ones raspberry (but he could have been a black dude or an arab, hahahaha!)

1. the asians are “hotter”
2. the asians are smaller bodied, petite
3. the asians have a more submissive demeanor
4. the asians are born with out body hair
5. better skin, eyes other features.

6. the black or biracial girls have bigger more sensual lips
7. the black girls have a more sexual body and more sexual outlook on life
8. the biracials in particular have a tanned look, not black and not white

people have also said that white girls are washed out :(  waht does this mean?

I guess i took it too mean that the color has been washed out.

I dont know how else to take it.

nobody yet has told me why arab girls are prefered but I feel like I already know the
freakin answer to this one, the bellydances, and the bilinqual abilities, and the tanned skin etc etc.

You know I have so many of above mentioned traits, its not funny. I am petite, I have great skin, I was not born with out body hair but my mom and me have spent alot of my dads money getting all of our body hair lasered off..hahahahhaha. I dont have a natural tan, but I sure have a fake one. I have a very sexy figure and THAT part of me is natural!!!!!  I dont have naturally thick lips but I have plumped them up with restylane!!!!

and yet…a hot sucessful white guy would still most likely choose, an asian chick.

most white guys would choose me though. But the ones I want, the guys who really have their pick would pick the asian chick.  Please dont get me wrong. I am not being bitter. If it was another white girl, I would just consider myself “not hot enough” but its like they are choosing a whole different catagory.

but its ok. I think that white men all though out history would have chosen (predominantly) the asian catagory. Its just that civilization did not allow them the option. Now, things have shifted and their true desires are being seen.

WHAT? am I crazy, am I the only one who sees this? White guys who have their pick predominately pick “others”

there is only one conclusion here :(

that racial mixing DOES make a better beauty.

PLEASE TELL ME THAT I AM WRONG!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

please tell me this, please. tell me why?????????????


425

Posted by sunshine on Thu, 20 Dec 2007 10:06 | #

Will you believe or not. today I brought the Indian movie, one of my chinese maid saw the cover of movie and say to me ” the Indian woman is extreamly beautiful as goddess, but why their men are so ugly, awhile the european men are so handsome but their women are so ugly???”  I believe the blond actresses like applegates, Diane Grugers, are beautiful and look like a doll?  but I can not deny it so difficult for me really to see the beauty blond one on the street.  the most are over weight, sack chests, very big nose, freakles and when walked pass they are smell dirty. I can answer why many of caucasian guys like asian girls such as chinese, japanese, Indian or even the middle east like lebaniese. I do not mean to distrub the white nationality websit but I can tell you the fact of this.  all asian are genius, especially about the inner beauty.
I watched many of asian flim like arab, Indian, japanese, thai, korean etc. and I seen alot of many asian women. will you believe or not such as the japanese women. they are very genius in art and how they dress up themselve, make up, how they talk, how they lay thei eyes. ( I do not mean they try to alluring people by make the fake character up like alot of blond women whom wanted to be sexy like britney spears or geri halliwell but at least they could be only make a fun or look ugly like the prostitute)

The japanese girls know how to make up their small eyes, small nose to look more lovier like a dolls, they know how to decorate their dress. they could make themselve look pretty in the way mixturing between intelligent woman and innocent of a child.


About the Indian women. now I turned to be Indian movie fan. it more than I can explain with the words how genious they can print the beautiful of the dream out into the flim. try look for movie name ” Bhool bhoolaiyaa, swariyaa, Devdas” the most beauty women of the world,  are in those movies.


About the Arab women like the lebaniese. in my thinking they are look like sounthern european women but have beautiful ivory-white skin like japanese. and their character is neast and bright. let see on the links of this lebaniese singer below.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a9sckJcl1Es&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U8r7YoDgft0


426

Posted by sunshine on Thu, 20 Dec 2007 10:21 | #

And I believe. if the white girl change their character, their thinking and how they cloth to be like asian girls. the white girls’d look completely beautiful! because the white girls already have gracil face, big rounded eyes and beautiful swoll color hair.


427

Posted by TmG on Thu, 20 Dec 2007 10:58 | #

GW said:

“TmG, You are right about the white guys preferring East Asian females.”

I never said that; that statement was made by braveblondegirl. I was just responding to it.

braveblondgirl said: “Infact I would go so far to say that alot of the white guys I know would rather have sex with an average asian chick, then even a very beautiful white chick.”
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

GW said: “As the rest, read J Richard’s post carefully - and learn, please, to express yourself without such unwelcome violence if you wish to post here.”

I admit my language was crude; but I can assure you, no violence was intended. My sincere apologies for straying outside the bounds of civil discussion.

BTW—the language I used that was demeaning of Orientals, is tame compared to what “sunshine” has to say about blond-haired Euro women.

But I still stand by my statement that White guys that prefer Asian women are ‘unhealthy deviants’. They are contributing to their own genocide. Blonds are rapidly disappearing from the planet.

http://strangemaps.wordpress.com/2007/12/04/214-the-blonde-map-of-europe/


428

Posted by GT on Thu, 20 Dec 2007 12:21 | #

Silly blondegirl writes - in my book, screwing (whether by rape or willing ) the slave women to produce biracial children *who were half of the plantation owners as well as half of the slaves* , then him selling or trading or farming out his own kids!!!

Then by your own admission the female slaves were at least as guilty as that handful of degenerate slave-owners, for not only did they willingly participate in the screwing, but carried and birthed the biracial offspring to achieve enhanced status and privileges – as women everywhere have always done.

Slavery was bad enough, to sell another race, but now they sold thier own kids!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I guess money was God back then, just like it is these days.

Putting aside the fact that African slaves were barely considered human, we should never forget the fact that they were purchased on the African coast from Africans.  Far worse than enslaving another race is selling/trading members of your own race to foreign devils with big ships, never to be seen again.

I have always heard that they the slave owners took out their extra lust on the slave women because their white wifes were 1. more conservative 2. scared of sex because you could die in childbirth and there was no form of contraception back then.0 This is what I was taught, doesnt mean its true.

Well of course you “heard” this because it makes White women look like prudish little prissy missies compared to all that sensuously luscious African boot-ay!

History is a wonderful antidote to Marxist sociology.  Try investigating it next time.


429

Posted by GT on Thu, 20 Dec 2007 12:39 | #

Silly blondegirl wrote - I guess money was God back then, just like it is these days.

Men labor for money and status.  Women spread their legs.


430

Posted by James Bowery on Thu, 20 Dec 2007 13:49 | #

*yawn*

Wake me up when someone shows evidence that sex slavers place a higher monetary value on mixed race females than northern European (including Russian) females.  Right now, the evidence out of the hub of international sex slavery, Israel, is overwhelmingly that northern European female phenotypes are most highly treasured.


431

Posted by James Bowery on Thu, 20 Dec 2007 13:55 | #

Oh, and braveblondegirl:

The main reason white men are attracted to North East Asian females is that white heterosexual men are at next to the bottom of the socio sexual pecking order here in the West, with only North East Asian men lower.  Secondarily there is a reasonable match in IQ.

Basically the monetization of white female fertility by the West in the form of “career women” (what I call “corporate concubines) is simply another form of sex slavery previously mentioned which evidences their sexual attractiveness.  Just witness how many are “downsized” out of jobs when they hit middle age, without so much as alimony.


432

Posted by bleh on Thu, 20 Dec 2007 14:32 | #

Assuming braveblondegirl’s highly improbable tale is true (can we get an IP check on her versus “sunshine”?), I recommend she stop shopping for a husband in bars or clubs. Try meeting someone through work, school, or friends, instead (and if your friends’ social circles consist solely of people they meet in bars, get new friends).

The overwhelming majority (95-99%) of white men date, marry, and have children with white women, as indicated by census data and natality statistics. If your experience suggests otherwise, you must be associating with very atypical people. Again: get new friends, or move.

The main reason white men are attracted to North East Asian females is that white heterosexual men are at next to the bottom of the socio sexual pecking order here in the West, with only North East Asian men lower.

This is nonsense.


433

Posted by sunshine on Thu, 20 Dec 2007 15:20 | #

To bleh

It’s stupid. I’m not the Brave blond girl.  and I will never do such a stupid thing like that.
I think you have to be more optimistic. I don’t mind you may think the other race are enemies. and you can not look at my ip because I using firefox. I read all this websit in every threads. but depending on I’ll answer only what I think I can answer. the other topic. such as jews, negroes what ever…........it’s not my bussiness to involve. even I know some the problem why the jews is truble to the white people now.

About the white men get far east asian girl. I don’t know? because I’m not far east asian. but I’m asian. my fiance is european. he married two times with european women in same country. and both of them cheated to him and now he got the childrens with the second x-wife. and have to take care of those childs because the doctor commited his wife is crazy. it’s not fair for him what he met. anyway I don’t have any attention to say bad to the white culture. otherwise if the asian women are not really good? I don’t think there won’t be a lot of western guys left their house and everything just only to have a life in asia. about me and my fiance. I’m not going to marry him for have a children or destroy his geans.  everything happened because I piti him and I want to help him from situation he has that’s all.  just like a friend to stay by his side when he has problem.


434

Posted by braveblondegirl on Fri, 21 Dec 2007 01:52 | #

excuse me, no offense meant to Sunshine…

but how can you possibly think that I am her???

English is clearly, CLEARLY my first (and only) language.

Have you read her posts??? No offense, but she is just not a native English speaker!

you can check my IP…just for the fun of it, but is my spelling and grammar really so bad
that you thought we were one in the same???

and we dont have the same points to be made either.


435

Posted by frederik on Fri, 21 Dec 2007 14:42 | #

NICE WOMEN SUNSHINE ALMOST LOOK LIKE DUTCH WOMEN (*v^)


436

Posted by TmG on Fri, 21 Dec 2007 18:54 | #

James Bowery said: “The main reason white men are attracted to North East Asian females is that white heterosexual men are at next to the bottom of the socio sexual pecking order here in the West, with only North East Asian men lower.”

James, you pencil-necked-geek! Haven’t you ever learned how to keep your women under control? LOL!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rxH39QlRuhg

GW, sorry if this post is too violent.


437

Posted by James Bowery on Fri, 21 Dec 2007 20:01 | #

TommyG, how would you like to have a “social worker” show up at your residence?  You are asking for it you know…


438

Posted by Tommy G on Fri, 21 Dec 2007 20:12 | #

“TommyG, how would you like to have a “social worker” show up at your residence?  You are asking for it you know…”

That sounds like a threat!

You ARE a vituperative, termagant, bitch, ain’t you!


439

Posted by James Bowery on Fri, 21 Dec 2007 20:41 | #

No I’m merely pointing out that the position of racialist white men is not one lending itself to going around joking about beating their wives.

Perhaps my warning is not relevant since, for all we know, you may not be a racialist white man.  You certainly come off as something else quite often and you identity really isn’t very well known.


440

Posted by Tommy G on Fri, 21 Dec 2007 21:20 | #

James,


I think Hitler was too nice to the Jews.


441

Posted by James Bowery on Fri, 21 Dec 2007 21:56 | #

Well you have certainly proven that you aren’t a Jew—unless of course you work for the Mossad, ADL, SPLC or are just one of many Jews who go around spay painting swastikas on synagogues.

Why not just come clean and open your identity up the way any ethical man who likes insulting other men should?


442

Posted by Tommy G on Sat, 22 Dec 2007 11:08 | #

Let me close out my posts here at MR by saying that when I said: “I think Hitler was too nice to the Jews,” I was being disingenuous; I said that outrageous statement to get a reaction, only.

The ironic truth is, the evedence led me to believe it’s mainly the elite white gentiles that are causing our dispossession.

I have no practical ideas on how to solve our problem, so I’ll leave it up to you smart guys to figure it out.

Good luck, and best wishes to all.

Merry Christmas and Happy New Year too!


443

Posted by braveblondegirl on Sun, 23 Dec 2007 03:17 | #

Bleh

you said “The overwhelming majority (95-99%) of white men date, marry, and have children with white women..

what I dont understand is that, if the above statement is true then why is there so much talk about “race replacement” and the white race dying out or being blended in to other races, and also there is the theory that blonde haired people will also disappear…forever.

either there is reason to be concerned or there is not!!!!!!! which is it?

i guess there is no way to really be certain about anything, is that what it is?

and no body really knows why or if,  white guys would rather be with non whites.

i guess I will just go hide my head in the sand like every body else.

and someone (was it you?) said that white guys are at the bottom of the social pecking order????

How is it possible, when white men (at least in the USA) have most of the money, run most of the corporations, and hold most of the political positions.

From how I see it. White men are at the VERY TOP of the social pecking order!!!

Let me tell you one thing. They certainly have their pick of the women in the dating scene. Any woman of any race would flip to date a relatively successful, average looking white guy. The white american husband is the one MOST sought after.

My girlfriend, the biracial (half w/bl) who screwed me over by constantly trying and sometimes succeeding in sleeping with the very same men who hit on me, has told me that she WONT date a black guy.

Ever…she said the one exception was if he was a professional football player or if he was famous. But other than that, SHE ONLY DATES white men. ONLY. and she is quite sucessful, at least at getting them in bed, and some into relatioships.

I asked her why? Why would she make a personal rule never to date a black guy. (which is her OWN DAMN RACE for God’s sake!!!)

answer : SHE WANTS A WHITE HUSBAND. and she has made up her mind.

this is her goal in life. It also seems to be the goal of every single woman I meet.


black women want a white husband…agreed???

biracal women want a white husband…am I wrong??

asian women want a white husband….and can usually get ONE!!!

in arabic, and south asian countries, the more “fair"a person is, the more
desireble and higher status they are, so I think its safe to say that
these women want a white husband too but most are socially restricted
from seducing one…but watch OUT! because when they are NOT socially
restricted, the white husband is the FIRST THING ON their shopping list.

and last but not least….

white women want a white husband. most of them really do.


but whether or not they get one seems to be the question of the hour.


444

Posted by braveblondegirl on Sun, 23 Dec 2007 03:47 | #

Sherrie Thompson, for instance, moved to the Bay Area from the Midwest, where Asians were few. But in the night clubs of San Francisco, she discovered that Asian women were numerous, attractive and in high demand. The 27-year-old organizational consultant was unprepared for - and not too proud of - her negative reaction.

“I have to admit I felt threatened,” she recalls. “Asians seem kind of like what a man would say “the ideal woman’ is - you know: small, thin, fragile, almost doll-like.” At five-foot-one and 110 pounds, Sherrie is no Amazon herself. But some men prefer Asians “because they seem more chic, exotic,” she says. “I know it’s my own insecurity talking, and that behind their appearance they’re probably smart, interesting women, with ideas, with opinions. But I just felt like most guys were into their appearance - and stereotypes about how they treat men.”

Sherrie isn’t alone. At the University of California campuses in Berkeley and Los Angeles, where Asian enrollments have climbed sharply in the last decade, the hottest interracial pairing is white men with Asian women - to the chagrin of some white women. Both white and Asian students at Berkeley told me about white guys signing up for Asian-language courses and joining the Asian Business Association, just to meet Asian women. “We call them eggs - white on the outside, yellow in the middle,” says Serene Ngin, a Berkeley student. (Asian women who date white men are sometimes dismissed as “twinkies,” yellow on the outside, white within.)

Their new popularity is a shock to a lot of Asian women. “Until I came to Berkeley, I never felt like white guys were interested in me. I felt like Asian women weren’t that attractive,” says Karen Co, 21, a Berkeley senior of Chinese descent, who is in fact strikingly beautiful. “When I got here and saw all the white guys with Asian girls, I couldn’t believe it. I would just stare at these couples walking through campus, holding hands.”

For white women, the surprise is similar and not entirely pleasant. Some talk of an “Asian-women fetish” that is spreading among white men, some of whom are quite open about preferring Asians. Researchers at UC-Berkeley’s Diversity Project found strong resentment of the trend among some white women, who “feel they’ve been displaced by Asians as the fantasy object of desire,” says sociologist David Minkus.

Of course, white women are disadvantaged by the defection of white men for Asian women - unless they’re willing to date Asian men in comparable numbers. And generally, they’re not.

“It’s Asian men who really get the short end of the stick,” admits Elizabeth Crandall, 20, a member of Berkeley’s Alpha Phi sorority. “Asian women are with white men, but white women don’t date Asians.” That’s not exactly news to Asian men at Berkeley. Doug Nishida, president of the predominantly Asian fraternity Lambda Phi Epsilon, pulled together a group of his friends to talk about the Asian women-white men phenomenon. Our conversation flashed back and forth between sociological theories and personal angst. Of the four, only Doug has a girlfriend right now, a trend they attribute at least partly to the preference of Asian women for white men.

“It’s a big deal,” says Doug, who is a 21-year-old integrative biology major from Monterey Park. “Whenever Asian men get together these days they talk about it, make jokes about it.” Dave Nakamura cuts in sharply: “I don’t think it’s funny.”


445

Posted by braveblondegirl on Sun, 23 Dec 2007 04:07 | #

read this article…this Asian girl wrote, she is actually SICK of white guys hitting on her.
...wish the white woman could say the same thing!!!!!!!!.

Asian Female Fetish Syndrome
Every other couple I pass in SoHo is a White male and Asian female combination. According to a not so recent but relevant Census Bureau statistic, Asian females are twice as likely to marry a White male than Asian males are to marry a White female. They are the “it” couple that receives more rants on Craigslists than any other interracially dating couple. And while I have nothing personally against it, there is something about this particular phenomenon that has driven me nuts.

  Everything would be fine and dandy for a few weeks, and then he’ll whisper in my ear, “I’ve always wondered how’d it be to f*** an Asian girl.”

Sandra Fay

I call it the “Asian Female Fetish Syndrome”. It is the desire for me or any other Asian woman simply because we are Asian. It is more commonly found in White men than other races.

Symptoms include:

  * The man who proudly gloats, “I’ve dated Asian women before.” (Now if only this were a job interview instead of a date—I’d be impressed.)
  * The man who professes his love for Chinese food when I mention I’m Chinese.
  * The man who attempts to speak Asian (That is—Chinese, Japanese, Korean, or a jumble of the three) to me.
  * The man who refers to me as Oriental—period. I pickup the word “oriental” like a radar detects missiles, especially when it is not used in reference to rugs and chinaware. It conjures an image of the china doll and me no love you long time (tee-hee).

I have no doubt that there are many happy white male and Asian female couples out there, including my sister and her boyfriend, who are very much in love. But for the majority of what I have experienced, it is quite a different story.

“Do you girls really have the tightest pussy?”

My jaw dropped to the floor when a man seriously asked me that question. It’s as if all engagements of proper behavior are thrown out the window. The form of this question varies, but it will always allude to the hypersexual and erotic imagery of me.

Sometimes, it’s a statement.

“You oriental girls are kinky.”

I grind my teeth underneath a fake smile as I walk away.

Unfortunately, these are the lines that are often used to hit on me. Sad to say, but these are also the lines that have made the walls slightly higher for guys to date me who are not of Asian decent.

Weeding out the men who have A.F.F.S. can be a tricky thing. Everything would be fine and dandy for a few weeks, and then he’ll whisper in my ear, “I’ve always wondered how’d it be to f*** an Asian girl.”

I need a stronger weed killer.

I never thought of myself as one who actually had racial preferences as I have dated outside the boundaries many times over but looking back at my dating history, I realize that all my serious relationships have been with Asian men. Coincidence? I think not.

A.F.F.S is non-existent when I’m dating them. I’m not saying an Asian guy will not have fetishes, but I would be rest assured he would not proclaim his love for Chinese food in the middle of dinner.

Frankly, it makes it that much easier not to deal with it. I don’t believe in making things more complicated then it has to be. This also goes for long distance relationships and smokers. It’s not that I would not deal with it—I’m just saying I wouldn’t go out of my way to do so. There’s a difference.

However, if I do marry the meatloaf-loving-former-boy-scout-who-can’t-jump, then so be it. Let me reiterate, stereotypes are not cool.


Sandra Fay is twenty something living and dating in New York City. To learn more about her visit her MyAsiance page at my.asiancemagazine.com/sandrafay


446

Posted by L on Sun, 23 Dec 2007 06:45 | #

Dear Brave Blonde Girl,

In two weeks or so I will post a comment here. It will take a little while to put together. I will try to give you a foundation to build upon so you will be able to answer many of your own questions.


447

Posted by sunshine on Sun, 23 Dec 2007 08:04 | #

I’m sorry to hear that the asian women in usa destroyed the white people. anyway
Sorry for my english language. ;o)  really in where I living, we are not often speak english language.  about the situation of those asian women in usa I disagree with them.  in my openion I totally believe the white women are prettier than chinese and japanese much. but about the sexual selection. you know people always like something they don’t have? example: my family have Iranian blood, my sister is quite tall woman. she’s tall 177 cm., big rounded eyes, white skin and reddish cheeks like russian woman. when european people seen her they agree she almost white skin as german woman. my sister married japanese man who shorter than her. and now she living in japan he tried a lot to make up her face look like japanese women. she dosen’t like her beautifull caucasian eyelids. she always put the white concealler above her eyelids to make her eyes look slant like far east asian women. on the contrary the maid in my house is the chinese girl from faraway remote of Burma- colonial. in her city she had never seen the cars or building. untill she moved to stay in my house. when she seen any women or men with big rounded eyes, high bridge nose, narrow face. whether dark skin or white. she finds them beautifull.

So it’s not strange the white men prefer far east asian women. they may like what they couldn’t find in their people. from my own feeling about white women. I find they are beautiful but they are not keen much. they prefer to make themselves look bad. if the white girls worn the dress and hair like Grace kelly or Jean Harrow? they’d look extremly great. but the white girls like to choose skinhead? punk cloths? hippy hair? that’s also what I curious in them. why they seem to like dress up themselve that way?? and I don’t think the male in any continants is much different? the males prefer females whom obey, silent, ordinary classic character more than the PUNK or GOTHIC one.

I ever visited japan one time. one thing attracted me is the japanese girls are interested in beauty much,  they never wear the sport sweather like the white women. their country is quite cold and the sweather there for women always well-made in the classic style just like a formal dress to go to ballroom party or work.
They are very brilliant in art and technology. my brother in law’s house have everythings connecting to computer even the bathtub.  just like in the science fiction movie.  go back about japanese women fashion you will never seen the sport sweather salling there in japan for woman. but there are various kind of classic sweathers.  some in victorian style with elizabeth’s sleeves, handmade style, vintage style etc.  their cosmetic brands are also not just a black package like western women cosmetics. after used you can collect the packages of the cosmetics as the collection for decorate your dressing table.

I feel japanese women in japan tried to be like western women in old century. the women like to buy a kind of special contract-lens for make the small eyes look bigger, they like to make a swoll blond hair or red hair, there are a shop like “babystar shine bright” sales vintage’s dresses. and really there are not small amouth of young women there worn such a dress and walk on the street.


448

Posted by silver on Wed, 26 Dec 2007 01:52 | #

Do these guys actually settle down with/marry these girls, though?

I can understand “trying out” girls of different races, like Asians, but to actually marry one?  I have never been able to understand how people do this.  What kind of home life can they possibly have that could compare to one where both partners and children are the same race?  I find it incomprehensible. 

I am a rather distinct southern European and would not even marry a northern European, let alone an Asian or an Indian.  I have considered northern Europeans, but at the end of the day, I don’t think it’s a good idea - -that was before I found this site, too.  Before I found this site I was much more circumspect in discussing race, but the points raised here have greatly affected me and I have come to see that it’s important to talk about these things in terms that most people find offensive. 

As to braveblondegirl’s questions, culture obviously plays an important role.  Even if you don’t directly buy into pop culture’s message yourself, sometimes peers can affect you.  I’ve mentioned on here that I’ve dated a mulatto girl.  I did find her attractive, and I knew she liked me, but it was mostly the urging of my friends that got me to go out with her.  Left to myself, I would have simply thought her “pretty good looking, but just not my type”—no, actually, what I was really thinking was “yeah, but she’s black”.  So why didn’t I just say that then?  The popular culture!  You’re simply not supposed to admit you don’t want other races for mates! 

The answer then is to stand up for yourself: proclaim that you only want a white man and defend your position.  For every zombified white guy that reacts with horror, I’m sure you’ll find at least one that feels inspired by your stance.


449

Posted by S.D on Wed, 26 Dec 2007 15:28 | #

Silver, you talked like a muslim don’t you? and I believe perhape you were spanish with the influence of Arabque decent? those are denied to get along with other race.
and I do not think it’s right for that mulatta girl, you said like you only used her as a toy and thrown her away? piti of her. love is love. no matter with any reason could make you change or denied her just only she is black? I think I know now why a lot of caucasian guys choose asian women. becaue they are smater enough to look across the HARSH social of their countries.  I told about this site to my dad, about the ideal of people on here that think blond hair is the most dominant? he said ” it’s not true, if the blond hair is really dominent. the NATURE won’t make it to be that difficult for us to have blond hair”


GIve people on here abit…......picture of beautifull blond haired woman to compare with the far east asian girls.  ( think you may know why your white guys like them that much)


 

Fat east asian woman.

 

 

 


 

 

 


 

 

 

 

 


 

 

 

 

 



450

Posted by S.D on Wed, 26 Dec 2007 16:10 | #

Blond women and Indian women

 

 

 

 


Indian woman, elegrant, beautifull, modest, princly.


451

Posted by bleh on Wed, 26 Dec 2007 21:37 | #

bbg,

“Race replacement” is an issue regardless of relatively low outbreeding/outmarriage rates by whites:

1) Even if there were no outmarriage by whites, current immigration trends mean whites will be reduced to a minority in the US sometime in this century. Do I need to tell you this outcome is undesireable?

2) More mixing will occur as the fraction of the population that is white declines. This is true even if whites on average strongly prefer white mates.

The “blondes will disappear in 200 years” story, as propagated by newspapers, was a hoax. Some researchers have made statements along those lines, but they are based on the assumption current trends in immigration and birth rates will continue and there will be random breeding among populations. There is nothing inevitable about such an outcome. Immigration can be ended, or even reversed, given the proper incentives.

I did not say “white guys are at the bottom of the social pecking order”; this was Bowery’s claim and I called it nonsense. However, heterosexual white males are under attack on numerous fronts (including by hostile, largely Jewish and/or gay elites in the entertainment media, advertising, and academia). This may be what Bowery was referring to.

No, not all women want a white husband. Data I’ve seen suggest most women in the US (except maybe Asian) would prefer a husband of their own race. Obviously exceptions exist, but these don’t disprove the general rule.

If guys are hitting on you first (rather than your biracial friend), what does that tell you? It certainly doesn’t suggest to me that they prefer your friend. But guys typically go to clubs looking for sex, not a wife. If your friend throws herself at men, then obviously some are going to take the sure thing rather hang around and play the (possibly poor, in their minds) odds with you. I’m not excusing their behavior, and I personally have never been particularly tempted even by black women who make their sexual availability to me very obvious, but it is what it is. Obsessing about it is not going to help you find a husband.

As for white men / Asian women, I see you didn’t include this section of one of the articles you quoted:

Mike Arnold describes himself as “maladroit” with women. He blames it on his father, a child abuser he likens to Hitler. Thanks to subtle sexual belittling - “I should write a WASP Portnoy’s Complaint,” he says - Mike didn’t date until college, and then only fitfully. Now, at 42, he dates only Asians, with chilling self-awareness about his motivations.

“I get some breaks from Asian women. Their standards are lower,” he says matter-of-factly. “It’s a Darwinistic world, dating-wise, and I have an inferiority complex with white women. Most of them have a big chip on their shoulders, and I don’t care how liberated they say they are, they’re not interested in someone who doesn’t make much money. I eventually realized that being white, I could make it with an Asian woman who’s more physically attractive than I am, just because she’s got a cultural inferiority complex.”

While I think that article is seriously lacking in journalistic merit (as is the screed by the Asian woman), anectdotally anyway white men who date Asian women do so because they are unsuccessful with white women. The other factor is that whites are now a minority in California, and probably an even smaller minority among twenty-somethings. Many whites will find themselves in settings where most of the available women are nonwhite (I think the UC system is something like 40% Asian now), and some will settle for Asian women. If you’re in California, now might be a good time to get out.


452

Posted by yeeyesss on Sat, 05 Jan 2008 21:13 | #

I tought sarah mohan is a middle eastern woman
when I see the pic
without make up she looks more arab
some indians already look like middle easterner so with white feature mixed in to it
sarah mohan looks more like an iraqi or palestinian
you have to be on dope to think she looks better than geraldine neumann
some people are pretenders
men prefer lighter skinned woman that is fact
even tiger woods choose pure european wife and always have blond girlfriends
not mixed thai african race like himself


453

Posted by dontgetit on Tue, 08 Jan 2008 23:25 | #

how are some people saying that other races are “underdeveloped” when they have been on the earth for as long as the white race? how is that possible? Maybe you are saying that they “look” underdeveloped” which is quite another thing, than saying that they are. Or maybe there is something I dont understand, but hasnt every race been in existence for the same amount of time as any other? am I not understanding evolution correctly?


454

Posted by Neo(as the one)-Darwinist-Fascist on Fri, 11 Jan 2008 15:14 | #

I just quote another REALIST guy as to show also my views.

I cant figure why i or anybody else should love their race. Mostly it is the family, neighbours and schoolmates/co-workers who gets me pissed off so why even bother loving them so much. Taking that as a fact JUST fucking look how much obese and materialistic white people are how much soulless and ignorant are the asians and just how uncivilized and stupid africans are.
Now my “race” or whatever you call it which i by the way do not consider to be a part of are among the most zealous and conservative than any other of these.

I am not mongoloid i am not negroid my features are caucasoid but im superior to many 99% of these losers in the planet IMO. And what makes me how i am is that i am not as easily manipulative as the author of this post were or the blondbravegirl is.

Surely everyone wants someone extremely attractive but i would rather have a bit less attractive but intelligent and supportive girl than a whore or an unreliable porn star.

To author of this page you are one hell of a deceiving loser, no different than propaganda:
The two girls in the bottom of the figure 7 both looked same to me at first sight but because of these stupid posts mongrels did, i now find the darker one more attractive(she is lighter than me but not by much). Fuck you people for not letting other people live peacefull lives. And poisoning my brain.


455

Posted by c on Sat, 19 Jan 2008 21:04 | #

Figure 5 and 7 the “white” women look like RABBITS(ugly tooth such as Naomi Watts)are you kidding me?it’s attractive to you?Well good for you….

Also Bar Rafeali who is jewish has small features whereas Uma Thurman(German/Swedish) has manly features as well as Giselle Bundchen(German heritage) or the late Princess Diana(British) your “study” is BS.


456

Posted by Darren on Wed, 13 Feb 2008 14:13 | #

The author of this article has got to be a complete idiot to post such an outrageous crap. I would fuck that half-Indian much before any of the White women he shows us: Indian girls can be pretty and as attractive as White women (though not all of them). You’d be mad to pass up a chance to fuck something like Saira Mohan.


457

Posted by LauraC on Sun, 23 Mar 2008 04:46 | #

Okay, seriously people, this website was clearly designed to broadcast racist propaganda, so there is no winning here! Clearly, the author and his supporters have internalized whiteness, and are trying to convince anyone who opposes their racist view points to do the same. Just because you claim your not racist, and don’t use any racist language (actually some of you do), doesn’t mean the ideas your conveying aren’t of white supremacy! This website is plain stupid (I would laugh if any of articles/research on here ever gets an REAL academic recognition!), and the best thing to do is to boycott it!

And the academic sources your citing…seriously, anyone can publish a journal! Are any of these studies recognized or have any valid academic merit besides between you white racists?

And to the blonde poster above me: Just because your having a difficult time meeting attractive white guys, it does NOT mean that all non-white chicks are after them! In fact, most people marry within their own ethnicities. And just b/c being fair is considered a ‘desired’ trait in some countries (thanks to stupid European colonialists in the 20th century), does not mean they all want white husband. It means that women who find ‘whitness’ desirable (which is NOT a majority of the population) want their ideal partner to be of the same ethnic background but with lighter skin! Seriously, how many biracial couples do you know? If you look at the overall statistics…its actually not very common at all!

And white people who marry outside their race, its their choice! Who the fuck does the author and his supporters think they are to control this? Are you mistaking yourself for God, or are you so dillusional you think people are going to read this crap and suddenly have a totally new outlook on life?? Don’t waste your time on this BS, a lot of you seem to highly educated, do the humankind a favour and use your intelligence on more viable causes like ending poverty, hunger, HIV and other soon be to pandemic diseases, or anything else at all! This white supremacy stuff does not hold water in the academic world or even everyday life!


458

Posted by me on Thu, 03 Apr 2008 18:32 | #

oooh goody! another immature argument on the “my women are hotter than yours” theme…let me join the fray!


WEEE lil mama is hotter than avril lavigne in this one picture so that must mean all black people are better looking! Indian women win Beauty contests so they must be hotter! But wait! What is this? Lil mama’s NOSE is MASCULINIZED!!! YOU CANT SEE HER NOSTRILS AND HER BRIDGE DOESN’T JUT OUT!! OH NO!! we CAN’T let our CHILDRENS NOSES be THICKENED!!! How will the next generation EVER get nice blond pussies! WE <3 BLONDES!
...wow what a pathetic website…


459

Posted by me on Thu, 03 Apr 2008 18:42 | #

Wow what a thik nose! she is so far from white what good can her genes do! what a gorrilla!

...and for gods sake wtf is hindooooo? Learn to spell at least, no one has spelled it Hindoo since the british left India.

...thats just one example. all other black women are ugly. And its all photoshopped anyway.

...how come no one cares about MEN’s hotness!

...ewww you can see that whities nostrils!

...Dem honey brown redbones is the best!

...Shut up nigger!

...Cracker!
...Nigger!
...Indi…wait there’s no slurr…err DARKIE!

BLAM BLAM BLAM!!

...Oh I killed you. But don’t feel bad, it is natural selection. I must be genetically superior to you.


460

Posted by me on Thu, 03 Apr 2008 18:52 | #

...What an immiture post me
..you idiot thats Rihanna not lil mama! And look at il mama she so ugly!
........
...
...
You people need to stop acting like a few photographs and one research paper proves everything.

...oh we can’t help it all the other papers are contaminated by liberal elitist views!

...hey “me” your just some Nigger posing as Indian
...men prefer lighter skinned woman that is fact
even tiger woods choose pure european wife and always have blond
.. me is that so many white guys, dont want white girls :’(
why??why why why? I dont want to be wanted by all the races
...fucking nigger stole my women
...ew white people…
...if you can’t have a mature discussion jsut leave. Bitch.
...o_o


461

Posted by Sonny on Sat, 10 May 2008 20:29 | #

lol you guys are losers.

The German/Irish/Indian girl is a lot better looking than ALL of the white women in the pix you provided.

Whites just feel inferior whenever they see a non-white person that is better looking than they are or in a better situation be it economic, career whatever.

Now regarding the whole race mixing thing, every single person of a mixed racial background that I have met has been a pretty good looking person and to me a good looking chick is a good looking chick be it she is black, brown, white, Asian etc….

Grow up!


462

Posted by Yuezhus on Tue, 13 May 2008 20:30 | #

An Imperial Roman painting based on a Greek painting, with Classical Greek women as the subject:

[img]http://img59.imageshack.us/my.php?image=obj271geo271pg26p2yi2.jpgnoDWxONPsq0xciMBOn7rLXQcpYIxXzd8typography_img_src_end>

And take a gander at Craig Mello, half-Portugese Nobel Laureate:
” [/img]

And take a gander at Craig Mello, half-Portugese Nobel Laureate:

If his eyes were dark instead of hazel/blue, he would resemble an ancient Greek aristocrat perfectly. Both examples shown here correspond with the tradition of Greek subjects in black-ware Greek pottery invariably being brunettes.

The ancient Greeks were not stereotypical Northern Europeans. Not even the upper class. They were dark haired and dark eyed. Blue eyes were looked up with suspicion, as were Northern European traits in general, as evidenced by the harsh disparagement of northern ‘barbarians’ and their features.

There is no point in bringing up examples of Macedonian statuary and other pieces of art. Ancient Macedon was not Greek, despite adopting heavily from Hellenic civilization. It was related not too distantly with Thrace.

I don’t for a minute consider modern Greeks to be identical to the ancients, but they were definitely not Nordic, like people from Iceland or Sweden are. Much of the achievement from ancient Athens could well be down to a localized practice of eugenics, because the intellectual output per head from that renowned city was insane. It was also larger by far than any other Greek city or town.

Your ridiculous pseudo-hyper-field-independent bullshitery you pull with your Nordicism and fundamentalist praise of Arthur Kemp and stupid Viking profile image, Kemp Defender Richards, is an embarrassment. Sort it out, lad. The Holocaust section of the Wiki is ridiculous and harmful. I’ll rebut it someday.


463

Posted by Yuezshus on Tue, 13 May 2008 20:42 | #

That is to say, holocaust revisionism shouldn’t be outlawed, nor should its deniers be shunned. Instead, they should be debated out in the open, as is the way with genuinely free societies.

This is the point of contention that should be focused on: the sheer unfairness of having one side shunned by default.

Not unhistorical, unsourced half-arsed crud spewed and recycled from the internet. One especially funny titbit was the idea that the bombing of Dresden happened before the Blitz. Before the cocking Blitz. To paraphrase you: ‘What is this? Damn!’.


464

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Tue, 13 May 2008 20:53 | #

What is your ethnicity, Yuezshus, and what kind of word (or name) is Yuezshus?  (It strikes me as a very odd word, by the way.  What language is it?  Does it mean anything in that language?)  I take you to be of Russian ethnic background or predominantly Russian, or someone who identifies as Russian?


465

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Tue, 13 May 2008 21:06 | #

Forgive me, I just noticed in your comment of Dec. 12, above, you said, “I am a 19-year-old English guy.”  (Actually, I do recall seeing that.  I’d forgotten it.)


466

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Tue, 13 May 2008 21:17 | #

Incidentally, look at the near-perfect cupid’s-bow mouth on Avril Lavigne in the big photo posted by “me” above.


467

Posted by sweet on Sat, 07 Jun 2008 21:22 | #

Beautiful people are of all races.

Check it out!

Saira Mohan (biracial - French mum/Hindu father
&girlName=Saira Mohan

Aishwarya Rai miss Universe( both parents are Indian- light skinned mum and a dark father)

Rihana(interracial beauty)

Madonna (Italian, but…according to your logic she is not white, because her nostrils are n ot rounded…lol)

Penelope Cruz Spanish actress

Shaghayegh Iranian artist

Japanese model

and the list goes on…

Cheers!


468

Posted by Lurker on Sun, 08 Jun 2008 01:13 | #

So we have an Indian actress who might be mistaken for European and a Japanese model who could pass for…European!

Its called firing on your own position.


469

Posted by Peter on Sun, 08 Jun 2008 10:55 | #

Lurker This lady can’t pass an an European but still looks hot smile


470

Posted by sweet on Sun, 08 Jun 2008 19:02 | #

All of those gorgeous ladies have unhidden mixed genetic heritage , so now your theory got blown-up forever!  You fail to see their non-European features, because you got astonished at their overwhealming beauty.

Here is some more genetic mix, enjoy it!

Diya Mirza (Bengali mother and a German father)

John Abraham (Iranian mother and a Malayali father)

Helen Brodie ( Indian mother and a Scotish father)


471

Posted by pure bunkus on Sun, 15 Jun 2008 06:36 | #

You spelled Hindu wrong. Slang immediately reveals your argument as a personal opinion on racial aesthetics that is not to be taken seriously.
“Firstly, it is clear that Saira Mohan is not very feminine looking.” I disagree.
“projecting [beyond feminine norm] nose” Define the feminine norm. Concave? Also, that is hardly a big nose.
The Figure 5 women remind me of pigs, but that may be because of the awkward pose and facial expressions in the photos (clearly taken from porno [“glamour”] photography).
As a white woman, my opinion is intrinsically of value to you. Or maybe you only like the way we look in your extensive collection of glamour photography.
I value your opinions though, as creepily objectifying as they may be, because to be frank, it’s still the case that people with Nordic/piggy/chipmunky features get treated better around the world, and your website usefully outlines exactly what I need to do to my face in order to achieve to that “golden” standard, however ludicrously arbitrary that standard may be.

Can the original poster post a photo of himself, so that I may write a parallel article comparing him to many blonde Finnish male amateur porn models?


472

Posted by shame on Wed, 18 Jun 2008 23:43 | #

Such a shame. To the writer, you’re a jackass and an idiot. What you’re trying to say is that only mix individuals are beautiful. Go suck on your father’s cock. You must hate yourself so much. What makes the world beautiful is the many different faces and culture. If the world was completely mix all that would be gone. The wealth of each culture will begin to fade with each generation. Love your who you are. Love the culture that you were brought up in. Stop pretending to be something you’re not. Im sure for the individuals who only cares about their selfish sexual preferences dont care about how the world would be without different races. But think about it..its something that cant be undone. And for your information….every race has its roses. And in my opinion that cover lady is not the prettiest.


473

Posted by lovely on Fri, 20 Jun 2008 14:57 | #

To “shame”

If you want to stick to your own kind, that’s fine. But who do you think you are to tell other people what to do?! Obviously you people dont understand that the world does not revolve around you? Grow up!


474

Posted by Darren on Fri, 20 Jun 2008 16:36 | #

lovely: We want to reform culture on a societal level. Culture is created and maintained by collective agreement, not by individuals doing whatever they think is the best thing for themselves at some particular moment. I’m not exactly sure what growing up has to do with any of this, however.


475

Posted by lovely on Fri, 20 Jun 2008 17:23 | #

To Darren:

People who feel strong attachment to their ancestral culture should not expect the same from other people. Because people are free to love and explore,  and to create new things.


476

Posted by Guessedworker on Fri, 20 Jun 2008 18:55 | #

lovely,

This issue of fealty to kind has, in the West, become a taboo.  That’s not normal - not normal in historical terms, not normal in comparison to the rest of the world.  Something is sick in our culture today, and we want to heal it.

So it’s not that people like us are very strong in our attachment to kind, but that we are not so sickened as our brothers and sisters.

If you are not European by descent, you are being a bit naughty in talking about being “free to love and explore, and to create new things”.  You are commending sickness to us in a way that, if you are not European, you would hardly do in your own ancestral homeland - because it is a healthy place, no doubt, and its people studiously avoid that sort of “love” and “exploration” and creating of “new things”.

We have to live, you know, and not die.  All peoples have that right, and the the “lover/explorer/creator of new things” who comes to our lands does not allow us that, for he or she is, in reality, an aggressor and a free-rider.


477

Posted by lovely on Sat, 21 Jun 2008 19:52 | #

To Guessedworker:

I can understand your helplessness concerning your cultural preferences, but fear and insecurity should not dictate our lives. The freedom to choose is what makes us individulas and makes life meaningful. People who are so desperately trying to impose their own ways of life on other people are intolerant and narrow minded overly opinionated people. That is such an annoying attiude and a waste of energy.


478

Posted by .357 on Sat, 21 Jun 2008 20:10 | #

Re: lovely on Saturday, June 21, 2008 at 11:52 PM | #

Everything “lovely” says, of course, is the hallmark of a free society; however, what she(?) fails to acknowledge is that people of European decent are being deliberately and systematically ethnically cleansed off the planet. That fact is not lovely at all!


479

Posted by Darren on Sat, 21 Jun 2008 21:26 | #

“Freedom” does not make life meaningful. Traditions that are passed down over the generations make life meaningful. You rebel against nature and order (calling it narrow minded) because its too restricting on your ego that demands personal satisfaction.

Think not about if we are advocating something that infringes on your freedom. You need to convince us that we’re wrong in what we are saying and why “freedom” should trump what is right.


480

Posted by lovely on Sat, 21 Jun 2008 23:37 | #

To “Darren”
I don’t need to convince you to see obvious things because whether you like it or not, life is taking it’s own course, so that mating will continue to be a matter of personal choice, and that includes mixing of the races. Besides, traditions must be flexible and open to change in order to be capable of adapting to environmental changes. Past generations, too, left behind many traditions.


Even this link alone, in 3 main sections of famous mixed folks,  proves your ideas wrong!

http://www.mixedfolks.com/

To “357”
The fact is that the people of Europe are NOT ” being deliberately and systematically ethnically cleansed off the planet”. You should blame it on the higher level of selfishness and arrogance.


481

Posted by Lurker on Sat, 21 Jun 2008 23:53 | #

Lovely - “The fact is that the people of Europe are NOT “ being deliberately and systematically ethnically cleansed off the planet”. You should blame it on the higher level of selfishness and arrogance.”

Sorry, blame what? Do you mean Europeans are being ethnically cleansed but its not deliberate, that in fact its our fault?

And what does this really mean anyway: “a higher level of selfishness and arrogance”. Whose arrogance, higher compared to when, what or who?

Im probably wasting my time arent I?


482

Posted by Darren on Sun, 22 Jun 2008 00:36 | #

“I don’t need to convince you to see obvious things because whether you like it or not”

What obvious things? You have said nothing “obvious” other than your modernistic propaganda of hyperindividualism. Your logic is akin to saying that cancer is natural and anyone who opposes cancer is opposing something that is obviously “normal”.

“life is taking it’s own course, so that mating will continue to be a matter of personal choice, and that includes mixing of the races”

Yes, and can’t you see what is happening as a result of your particular idealism? The dilution of culture and tradition for the sake of individualistic hedonism and societal materialism.

Anyway, life is not taking its “own” course, it is being engineered by people who want it to move into a certain direction. Saying that it is happening on its own is absurd.

I’m not particularly interested in libertarian notions of “freedom” because it ultimately disconnects people from the organic whole and the social interactions that create a cohesive culture. I’m interested in the things that make society work and the things that create and sustain culture. Sometimes that requires someone that refuses to accept an idea that is harmful.

“Besides, traditions must be flexible and open to change in order to be capable of adapting to environmental changes.”

Okay…

“Even this link alone, in 3 main sections of famous mixed folks, proves your ideas wrong! “

No they don’t. Nobody said mixed raced people are incapable of being successful. Our arguments are essentially:

1. they’re not superior as is being claimed, and
2. they represent an attack on cultural and genetic heritage. the stated goal of many of the proponents of racial mixing is to weaken ethnic identity for the sake of being members of a globalist and materialistic society where we are just a bunch of grey sheep with no clear heritage and attachment. right now, ethnic attachment, even nominal, is a big thorne in the side of globalists, so they’re doing their best attack it however they can.

Race mixing is a form of genocide that occurs incrementally. It has been enabled by breaking down the ethnocentricity of whites, degenerating our entertainment and cultural institutions, and by immigration.


483

Posted by Darren on Sun, 22 Jun 2008 00:42 | #

“The fact is that the people of Europe are NOT “ being deliberately and systematically ethnically cleansed off the planet”. You should blame it on the higher level of selfishness and arrogance. “

I don’t particularly subscribe to the idea, at least in this extreme, that this is what is happening (even though there are many who have this stated goal in mind). Nonetheless, it is VERY easy to show that there is a clear and well-defined policy of marginalizing whites in their political power, their ethnocentrism, and their proportion in the population that stems from a hatred and resentment of whites.

Immigration policy in America, for example, represents years and years of intense lobbying by Jewish organizations whose stated goals were to crush anti-Semitism by bringing in loads of non-Whites and integrating them into White neighborhoods (though legal force) to pacify them and weaken their ethnic bonds. This has been very well documented by people such as Dr. Kevin MacDonald.

It is also interesting to note that our media is being engineered, purposefully, to show the normalcy of race mixing (it is not normal, even by today’s standards it is still somewhat of a taboo) and to show whites, especially blonde white women, as being dumb, stupid, and a poor choice for a mate.

Should the freedom to promote such genocidal propaganda be allowed? Apparently you think so!


484

Posted by Captainchaos on Sun, 22 Jun 2008 01:18 | #

lovely,

Are you or are your ancestors from India?  I’ll bet they are.  How about this.  Why don’t you import a few hundred million sub-saharan negroes from Africa into India and let the race-mixing fun begin. 

Is that cool with you?  Yes?  No?

If yes, at least you are consistent, although a fool.

If no, you are a hypocrite.

Do you honestly believe that the White man, we who conquered whole continents and ruled much of the world will wallow in our self-abasement for ever?

Think again.

Enjoy the free ride while it lasts.  Once its over the shock will be so jarring you will not know what hit you.


485

Posted by silver on Sun, 22 Jun 2008 06:21 | #

Now regarding the whole race mixing thing, every single person of a mixed racial background that I have met has been a pretty good looking person and to me a good looking chick is a good looking chick be it she is black, brown, white, Asian etc….

Almost all African-Americans and Hispanics are mixed to some extent: are they all “pretty good looking”?  Hardly. Seems to me what you’re claiming is that offspring of member any race with an unmixed white is is what is “pretty good looking.”  And that’s true: compared to, say, African Americans with only distant white mixing, frehsly minted mulattoes and mestizoes do look pretty good.  Of course, you’re ignoring the white perspective on all this, which is that such offpsring does not look as good as unmixed white.

Sweet, are you going to keep posting pics here and, I suspect, at another beauty-dedicated site until someone agrees that mixed people can sometimes look good?  Well, okay, point taken.  But obviously they only look good because of their white gene content.  That should be clear by now.  I can understand this bothers you, but that’s probably because you live in a white country, right?  If you lived among your own, it wouldn’t be an issue because out of sight, out of mind.

To “me”: Rhiana looks better than Avril?  Well, it’s nice to know that some peeople are capable of convincing themselves of such.  Personally, I don’t think Rhiana can touch her.  Curiously, of the two opinions, there seems to be only one that gets people’s blood boiling—why is that?

And white people who marry outside their race, its their choice! Who the fuck does the author and his supporters think they are to control this? Are you mistaking yourself for God, or are you so dillusional you think people are going to read this crap and suddenly have a totally new outlook on life??

Why not, Laura?  Why shouldn’t peopel re-evaluate their opinions and outlooks based on new information?  Personally, I think the views expressed on sites such as this trounce the bilge that modern universities spew.


486

Posted by silver on Sun, 22 Jun 2008 06:50 | #

I don’t for a minute consider modern Greeks to be identical to the ancients, but they were definitely not Nordic, like people from Iceland or Sweden are. Much of the achievement from ancient Athens could well be down to a localized practice of eugenics, because the intellectual output per head from that renowned city was insane. It was also larger by far than any other Greek city or town.

Your ridiculous pseudo-hyper-field-independent bullshitery you pull with your Nordicism and fundamentalist praise of Arthur Kemp and stupid Viking profile image, Kemp Defender Richards, is an embarrassment. Sort it out, lad. The Holocaust section of the Wiki is ridiculous and harmful. I’ll rebut it someday.

The Ancient Greeks might not have been Nordic, but I think the evidence does point to them belonging to some sort of broader “white race,” one which in Greece and Italy was later infused with the blood of other groups.  I suspect the bulk of the Greek diaspora consists disproportionately from the ranks of the lower classes, ie the least white.  Travelling through Greece itself, the number of white(r) Greeks, in my opinion, seemed substantially higher, though I had no way to properly measure, and thus this is mere conjecture.  Just how much the “white” genetic component contributed to the Greek cultural flowering is debatable, but, given what we now know about heredity, it’s hardly “ridiculous” to postulate that it was crucial.

Anyway, back to the point of this site, few Greeks today, and Balkaners in general, can be properly considered “white,” or, specifically, compatible with the founding populations of the Anglo countries so many of them (us, me) live in.  We have a choice: we can either continue the lie that we just love living around blacks, Indians, Muslims etc (ie the “diversity is good” drivel); equally preposterously, we can attempt to establish our “white credentials” (whose falsity any set of functioning eyeballs, or even eardrums, can expose); or we can speak the truth and help the Anglos and thereby help ourselves, for our decline is following on the heels of the western decline.


487

Posted by lovely on Sun, 22 Jun 2008 07:35 | #

Do you mean Europeans are being ethnically cleansed but its not deliberate, that in fact its our fault?

Nobody is cleancing deliberately white race. People always try to make the best choise, and obviously you feel treatened by that.

Your logic is akin to saying that cancer is natural and anyone who opposes cancer is opposing something that is obviously “normal”.

Your hostility and ignorance Darren, could be compared to “canser”, and naturally all sane and sober people will oppose your ideas.

1. they’re not superior as is being claimed.
2. they represent an attack on cultural and genetic heritage

You have the right to your own oppinion but I too have the right to not share your racial and cultural prefeneces.

to show whites, especially blonde white women, as being dumb, stupid, and a poor choice for a mate.

Apparantly you are struggling to solve your inferiority complex by trying to see yorself as superior. Your problem, not mine.

To “Captainchaos”

Do you honestly believe that the White man, we who conquered whole continents and ruled much of the world will wallow in our self-abasement for ever?

So, exploring other continents is great but at the same time you complain? As far as I know in India there are many mixed people. I wonder how those green eyes got there. Lol

To Silver

Of course, you’re ignoring the white perspective on all this, which is that such offpsring does not look as good as unmixed white.

Mixed races do look better not because of their white or black gene content, but because of the fact that they got them both.

p.s. the only way to convince anybody that you are better looking than the people of mixed races is to show your photo, so we can judge for ourselves. I dare you!


488

Posted by silver on Sun, 22 Jun 2008 08:17 | #

Firstly, lovely, whites don’t gain the right to survive based on their being better looking; any moral system worth a dime should take group survival as a given.

Mixed races do look better not because of their white or black gene content, but because of the fact that they got them both.

Look better than who?  Mulattoes look better than unmixed blacks but they sure don’t look better than unmixed whites.  Seriously, I find it completely impossible to imagine African genes ever improving someone’s looks.  But if you can, good luck to you. 

But let’s note, all of the “mixed” people you post are mixed with whites.  Show me some black-asian or black-indian mixes and tell me how good they look.  And if you think they look good, well, good for you.  But I can assure you, it’s quite pointless trying to convince whites that they benefit from mixing with Africans or Asians, okay?  Can’t you just let this be?  It’s not healthy for you to obsess over it.  Whites (like the author of this article) feel a need to point out the inaccuracies in the mixers’ propaganda because it’s destroying their people; it’s not really something they would have felt compelled to do were it not for this.


489

Posted by lovely on Sun, 22 Jun 2008 10:39 | #

few Greeks today, and Balkaners in general, can be properly considered “white,”

That is true, but you better check your Global DNA, and educate yourself too. lol
http://nl.youtube.com/watch?v=SlTks9toOmQ

Mulattoes look better than unmixed blacks but they sure don’t look better than unmixed whites

Most mulattoes look way better than their white/black parents. It’s not a coincidence that they are prefered in the showbiz. For example, Adriana Lima is of African, Native South American and Swiss descent.

But let’s note, all of the “mixed” people you post are mixed with whites.

Salma Hayek is Mexican-Lebanese and as you can see she is absolutely georgeous!

So,  I don’t need to convince “whites that they benefit from mixing with Africans or Asians” , because it’s obvious and they love doing it!


490

Posted by Lurker on Sun, 22 Jun 2008 11:23 | #

Lovely, you are working to a script? Why is it the likes of you post all these examples of mixed race women, most of whom look European. True, Rhianna is cute but thats just one example.

“Most mulattoes look way better than their white/black parents.” - really, most. I dont think you can actually back that up can you.


491

Posted by Darren on Sun, 22 Jun 2008 13:18 | #

That is true, but you better check your Global DNA, and educate yourself too. lol
http://nl.youtube.com/watch?v=SlTks9toOmQ

DNA ancestry testing is interesting, but right now cannot be trusted. I stopped trusting DNA testing when they claimed that Dr. James Watson was something like 20% black and 5% asian. Dr. Watson is clearly not racially mixed to this degree. People who are 1/4th non-White are pretty easy to spot by mere looks.

I think genetic science is solid, but the testing is rather imprecise right now. Regardless, though, my concern isn’t about total utter racial purity, it is about preserving our current identities.

Most mulattoes look way better than their white/black parents. It’s not a coincidence that they are prefered in the showbiz. For example, Adriana Lima is of African, Native South American and Swiss descent.

Actually, white women are preferred in showbiz, so I’m not quite sure where you got that idea (there is currently a lot of whining about the “racism” surrounding this fact). I don’t find mullatoes attractive, nor am I aware of any social undercurrent where people are seeking them out as preferred mates either.

Salma Hayek is Mexican-Lebanese and as you can see she is absolutely georgeous!

Clearly the dominant features are Caucasian.

So, I don’t need to convince “whites that they benefit from mixing with Africans or Asians” , because it’s obvious and they love doing it!

Well, race mixing is happening, but I think its a bit absurd to say everyone wants to do it.


492

Posted by Darren on Sun, 22 Jun 2008 13:25 | #

Your hostility and ignorance Darren, could be compared to “canser”, and naturally all sane and sober people will oppose your ideas.

Ignorance of what exactly?

You have the right to your own oppinion but I too have the right to not share your racial and cultural prefeneces.

What I state is not opinion. It is fact. What are you having such a hard time understanding about my statement? Either address my arguments or admit defeat.

Apparantly you are struggling to solve your inferiority complex by trying to see yorself as superior. Your problem, not mine.

What does deliberate media propaganda to achieve certain ends have to do with an alleged inferiority complex on my part? Either address my arguments or admit defeat.


493

Posted by lovely on Sun, 22 Jun 2008 15:09 | #

“Lurker”, the photos I posted clearly showed the mixed features of universally perfect ladies who can never pass for Europeans.
Here is another non-European beauty:

Now look at this lovely couple!

Actually, white women are preferred in showbiz

You need to up-date your information.

Salma Hayek is non-European, she is half Mexican and half Lebanese. Interesting mixture, indeed!

Well, race mixing is happening, but I think its a bit absurd to say everyone wants to do it.

Exactly! That is why you guys need to stop whining and start living.

“Darren”, you will always be defeated unless you prove your supposed superiority to mixed people. So far you you haven’t provide any proof.


494

Posted by Svigor on Sun, 22 Jun 2008 15:12 | #

People who feel strong attachment to their ancestral culture should not expect the same from other people. Because people are free to love and explore, and to create new things.

But people aren’t free to love and explore, and create new things.  Whites are not free to love other whites, explore ingroup morality, or create ethnocommunities or ethnostates.

You’re free to love and explore and create what you like, because it’s state and elite approved.  We aren’t, because what we love and want to explore and create is forbidden.

I can understand your helplessness concerning your cultural preferences, but fear and insecurity should not dictate our lives. The freedom to choose is what makes us individulas and makes life meaningful. People who are so desperately trying to impose their own ways of life on other people are intolerant and narrow minded overly opinionated people. That is such an annoying attiude and a waste of energy.

Fear and insecurity, a bit of armchair pop psychology to intimidate people against pursuing their own interests.  The freedom to choose you speak of is a chimera - YOU are free to choose what YOU want because what YOU want happens to coincide with what THEY want.  WE aren’t free because what WE want doesn’t so coincide.

The only ones imposing anything are those imposing race-replacement and miscegenation on us.  These are the actual propagators of intolerance and bigotry.

I don’t need to convince you to see obvious things because whether you like it or not, life is taking it’s own course, so that mating will continue to be a matter of personal choice, and that includes mixing of the races. Besides, traditions must be flexible and open to change in order to be capable of adapting to environmental changes. Past generations, too, left behind many traditions.

Ah, the “inevitability” paradox.  Leftists love this one.  On one hand they’ll inform you that opposing race-mixing and race-replacement is evil.  On the other, they’ll tell you race-mixing and race-replacement are inevitable.

Opposing the inevitable isn’t “evil,” it’s stupid.  But no one cares about stupid, useless behavior like opposing the inevitable.  People just shrug their shoulders, shake their heads, and give such nitwits a wide berth.  They aren’t harming anyone, or causing any trouble, after all.  But people do heap opprobrium on those who threaten them or their interests.

Tell me, in what way is rolling over for race-replacement “adapting” to anything, in any positive way?  That’s like smiling when someone fires a gun at you.  Neither strikes me as particularly adaptive.  Do you just “adapt” to being assaulted by making up your mind that you deserved it, that it was all for the best, that deliberately becoming a victim is a great way to “deal,” etc?

The fact is that the people of Europe are NOT “ being deliberately and systematically ethnically cleansed off the planet”. You should blame it on the higher level of selfishness and arrogance.

Of course they are.  You just refuse to see it, because to see it would a) make you uncomfortable and b) (I’m assuming) you’re non-white (if you’re white your family is probably compromised by miscegenation) and your interests would be negatively impacted if you had to own up to it.

Nobody is cleancing deliberately white race. People always try to make the best choise, and obviously you feel treatened by that.

You’re obviously a female, judging by your emotionalism (and handle, obviously).  You just got through saying that we’re a bunch of intolerant bigots, now you turn around and say that people always try to make the best choice.  Which is it?  Are there nasty, lowlife scum in the world, or are we all just trying out best?  Can’t have it both ways.

The white race is being “cleansed,” more or less (not my choice of words); it’s “WRONG” to oppose this cleansing.  It’s hard to believe this is all coincidence.  Impossible, really.

You have the right to your own oppinion but I too have the right to not share your racial and cultural prefeneces.

But he doesn’t have the right to his opinion.  I will get him fired, ostracized, etc.  And he can’t come together with like-minded people and create a little corner of the world that reflects their preferences - the LAW sees to that.  So your rights are a sham.  We don’t have the right to live in white communities, send our kids to white schools, run white businesses, etc.

Mixed races do look better not because of their white or black gene content, but because of the fact that they got them both.

Nonsense.

p.s. the only way to convince anybody that you are better looking than the people of mixed races is to show your photo, so we can judge for ourselves. I dare you!

Why don’t you post your picture?  How about your address, SSN, etc?  I dare you!  Okay, I don’t really dare you, I’m just mocking you.  In fact I don’t want you to post any of that stuff.  But seriously, what are you, five?

Most mulattoes look way better than their white/black parents. It’s not a coincidence that they are prefered in the showbiz. For example, Adriana Lima is of African, Native South American and Swiss descent.

Do you have any evidence for this pigswallow?  You have one example.  For every example of an attractive mixed person, I could name hundreds of better-looking unmixed whites, if I was so inclined and had the time.

I see white women in my grocery store prettier than Lima.

Salma Hayek is Mexican-Lebanese and as you can see she is absolutely georgeous!

Post-depilatory she’s not bad.  But so what?  My county is crawling with more attractive white women.

So, I don’t need to convince “whites that they benefit from mixing with Africans or Asians” , because it’s obvious and they love doing it!

If that was true, there’d be a lot more of it.  Roughly 3% of all marriages in America are interracial, yet 40% of America is non-white.  You do the math.

There are scads of butt-ugly mulattos.  Lovely is just so dumb she thinks the mulattos on her teevee are representative.  That’s like saying all white women are more attractive, and Michelle Pfeiffer’s the proof.

I’m curious Lovely - what did you mean by “I can understand your helplessness concerning your cultural preferences”?  Can you explain what you meant by that.  You seem to have nothing remotely resembling a consistent worldview on this topic.


495

Posted by Svigor on Sun, 22 Jun 2008 15:16 | #

Exactly! That is why you guys need to stop whining and start living.

Take your own advice!  Fuck off and go live your wonderful establishment-approved, legally-sanctioned lifestyle!  Why come here and take a big crap in a thread, whining about our establishment-oppressed, legally-forbidden lifestyle?

I mean, did we go looking for you?  Do we go crapping in diversitoid threads?

Who’s the whiner here?  Who’s the bigot, the hater, the intolerant?


496

Posted by lovely on Sun, 22 Jun 2008 15:36 | #

Mulattoes look better than unmixed blacks but they sure don’t look better than unmixed whites

Silver, un-mixed people are o.k., but mixed are even better!

Look at this beautiful Arab woman:

No, she does not look European, but rather reminds you of Europeans who look like Arabs.


497

Posted by lovely on Sun, 22 Jun 2008 16:14 | #

“Svigor”,
The author of this thread has made some ridiculous claims against mixed race people. You too, seem to share his venom. Your ideas instigate hatred, and that is why it is illegal. Just because you feel threatened with replacement by mixed race people, does not mean that you have the right to suppress their existence.

p.s. so far you all whine about how superiour you are, but nobody dared to post a photo. lol


498

Posted by silver on Sun, 22 Jun 2008 16:48 | #

Most mulattoes look way better than their white/black parents. It’s not a coincidence that they are prefered in the showbiz.

They’re not “preferred” in showbiz; they’re foisted on viewers.  Since waking up to the world around me, few things annoy me more than seeing some negro inappropriately placed in some unlikely role in a movie just for the sake of having a negro there—it’s matched only by the imperative movie makers feel to spring a faggot on you in a movie that has nothing to do with gays for no reason other than that they want to.

And, of course, if you ever pay attention to Latin American TV, the producers there seem to make a conscious effort to keep blacks/mulattoes off the screens and purposely fill them with… you guessed it… whites.

Silver, un-mixed people are o.k., but mixed are even better

Unmixed what, lovely?  They are better than the non-white half they are mixed with, but sorry babe, they are not better than the white half.  And your standards for determining whether they are better are abysmal: you have to look at the average of what occurs, not simply pick out one-in-a-million examples like Adriana Lima, who I can admit is quite nice, but, hehe, I am just thoroughly utterly sick and tired of blacks that in my mind she’s now nothing. raspberry (But if blacks could show some damn humility for once in their damned lives, I’d be the first to shut my mouth.)

As for that Arab, I actually like that look quite a bit.  But lovely, I have lived in Arab neighborhoods (had many Arab friends, for that matter) and the average Arab looks a long way off that… and nope, she’s not better than a white, either.

Look.  You’re obviously upset.  If you weren’t, you simply wouldn’t bother posting as much as you do.  But if it upsets you to hear one group claim superiority, why do you do the same thing?  If your feelings are hurt by whites claiming they are better than you (whatever you are), then why do you imagine their feelings wouldn’t be hurt by you telling them that they are no good, that mixed people are better than them?  That’s a horrible double-standard.


499

Posted by lovely on Sun, 22 Jun 2008 17:26 | #

They are better than the non-white half they are mixed with, but sorry babe, they are not better than the white half.

“Silver”, look at this perfect human being, woooooooow- facts talk for itself!

Adriana Lima is not an exception, she just happened to be available on Google. There are plenty better looking mixed race girls compared to her.

As for that Arab

She is definitely not the best looking Middle Eastrener, but compared to the women posted by the author of this thread, she’s better.

You’re obviously upset.  If you weren’t, you simply wouldn’t bother posting as much as you do

I’m far from being upset but I do like talking to misguided people.

BTW, when you are ready to show me your photo, let me know. I’ll show you mine.


500

Posted by lovely on Sun, 22 Jun 2008 17:50 | #

Here is the beautiful daughter of Iman and David

&imgrefurl=http://www.celebrity-babies.com/2007/09/iman-and-alexan.html&h=1396&w=800&sz=712&hl=nl&start=18&um=1&tbnid=TtdNBG0yMRFe8M:&tbnh=150&tbnw=86&prev;=/images?q=Iman+and+David+child&um=1&hl=nl


Wow, what beauties!


501

Posted by lovely on Sun, 22 Jun 2008 17:53 | #

The mulatto daughter of Iman and David


502

Posted by Guessedworker on Sun, 22 Jun 2008 18:34 | #

lovely,

One of several errors common to this very thread is, as silver explained, the tendency for judgements on both sides of the argument, not just yours, to be based on exceptions.  Judgements have to be based on the averages of measurements of particular features.  Read the post and see how J Richards discusses trait distribution by race.

Another error is the conflation, extremely common among on your side, that rejection of all things diverse is “hate” or “racism”.  Why would not your point of view by hateful and racist towards Europeans?  Can you explain why, for example, it is “hate” and “racism” to defend one’s people, one’s land, one’s culture, one’s interests, but not “hate” and “racism” to trespass against all these things?  Have you the slightest idea how profoundly you trespass against us?

I could go on.  But, like Svi, I am disinterested in dialogue with the deaf.


503

Posted by Peter on Mon, 23 Jun 2008 00:05 | #

Oh my this post has really progressed. Hey Lovely!
I agree with you somewhat. I really hate that on this site they push how “ugly” every other race is compared to whites and how that is reason enough to “dislike” everyone else.
The more i think of it the more i don’t understand how can media be so influential in changing people’s choice of mates - referring to race replacement. How is it that so many White men are going out with Asian women and White women with Black men? It really can’t be the media alone can it? I have always found the same type of women attractive although i have lived in many countries. I personally find Indian women the most beautiful even though i live in Canada and hardly ever see that represented in the media here. It is always White women or African American women in the media here.

Now Let me ask you all look at the picture of Saira Mohan and her parents and tell me ignoring pigmentation who does she most resemble???
From what i can see she looks very similar to her mother (feature wise) but not pigmentation. This comment is to all those people who think Saira Mohan is unattractive and that Mixed children look worse than their White parent.

My own personal reason for being against race replacement is a biological one. I like seeing different types of people existing/co-existing. The white phenotype (blond/blue) is “recessive” and is almost always lost when mating with Non whites. So in other words i would like this phenotype/genotype to be preserved just like i really want some Native American peoples to be preserved (Those in the news recently). This does not mean that i think one race is “superior” to another. But due to the “sensitivity” of the “Nordic phenotype” it might require special attention. That said I read up here that there are only 4% interracial marriages. So maybe this interracial mating is not the issue. Globally the white population is in decline due to low birth rates - result of modernity, progress, women’s rights etc.
Maybe that issue of low birth rate needs to be encouraged? Maybe whites should start breeding like rabbits? All you white guys want to volunteer? :D
Although i feel your “white women” are not going to let that happen….anytime soon.


504

Posted by Peter on Mon, 23 Jun 2008 00:15 | #

I meant to say the issue of low birth rates needs to be tackled.

Also this Svigor character is getting on my nerves with his depilatory talk! White women are hairier than Asian or African women….Anyone will tell you that. There you go in your face :p

Also she looks better to me than many of the white women posted above


505

Posted by shame on Mon, 23 Jun 2008 00:16 | #

To lovely,

I am Asian. Just letting you know in case you think Im White or European and dislike the idea that Whites are being “cleanse”. I am not trying to instill my thoughts onto you. But if you look deeper you will see that most IR marriages are mostly done in disregard for the rest of the family’s opinion. Most individuals who have IR relationship will have the rest of the family going against them but the family are “force to accept”.  Looking deeper this is a sign of selfishness on the part of the individuals. Admit it.  There are a lot out there who dates a certain race just for that purpose. Others have self hate. Some will say this person is nice, so and so. You can find someone with the same qualities within your group.

What I find very strange is how others label those who have love for their culture and people as being racist. But its ok for them to have self hate and that isnt racist. Which is worest?
For those IR who do it for the purpose of race…think about this…when you have a child…that child will be of the color you dislike. Which is you, your own race/culture. You cant erase or run away from that. So how can you say you fully love your child when you dont even love what you are. Too many people are afraid to look deeper.

To the ones that have love for their culture…keep it real. Married within your culture. Unlike what others and this articles is saying, every race has it’s beauty. Spread the words before one day there wont be anymore culture and value. What is happening CAN’T be undone. For those in IR, dont be so selfish. True, you live once, or you love who you want, etc etc.  But think about the future, what this world will be like. But why should you care right…


506

Posted by lovely on Mon, 23 Jun 2008 05:36 | #

“Guessedworker”
You can preserve your race and culture together with people who volunteer. But calling other people “inferior”, and creating negative and derogatory ideas against them is going nowhere. It is wrong to force and attack people, no matter what your motivation is. Simple as that!

“Peter” Eventually we are all going to mix with Indians and Chinese, the two major populations. That does not botter me at all, because to me world peace is more important than anything else. We can no longer afford to live in a world of our own. People from different countries and cultures meet in every day life.

“shame” You have the right to follow whatever your think is right, but you should keep your morals to yourslef and let other people decide for themselves. There will always be people who choose love over culture and race, and the other way around. As long as they are free to make the choice, that’s fine. What you suggest is called repression, and that creates frustration, not future!

Here is another beauty!Leah Dizon [Chinese+Filipino+French]

http://mgccl.com/gallery2/main.php/d/976/1


507

Posted by Guessedworker on Mon, 23 Jun 2008 06:07 | #

The attack is yours, ours the defence.  You do not appear to be able to morally distinguish between the two, and even consider yourself the victim.  You are the aggressor.


508

Posted by .357 on Mon, 23 Jun 2008 07:47 | #

“You can preserve your race and culture together with people who volunteer.”

Given the choice, most whites want to preserve their race and culture; they NATURALLY would prefer racially/ethnically homogeneous countries… whites’ hyper individualism notwithstanding,

In multiracial countries, [e.g., USA], whites, at least, want a voluntary system where we can live in all white neighborhoods; blacks can live in all black neighborhoods; Mexicans can live in all Mexican neighborhoods, etc. There also should be multicultural/multiracial areas where people could VOLUNTEER to live.

The problem is: Whites DO NOT have the option to “volunteer” to preserve their race and culture. The ruling elites have declared we MUST integrate. What is being FORCED on people of European decent is nothing short of moral outrage!
The current immigration and FORCED integration system is vile and MUST be changed; it is resulting in the absorption of the white genepool into the “other.” That, by definition, is GENOCIDE. The ruling elites are knowingly violating the international rules against genocide; but at the moment, they’ve obviously found a loophole.


509

Posted by Guessedworker on Mon, 23 Jun 2008 08:45 | #

.357 has it.


510

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Mon, 23 Jun 2008 09:52 | #

”.357 has it.”  (—GW)

Agreed, he sums it up nicely there.

Whites are under deliberate genocidal attack, Lovely.  We’re only defending ourselves.  We haven’t forgotten our manners but we mean to live, not lie down and perish, and we’ll do what we must to assure that outcome.  You’re a Negro, I take it.  Whatever the qualities of the Negro race — and that race certainly has its qualities along with its defects as every race does — we don’t wish to change into it, or into the Chinese race or the Mexican mestizo race or the Indian Subcontinental race, or any other race, thank you very much.  We want to stay our own race.  And that’s what we intend doing.  We’re in a tough spot at the moment because we’ve been blind-sided, attacked when we weren’t looking, when we were sleeping in fact.  We’ll see how the battle goes now we’re in the process of waking up.


511

Posted by .357 on Mon, 23 Jun 2008 11:06 | #

GW and Fred,

Thanks to both of you.


512

Posted by Peter on Mon, 23 Jun 2008 11:28 | #

Maybe you guys should move to Canada. I went to Quebec (French province) last year and it is all White as far as the eye can see! Only in the big cities do you find other minorities (in Canada). I am sure its the same in the USA that there are many exclusively white communities. The effects living there would have on the IQ is a whole other issue. Maybe one needs other races to evaluate oneself? to feel pride in oneself? to be on guard? to keep tabs on what the enemy is doing? ... ok i am just getting a little creative here. But seriously the White communities i have heard of ... especially in the South are nothing to brag about. Especially these mormon cults. What say you?


513

Posted by silver on Mon, 23 Jun 2008 11:35 | #

But calling other people “inferior”, and creating negative and derogatory ideas against them is going nowhere.

Then explain why you are here calling whites inferior.  You haven’t claimed a neutral agnosticism on the question of whether any group can be considered better than any other (by whatever standard); you’ve come right out and said mixed people are better than whites.  If this is “going nowhere,” why do you continue to preach it?

We can no longer afford to live in a world of our own. People from different countries and cultures meet in every day life.

And the result is commonly less than satisfying for both parties.  Mixing people together willy nilly isn’t a recipe for “peace”; it’s a recipe for unending frustration and anomie.

Lastly, you’ve clearly never lived around large numbers of blacks.  I defy anyone who has to speak glowingly about the experience.  I wasn’t in the US a week before I determined conclusively that blacks are simply not a people I am in any way comfortable being around.  I sometimes look up demographic details of various US locales and when they show something like 45% black or African-American I marvel at how people can possibly tolerate it.  I’m sorry, there’s just no easy way to spin this one; blacks, it seems, will always be the spanner in the multiracial works.  Lovely, sweetheart, if you think China or India are going to open their doors to hundreds of millions of Africans… hell, you couldn’t possibly think it; I’d have to conclude you’re lying if you said it.


514

Posted by Captainchaos on Mon, 23 Jun 2008 12:08 | #

The thing about this frantic stab at panmixia that gets a bitter laugh out of me is that it is all for naught in the end anyways.  We live on a finite sphere with finite resourses; the defining activity of life is the competition over those finite resourses in order to improve our reproductive fitness to ensure genetic continuity.  Group competition will not cease to be adaptive.  New groups will be forged.  What we love at present will have been destroyed for the same damn process to start over again.


515

Posted by lovely on Mon, 23 Jun 2008 17:23 | #

“Guessedworker” The attacker is the author of this thread. I just gave him the taste of his own medicine.lol
But if by calling me the “agressor” you meant I’m so damn irresistible, yeah most peole think so,  and thx God for that!

Given the choice, most whites want to preserve their race and culture.

Not in my school where most white girls are more than happy to date black guys.

the absorption of the white genepool into the “other

I would gladly get rid of my white genepool(if given the opportunity) after reading your desperate whining. Hope that makes you a bit happier.

” Fred Scrooby” I am not a Negro, nor am I any of the peoples you mention. I do have everything you dream of! Just a little hint.
I understand that you feel helpless and hopeless when it comes to convince your race to do as you find fit to do.But they don’t follow your ideas, simply because you are so transparently fake. Asking people to follow you for the sake of racial preservation is silly. You need to show surpassing qualities, not plain words. Yet another hint…

Then explain why you are here calling whites inferior

I have never ever used the term"inferior”,discribing races . I just find unmixed people less attractive and kindda boring. But that is my personal feeling. I’m sure some nice black guys find the white chiks cool, so don’t feel so down after this, please.

and said mixed people are better than whites

Well, sorry folks, but they ARE more attractive than all the rest, and facts talk for itself!
The interracial kids are gifted not only with breathtaking looks but also with broader understanding and tolerance. That is the key to world PEACE! The more you whine about it, the more you prove me right!

“Silver” what did you mean by saying

blacks are simply not a people

???!!!


516

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Mon, 23 Jun 2008 17:52 | #

“I would gladly get rid of my white genepool”  (—Lovely)

I’d gladly get rid of your white gene pool too, hun.  Your variety of white genes the white race doesn’t need or want.  Good riddance:  the more “white genes” like yours the white race is cleansed of, the better off it’ll be.  I strongly encourage you to miscegenate. 

(I continue to suspect Lovely is a Negro, by the way.)


517

Posted by lovely on Mon, 23 Jun 2008 17:59 | #

“Fred Scrooby” You are not in a position to get rid of anything, because everybody seems to love getting rid of what you value. lol


518

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Mon, 23 Jun 2008 18:02 | #

I for one humbly vote for closing this thread to further comments.  It’s fully served its purpose; the subject has been amply explored; and the sort of commentary it continues to elicit from the random low-quality visitor is not such as advances anyone’s understanding.  Quite the contrary, in fact.



Post a comment:


Commenting is not available in this channel entry.

Next entry: Police brutality?  It depends on the colour of the policeman
Previous entry: Human nature: Some findings

image of the day

Existential Issues

DNA Nations

Establishment Problem

Categories

Links

Endorsement 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

Comments

mancinblack commented in entry 'Full speech of V. Orbán: Will Europe belong to Europeans?' on Sun, 22 Oct 2017 16:49. (View)

Black Pigeon Speaks (((unmasked))) commented in entry 'Angela Nagle: they think voluntary outbreeding is genocide. Cultural Marxism, Jewish porn! lol.' on Sat, 21 Oct 2017 21:26. (View)

The bling shall inherit commented in entry 'black hyper-assertiveness' on Sat, 21 Oct 2017 19:41. (View)

M Taylor commented in entry 'Alt Right Jews' on Sat, 21 Oct 2017 12:12. (View)

Rights without a state: Spencer's free speech, UF commented in entry 'Hannah Arendt: Far From Innocent' on Fri, 20 Oct 2017 08:08. (View)

Heidegger and Descartes commented in entry 'Pragmatism as ethnonationalism's tool against radical skepticism' on Fri, 20 Oct 2017 02:35. (View)

The Sackler's commented in entry 'Big Pharma Pushes Opioid Epidemic on West Virginia, the Poorest and Whitest part of America' on Thu, 19 Oct 2017 22:35. (View)

Taintng Iranian Renaissance with "Alt-Rght" commented in entry 'Why I Left the Alt-Right by Jason Reza Jorjani' on Thu, 19 Oct 2017 08:10. (View)

New Republic asks about role of White women in WN commented in entry 'Dark Side of Self Actualization & Incommensurate GenderAgendas' on Thu, 19 Oct 2017 01:44. (View)

Jewish family making billions from opioid crisis commented in entry 'Big Pharma Pushes Opioid Epidemic on West Virginia, the Poorest and Whitest part of America' on Wed, 18 Oct 2017 00:09. (View)

Catalan secessionist leaders jailed commented in entry 'Catalan referendum, explained: What's behind the push to break from Spain?' on Tue, 17 Oct 2017 20:07. (View)

Jordan Peterson on hygienic aspect of racism commented in entry ''White privilege' as a warrant for expropriation; Christianity as the executing jurisdiction.' on Tue, 17 Oct 2017 10:33. (View)

DanielS commented in entry 'Pragmatism as ethnonationalism's tool against radical skepticism' on Tue, 17 Oct 2017 06:53. (View)

DanielS commented in entry 'Pragmatism as ethnonationalism's tool against radical skepticism' on Tue, 17 Oct 2017 05:20. (View)

Captainchaos commented in entry 'Pragmatism as ethnonationalism's tool against radical skepticism' on Tue, 17 Oct 2017 05:01. (View)

DanielS commented in entry 'Pragmatism as ethnonationalism's tool against radical skepticism' on Tue, 17 Oct 2017 04:56. (View)

(((Trump admin))) liking objectivism for the Fed commented in entry 'Hans-Hermann Hoppe, Libertarianism and the “Alt-Right” (PFS 2017)' on Tue, 17 Oct 2017 03:46. (View)

Captainchaos commented in entry 'Pragmatism as ethnonationalism's tool against radical skepticism' on Tue, 17 Oct 2017 02:30. (View)

mancinblack commented in entry 'Full speech of V. Orbán: Will Europe belong to Europeans?' on Mon, 16 Oct 2017 15:28. (View)

Kurdish PKK at war with Iraq commented in entry 'Kurdish Female Sniper Dodges Headshot; laughs it off' on Mon, 16 Oct 2017 12:16. (View)

DanielS commented in entry 'Worst mass shooting in US history as gunman opens fire from above killing 50+ Vegas concert goers' on Mon, 16 Oct 2017 11:59. (View)

Support for those going to Court commented in entry 'Jez Turner - Honour our Heroes' on Mon, 16 Oct 2017 09:49. (View)

Swarm at Hungarian border fence commented in entry 'Full speech of V. Orbán: Will Europe belong to Europeans?' on Mon, 16 Oct 2017 09:26. (View)

thought captors kidding that Trump is president commented in entry 'US opens first permanent military base in Israel' on Mon, 16 Oct 2017 09:19. (View)

Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn commented in entry 'Solzhenitsyn’s 200 Years Together: Russia & the Jews - Obstructions Continue' on Mon, 16 Oct 2017 08:55. (View)

(((LaurenSouthern))) antiracist anarcholibertarian commented in entry 'Hans-Hermann Hoppe, Libertarianism and the “Alt-Right” (PFS 2017)' on Mon, 16 Oct 2017 03:46. (View)

Orbán maintains a link with Hungarian diaspora commented in entry 'Full speech of V. Orbán: Will Europe belong to Europeans?' on Mon, 16 Oct 2017 00:47. (View)

DanielS commented in entry 'Pragmatism as ethnonationalism's tool against radical skepticism' on Sun, 15 Oct 2017 19:14. (View)

DanielS commented in entry 'Pragmatism as ethnonationalism's tool against radical skepticism' on Sun, 15 Oct 2017 18:03. (View)

Guessedworker commented in entry 'Pragmatism as ethnonationalism's tool against radical skepticism' on Sun, 15 Oct 2017 16:37. (View)

Guessedworker commented in entry 'Pragmatism as ethnonationalism's tool against radical skepticism' on Sun, 15 Oct 2017 16:33. (View)

Guessedworker commented in entry 'Pragmatism as ethnonationalism's tool against radical skepticism' on Sun, 15 Oct 2017 16:01. (View)

Captainchaos commented in entry 'Pragmatism as ethnonationalism's tool against radical skepticism' on Sun, 15 Oct 2017 15:16. (View)

DanielS commented in entry 'Pragmatism as ethnonationalism's tool against radical skepticism' on Sun, 15 Oct 2017 08:55. (View)

National-Satanist commented in entry 'Angela Nagle: they think voluntary outbreeding is genocide. Cultural Marxism, Jewish porn! lol.' on Sun, 15 Oct 2017 08:40. (View)

affection-tone